Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Anonymous Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Anonymous on January 02, 2019, 01:25:25 PM

Title: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 02, 2019, 01:25:25 PM
Would you find it distracting if someone were to "conduct" the congregation from the altar rail with his back toward the altar during sung parts of the Mass? Especially since there is a choir loft/choir to begin with?
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 02, 2019, 01:33:15 PM
Would you find it distracting if someone were to "conduct" the congregation from the altar rail with his back toward the altar during sung parts of the Mass? Especially since there is a choir loft/choir to begin with?
Yes, it would be distracting because it is not part of the Mass, add to that, it is wholly unnecessary. Dumb idea.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 02, 2019, 01:42:34 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S2xX35YPbM thats what the SSPX is doing now
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 02, 2019, 01:45:01 PM
Wow, maybe the 1965/hybrid Mass really is coming?

Where is this??
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 02, 2019, 01:45:45 PM
Sanford, FL. 
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 02, 2019, 01:50:07 PM
Sanford, FL.
Didn’t the SSPX just receive that Church after the Fr Roberts fiasco?  Sure didn’t take long for change to arrive there!
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: JezusDeKoning on January 02, 2019, 01:58:15 PM
Not only is it distracting, but it also doesn't make any sense. 

Your average non-musically trained person (and even those who are -- Gregorian chant is rarely taught in universities) couldn't follow the conducting of Gregorian chant.

The example from Sanford, FL is asinine. The director belongs in the choir loft and should only be near the altar during Mass if they are receiving Holy Communion. Maybe this is what they do in France, because many of the Society's priests are French, but a country where only 10% of Catholics were bothering to attend Mass (https://books.google.com/books?id=4mSMK5wfmRkC&lpg=PA189&ots=tQ3hWK-NkJ&dq=mass%20attendance%20in%20france%201965&pg=PA189#v=onepage&q=mass%20attendance%20in%20france%201965&f=false) even before the Council is not a country to emulate.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 02, 2019, 02:02:47 PM
The new Society is preparing you for”active” participation.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 02, 2019, 02:05:05 PM
Didn’t the SSPX just receive that Church after the Fr Roberts fiasco?  Sure didn’t take long for change to arrive there!
That was Jacksonville, FL
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 02, 2019, 02:10:14 PM

Sanford, FL SPX music conductor facing the people

I was in the Orlando area yesterday and I  attended that SSPX mass in Sanford Florida for the Feast of the Circumcision (I am not the same person as the OP of this thread).  Close up, at ground level it looked much worse than the ceiling level camera image shows looking down on the altar in the video, since it focuses only on the altar. If it wasn’t a Tridentine Mass, it would have been a laughing matter, I was embarrassed for the conductor, he made a fool out of himself. They had a music conductor facing the people by the gate to the altar waving his hands around leading the people in singing and singing himself the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Sanctus, and the Agnus Dei. It was totally Novus Ordo, super effeminate (to say the least), and very distracting, it completely stole the mass from the priest. The Holy Sacrifice of the mass was secondary focus going on behind the conductor (music minister?) during practically the whole mass. The consecration occurred 3 seconds after he sat in his seat.

I do not know whose idea it was to do this, whether it was the prior’s or the music conductor’s idea, but it is a really bad idea, a total Novus Ordo novelty. It was almost impossible to focus on the mass. It was like a Protestant assembly where all the people can do is sing.

The church has a choir loft upstairs and a choir that was singing, the conductor has no business being in the front of the sanctuary “stealing the show”.  It was totally Novus Ordo and effeminate. Why effeminate? It was effeminate because you have a man waving his hands effeminately (to say the least) wanting to be the center of attention.  This is one step away from having the priest steal the show from God by facing the people in mass as they do in the Novus Ordo. It was very distracting and disconcerting. I felt embarrassed for the conductor; he made a fool out of himself up there.

I would humbly suggest that they ditch the novelty.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 02, 2019, 02:12:10 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S2xX35YPbM thats what the SSPX is doing now
Dumb. Far as that goes, the guy could do that from the choir loft for all the good it does - which is none. If they did that at my chapel, I would say something to the prior.
When I look at the altar during Mass, it's not to look at some joker waving his hands as if he was pretending he's directing a symphony. :facepalm:
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Stubborn on January 02, 2019, 02:13:41 PM
Dumb. Far as that goes, the guy could do that from the choir loft for all the good it does - which is none. If they did that at my chapel, I would say something to the prior.
When I look at the altar during Mass, it's not to look at some joker waving his hands as if he was pretending he's directing a symphony. :facepalm:
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 02, 2019, 02:33:32 PM
Quote
The new Society is preparing you for”active” participation.
Exactly.  Having everyone stand during the canon is bad news.  This is the holiest part of the mass!
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 02, 2019, 02:50:59 PM
Yes, that does look super gay!  Who is the priest/prior?  And yes, they are getting you ready for Rome and the hybrid Mass.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 02, 2019, 02:52:28 PM
The sspx can now count itself among the liberal liturgical experimenters.  
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: JezusDeKoning on January 02, 2019, 03:02:58 PM
It's upstaging the Holy Sacrifice and not adding to it in any way. 

In the Classical and Romantic era (from 1750-1900 and composers like Mozart, Beethoven, etc.), the music used at Mass began to get exceedingly bombastic, adding brass, strings, and long, virtuosic, operatic solo movements (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJJT108WZ7o). And it was being performed as liturgical music, especially in Mozart's native Austria and in Italy.  But most of it (90%) has no place in the Mass because it was distracting from the Holy Sacrifice and turning it into a spectacle.

This is why St. Pope Pius X released Tra le sollecitudini (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tra_le_sollecitudini) in 1903 and mandated a worldwide return to Gregorian chant because it accompanied the liturgy and didn't overshadow it.

The schola director is overshadowing the liturgy by trying to show off with this practice. Even then, the people cannot understand his direction. The average trained musician will get about 4 weeks exposure to Gregorian chant, and even then, none of it is singing it or learning to read it -- simply the beginning of Western liturgical music and how important the Church's chant was in that role.

But your average untrained musician will not understand an arsis or thesis (conducting chant and its stress).  That would be the equivalent of asking a native, monolingual English speaker to read Tolstoy in Russian. They'll get it by ear. They do not need this pretentious loon in the front acting like he knows what he's doing.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 02, 2019, 04:13:31 PM
It's upstaging the Holy Sacrifice and not adding to it in any way.

In the Classical and Romantic era (from 1750-1900 and composers like Mozart, Beethoven, etc.), the music used at Mass began to get exceedingly bombastic, adding brass, strings, and long, virtuosic, operatic solo movements (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJJT108WZ7o). And it was being performed as liturgical music, especially in Mozart's native Austria and in Italy.  But most of it (90%) has no place in the Mass because it was distracting from the Holy Sacrifice and turning it into a spectacle.

This is why St. Pope Pius X released Tra le sollecitudini (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tra_le_sollecitudini) in 1903 and mandated a worldwide return to Gregorian chant because it accompanied the liturgy and didn't overshadow it.

The schola director is overshadowing the liturgy by trying to show off with this practice. Even then, the people cannot understand his direction. The average trained musician will get about 4 weeks exposure to Gregorian chant, and even then, none of it is singing it or learning to read it -- simply the beginning of Western liturgical music and how important the Church's chant was in that role.

But your average untrained musician will not understand an arsis or thesis (conducting chant and its stress).  That would be the equivalent of asking a native, monolingual English speaker to read Tolstoy in Russian. They'll get it by ear. They do not need this pretentious loon in the front acting like he knows what he's doing.
I don’t care if it was Vivaldi up there flapping around.  Sit down and shut up so I can concentrate on the mass!
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: JezusDeKoning on January 02, 2019, 04:30:54 PM
Yes, that's exactly my point. There were musical practices that greatly took away from the Mass back then, but Pope Pius X brought Gregorian chant back to eliminate those practices. Ironically, he is using Gregorian chant to distract from the Mass.

It is such a distracting practice. They don't need Flappity-flap-flap-flap in the front. They need him in the loft, upstairs. He needs to stay up there. 
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 02, 2019, 04:41:38 PM
Yes, that's exactly my point. There were musical practices that greatly took away from the Mass back then, but Pope Pius X brought Gregorian chant back to eliminate those practices. Ironically, he is using Gregorian chant to distract from the Mass.

It is such a distracting practice. They don't need Flappity-flap-flap-flap in the front. They need him in the loft, upstairs. He needs to stay up there.
Yes, but since we are all priests, we should all stand like the priest, and “actively participate” like the priest, and sing as though we were in choir (standing, of course), or else -so say the conciliarists, and now the sspx- we aren’t sufficiently “participating.”  But Rome wants to see “progress” at sspx chapels in this regard, so the sspx has begun the conditioning process (and not just in Florida).
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: JezusDeKoning on January 02, 2019, 05:00:43 PM
Yes, but since we are all priests, we should all stand like the priest, and “actively participate” like the priest, and sing as though we were in choir (standing, of course), or else -so say the conciliarists, and now the sspx- we aren’t sufficiently “participating.”  But Rome wants to see “progress” at sspx chapels in this regard, so the sspx has begun the conditioning process (and not just in Florida).
Never experienced even a lick of that in St. Cloud. My Society chapel in all things, music included, has never been anything but anti-Conciliar. And I've been there for 3 years, parishioner, singing and directing the choir.

This is a single chapel doing one thing. And doing it very badly.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 02, 2019, 05:05:41 PM

Almost impossible to understand the sermon by the priest in the video, except when he starts to complain about people who complain and are a drag.  LOL, the priest gave a sermon about not complaining, meanwhile all he is doing is complaining and he sounds like a drag himself.  Maybe he wants the “exclusive” on complaining and being a drag.  Very negative disposition.  
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 02, 2019, 05:12:12 PM
Guarantee you all that the plug is soon going to be pulled on that video!
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 02, 2019, 05:44:16 PM
Never experienced even a lick of that in St. Cloud. My Society chapel in all things, music included, has never been anything but anti-Conciliar. And I've been there for 3 years, parishioner, singing and directing the choir.

This is a single chapel doing one thing. And doing it very badly.
Sorry, but you are wrong (though you probably could not know it, being a relative newbie in St. Cloud): Your former pastor (Fr. Leith) used to give anti-resistance sermons, and just to the south of you in St. Paul, the SSPX chapel changed "rubrics" for the faithful so that now they all stand at high Mass throughout the Kyrie, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei (and the altar boys recite the Domine non sum dignus with the priest), among other things.  Apparently the faithful were told that standing was even more reverent than kneeling (!), but none of them ever thought to ask why they don't all stand up for the consecration then (or why Our Lord did not say "Every knee must stiffen" instead of "Every knee will bend" if standing is a more reverent posture.  The priest had cards with the new rubrics placed in the pews.  A few resist, but most go along with it.  I believe there are several on CI who go to that chapel who could verify this.
Its just one step short of what is happening in Sanford, and is probably the next logical step.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 02, 2019, 05:54:18 PM
Sorry, but you are wrong (though you probably could not know it, being a relative newbie in St. Cloud): Your former pastor (Fr. Leith) used to give anti-resistance sermons, and just to the south of you in St. Paul, the SSPX chapel changed "rubrics" for the faithful so that now they all stand at high Mass throughout the Kyrie, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei (and the altar boys recite the Domine non sum dignus with the priest), among other things.  Apparently the faithful were told that standing was even more reverent than kneeling (!), but none of them ever thought to ask why they don't all stand up for the consecration then (or why Our Lord did not say "Every knee must stiffen" instead of "Every knee will bend" if standing is a more reverent posture.  The priest had cards with the new rubrics placed in the pews.  A few resist, but most go along with it.  I believe there are several on CI who go to that chapel who could verify this.
Its just one step short of what is happening in Sanford, and is probably the next logical step.
[font=&quot,serif]You are too late in your warning, watch the video, the SSPX chapel in Sanford already changed rubrics for the faithful so that now they all stand at high Mass throughout the Kyrie, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei (and the altar boys recite the Domine non sum dignus with the priest), among other things. [/font][/color]
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Ladislaus on January 02, 2019, 06:08:31 PM
They've done things like that on-and-off for many, many years ... since I was a seminarian in the late 80s and early 90s.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 02, 2019, 06:47:03 PM
The new Society is preparing you for”active” participation.
Active participation is not the problem, it’s the new theology.  Pope Pius XI and XII, both solid and true Popes were moving the laity to much more active participation.  
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 02, 2019, 07:02:15 PM
Active participation is not the problem, it’s the new theology.  Pope Pius XI and XII, both solid and true Popes were moving the laity to much more active participation.  
The new theology is what gave rise to "active participation:"
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f079_Dialogue_7.htm 
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 02, 2019, 07:37:00 PM
Active participation is not the problem, it’s the new theology.  Pope Pius XI and XII, both solid and true Popes were moving the laity to much more active participation.  
What does active participation mean to you? How does it take place? By your response, I think your have the Novus Ordo mindset on what it means. To you active participation means standing and singing and responding, like the choir and the altar servers. That's a total novelty. 
Someone could be singing all the songs and responding for the altar server like in the Novus Ordo, yet they are internally thinking about the cute girl in the mini-skirt and tight top in front of them, or thinking about the Sunday football game coming up in 2 hours. 
Meanwhile an elderly lady could be sitting during the whole mass without not making a sound but really active in conversation with Our Lord through the mass and her missal. That is real active participation.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 02, 2019, 08:53:16 PM
What does active participation mean to you? How does it take place? By your response, I think your have the Novus Ordo mindset on what it means. To you active participation means standing and singing and responding, like the choir and the altar servers. That's a total novelty.
Someone could be singing all the songs and responding for the altar server like in the Novus Ordo, yet they are internally thinking about the cute girl in the mini-skirt and tight top in front of them, or thinking about the Sunday football game coming up in 2 hours.
Meanwhile an elderly lady could be sitting during the whole mass without not making a sound but really active in conversation with Our Lord through the mass and her missal. That is real active participation.
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. 
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 02, 2019, 09:00:07 PM

Quote
Pope Pius XI and XII, both solid and true Popes 
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.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 02, 2019, 09:00:24 PM
The same chapel has just uploaded a video showing the new postures for Mass, which can be seen here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sksfuPMDx5M
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 02, 2019, 09:02:32 PM

Quote
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.


That was me.

Further, the push towards "active participation" was wrong (and still is).  It was a push to prepare the way for the singing/dancing of the novus ordo.

p.s.  It is absolutely retarded that this thread is on the "anonymous" board.  Whoever started this needs to grow up.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 02, 2019, 09:12:39 PM
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). 
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 02, 2019, 09:14:57 PM

That was me.

Further, the push towards "active participation" was wrong (and still is).  It was a push to prepare the way for the singing/dancing of the novus ordo.

p.s.  It is absolutely retarded that this thread is on the "anonymous" board.  Whoever started this needs to grow up.
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.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 02, 2019, 09:20:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 02, 2019, 09:37:07 PM

Quote
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.
I guess so, but this site is already anonymous, using usernames.  I would challenge the person to stand up for what is right, post what they think is wrong and practice some catholic fortitude!  I know that may not be popular and people may not like you or they might be mean, but the Faith is worth such a persecution!  Besides, if your posts lead to discussion then maybe those that are against you will change their minds after talking face-to-face?  

I just view the anonymous forum as used for delicate moral/personal questions, not liturgy questions, which are pretty cut-and-dry.  If someone is going to attack you over a liturgy question, they don't deserve your friendship.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 03, 2019, 08:50:57 AM
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? 
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 03, 2019, 09:15:23 AM
I think this is just more of this church going through another phase in the revoluton, it seems like Florida is the stomping ground or testing center for a lot of the neo-SSPX ways. When the pastor got there, he literally flipped the church around. E.g. the stations of the cross from one side to the other, The Blessed Mother to the other side, St. Joseph to the other side. It's been documented on here several fishy things; priests being assigned to Florida and then leaving the priesthood or SSPX in general or even the prior stalking laity that would go to Resistence Mass centers. The priory being built first so the priests can have their wine happy hours in comfort while the school is still raising funds to get out of portables (the bulletin's announcements for the school - 3 out of 4 announcements are money related). Florida is a bit of cult of personality to say the least. A lot of things are hush-hush even with Fr. Hopkins died it seemed like he was burried quick with little questions answered and the SSPX took over that church too. Not implying that anything happened, but it just seems odd.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 03, 2019, 09:53:16 AM
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 
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 03, 2019, 09:56:41 AM
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?
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.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 03, 2019, 10:35:53 AM
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.
 
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 03, 2019, 10:38:03 AM
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 homosexual 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.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 03, 2019, 10:50:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 03, 2019, 10:52:56 AM

Quote
Did you just get hatched out of an egg? ...You obviously lack reading comprehension ….you are too stupid to see...You must be a very hard person to get along with if that is typical of you


I would suggest that you not take debates like this personally, we had exchanged like one posting and you switched to just ad-hominem attacks. That is not a good sign. I try never to insult anyone because they might really be troubled. I love God and myself, and I do not put other people down because they may not be as fortunate as me and would really be hurt by such insults as you have posted.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 03, 2019, 11:00:21 AM
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 homosexual 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).
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 03, 2019, 06:45:36 PM
Dialogue Mass - I
A Plea for Silent Participation in the Liturgy
Dr. Carol Byrne, Great Britain
Some priests in the Traditionalist Movement are starting to introduce “dialogue Masses” for their parishioners. To shed light on the inappropriateness of this bad custom of “active participation of the faithful,” nothing could be more useful than this series by Dr. Carol Byrne that TIA starts to post today. We hope our readers will take advantage of the sound arguments of this careful study. The Editor.


Introduction 

By common consent, the post-Vatican II Hierarchy of the Church maintains that “active participation” of all the faithful in the liturgy is “the aim to be considered before all else” (1) – even, as it turned out, before respect for Tradition, reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, a sense of the transcendent, or decorum and modesty in the house of God.

Just how did the Bishops arrive at this astonishing conclusion? By falsely presenting the reforms they have implemented as a continuation of the work of Pope Pius X whose motu proprio, Tra le Sollecitudini (TLS) first contained the word “active” in its Italian (though not, significantly, in its Latin) version to describe lay participation in the Mass.


(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F073_Praying2.jpg)Praying silently at Mass, a centuries long tradition
[color][size][font]
It is pertinent to ask how such a word, dangerously imprecise in its scope, could have found its way into a juridical code of sacred music intended to apply the Pope’s instructions on the liturgy with the force of law and by his own Apostolic Authority. 

“Activity” had never been a defining characteristic of lay participation at Mass throughout the Church’s history. Therefore, some explanation is needed as to why it suddenly acquired an overwhelming significance in the early part of the 20th century and how it came to have a far reaching effect in the Liturgical Movement. 

History has shown that the single word “active” created a Mexican wave that rippled through the 20th century, gathering momentum as it went, until it engulfed the entire Church with the blessing of Vatican II’s Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium on the Liturgy (1963). Ever since, “active participation” has taken on a life of its own and continues to be reinforced with a zeal surpassed only by the hostility of the reformers for the traditional Latin Mass. 

We know from one of the progressivist Fathers of Vatican II, Card. Godfried Danneels of Belgium who had been involved in drafting the Constitution on the Liturgy, that the aim of “active participation” was to democratize the liturgy by blurring the distinction between priestly and lay roles: 

“From its very beginnings, the aim of the liturgical movement, which originated in Belgium in 1909, was to close the gap between the official liturgy of the priest and that of the people. The term ‘active participation’ was born out of this movement and has since become part of our common usage.” (2)


[/font][/size][/color]
(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F073_Active2.jpg)Active participation makes lay people equal to priests
[color][size][font]
Its usage has become so common that hardly anyone now stands aghast at the suggestion that lay people can be “empowered” to exercise an official role in the liturgy through their “active participation.” This was a concept promoted by Vatican II, but the traditional teaching of the Church, as explained by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei, is different. (3) 

From this we learn that the priest, through the Sacrament of Ordination, acts in the name of the Church, in an official act of the liturgy. Lay people, however, by virtue of their Baptism, merely associate themselves with the official liturgy through internal participation (by faith and prayer). 

The result of the new emphasis on “active participation” was that the people in the pews, who had generally participated in the ceremonies of the Roman rite in silence, were now transformed into rivals in a liturgical war with the clergy over the right to officiate in the public prayer of the Church. 

St. Pius X’s intentions 

The subject matter of Tra le Sollecitudini was the restoration of sacred music, particularly Gregorian chant, in the Church’s liturgy. Its purpose was to lay down the true principles of liturgical music, both vocal and instrumental, to be disseminated throughout the world. 

It is of the greatest importance to our study that this motu proprio was not about congregational singing in the liturgy but about the clergy and the choir as the only legitimate executors of liturgical chant. It laid down no obligation for the congregation to join in the chant or requirement for lay people (apart from selected choir members) to be trained in liturgical singing. Nor did it state or even imply that silence on the part of the congregation indicated an absence or deficiency in their full participation in the liturgy. 

Some points of concern 

The motu proprio was first published in Italian on November 22, 1903, in the Acta Sanctae Sedis, the official organ of the Holy See, but the Latin version bearing the same date did not see the light of day until much later, after many intervening documents. Both texts can be accessed .pdf]here (https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/WebSources/F-073-ASS%2036%20[1903-4). (4)


[/font][/size][/color]
(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F073_Chant.jpg)Pope Pius X's aim was to reform Gregorian chant, not active participation
[color][size][font]
This wide separation of the texts is a departure from the protocol observed by the compilers of the Acta Sanctae Sedis, who normally published vernacular and Latin texts consecutively for the purposes of transparency and convenient reference. Furthermore, it was uncharacteristic of the Holy See’s policy to issue a legislative document of such weight and solemnity concerning the entire Catholic world in the vernacular and only much later in the universal language of the Church. 

Another notable anomaly is the manner in which the Latin version is dated. Instead of the customary format found in the Acta Sanctae Sedis since 1865, it was written according to the method of calculation of the ancient Romans as X Kalendas Decembris. Thus the impression is given that the Latin text had been composed long after TLS, as if it were an afterthought and of relative unimportance. Only those who are familiar with the ancient dating system would realize that X Kalendas Decembris is, in fact, the equivalent of November 22, the same date as TLS. (5) 

This has prompted some to assume that the Italian version, simply because it appeared first, is the official papal text. (6) TLS may be “official” in the sense of having been published by officials of the Vatican bureaucracy, but the fact remains that the Latin is invariably the only authoritative and official version of papal documents, even if it happens that this text only becomes available later. 

Out of sight, out of mind 

Therefore, it is to be deplored that the Latin version was buried from immediate view and relegated to an inconvenient position. To add to the difficulties in locating the Latin text, the page number in the Acta Sanctae Sedis was printed as 587 instead of 387, thus misdirecting the researcher. 

Why such obfuscation surrounding the only version of the motu proprio (i.e. the Latin) that conveys in indisputable terms the mind of the Pope? The answer will become clear when we come to examine the important discrepancies between the two documents. 

Which version to follow – the Italian or Latin? 

As the use of Latin in drafting documents was considered by the Church as the ultimate safeguard of objectivity, it is vitally important for the faithful transmission of the truth in a seamless way. Later generations of Catholics can recognize in the Latin words the exact meaning intended by the Popes. Thus it averted the risk of misleading the faithful through imprecise formulae or the rapid changes in meaning typical of vernacular languages. 

As we shall see, misrepresentation is exactly what happened when TLS was placed into the hands of liturgical reformers. An examination of this document will show that it contains a number of key words and phrases for which there is no translational equivalence in the Latin version. 

In other words, ideas had been inserted into TLS that pander to the aims and objectives of those who wanted to change the liturgy in ways not envisaged by Pope Pius X. Someone even managed to get the word attiva (“active”) written into the text of TLS to describe the participation of the laity, a term entirely missing in the Latin version

It is noteworthy that the reformers could not have misinterpreted the Pope’s words in the Latin version because it was drafted with tamper-proof precision designed to give the crystal clear meaning of the Pope and deny any wiggle room for liturgical interventionists. But, for all its official status, the Italian version, as with all documents in the vernacular, could offer no such guarantees. In fact, the more it was translated into other vernacular languages, the greater the confusion and error that was transmitted. 

Continued (https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f074_Dialogue_2.htm) [/font][/size][/color]
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 03, 2019, 06:47:42 PM
Dialogue Mass - I
A Plea for Silent Participation in the Liturgy
Dr. Carol Byrne, Great Britain
Some priests in the Traditionalist Movement are starting to introduce “dialogue Masses” for their parishioners. To shed light on the inappropriateness of this bad custom of “active participation of the faithful,” nothing could be more useful than this series by Dr. Carol Byrne that TIA starts to post today. We hope our readers will take advantage of the sound arguments of this careful study. The Editor.


Introduction

By common consent, the post-Vatican II Hierarchy of the Church maintains that “active participation” of all the faithful in the liturgy is “the aim to be considered before all else” (1) – even, as it turned out, before respect for Tradition, reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, a sense of the transcendent, or decorum and modesty in the house of God.

Just how did the Bishops arrive at this astonishing conclusion? By falsely presenting the reforms they have implemented as a continuation of the work of Pope Pius X whose motu proprio, Tra le Sollecitudini (TLS) first contained the word “active” in its Italian (though not, significantly, in its Latin) version to describe lay participation in the Mass.



(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F073_Praying2.jpg)Praying silently at Mass, a centuries long tradition
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
It is pertinent to ask how such a word, dangerously imprecise in its scope, could have found its way into a juridical code of sacred music intended to apply the Pope’s instructions on the liturgy with the force of law and by his own Apostolic Authority.

“Activity” had never been a defining characteristic of lay participation at Mass throughout the Church’s history. Therefore, some explanation is needed as to why it suddenly acquired an overwhelming significance in the early part of the 20th century and how it came to have a far reaching effect in the Liturgical Movement.

History has shown that the single word “active” created a Mexican wave that rippled through the 20th century, gathering momentum as it went, until it engulfed the entire Church with the blessing of Vatican II’s Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium on the Liturgy (1963). Ever since, “active participation” has taken on a life of its own and continues to be reinforced with a zeal surpassed only by the hostility of the reformers for the traditional Latin Mass.

We know from one of the progressivist Fathers of Vatican II, Card. Godfried Danneels of Belgium who had been involved in drafting the Constitution on the Liturgy, that the aim of “active participation” was to democratize the liturgy by blurring the distinction between priestly and lay roles:

“From its very beginnings, the aim of the liturgical movement, which originated in Belgium in 1909, was to close the gap between the official liturgy of the priest and that of the people. The term ‘active participation’ was born out of this movement and has since become part of our common usage.” (2)


[/font][/size]
(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F073_Active2.jpg)Active participation makes lay people equal to priests
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
Its usage has become so common that hardly anyone now stands aghast at the suggestion that lay people can be “empowered” to exercise an official role in the liturgy through their “active participation.” This was a concept promoted by Vatican II, but the traditional teaching of the Church, as explained by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei, is different. (3)

From this we learn that the priest, through the Sacrament of Ordination, acts in the name of the Church, in an official act of the liturgy. Lay people, however, by virtue of their Baptism, merely associate themselves with the official liturgy through internal participation (by faith and prayer).

The result of the new emphasis on “active participation” was that the people in the pews, who had generally participated in the ceremonies of the Roman rite in silence, were now transformed into rivals in a liturgical war with the clergy over the right to officiate in the public prayer of the Church.

St. Pius X’s intentions

The subject matter of Tra le Sollecitudini was the restoration of sacred music, particularly Gregorian chant, in the Church’s liturgy. Its purpose was to lay down the true principles of liturgical music, both vocal and instrumental, to be disseminated throughout the world.

It is of the greatest importance to our study that this motu proprio was not about congregational singing in the liturgy but about the clergy and the choir as the only legitimate executors of liturgical chant. It laid down no obligation for the congregation to join in the chant or requirement for lay people (apart from selected choir members) to be trained in liturgical singing. Nor did it state or even imply that silence on the part of the congregation indicated an absence or deficiency in their full participation in the liturgy.

Some points of concern

The motu proprio was first published in Italian on November 22, 1903, in the Acta Sanctae Sedis, the official organ of the Holy See, but the Latin version bearing the same date did not see the light of day until much later, after many intervening documents. Both texts can be accessed .pdf]here (https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/WebSources/F-073-ASS%2036%20[1903-4). (4)


[/font][/size]
(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F073_Chant.jpg)Pope Pius X's aim was to reform Gregorian chant, not active participation
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
This wide separation of the texts is a departure from the protocol observed by the compilers of the Acta Sanctae Sedis, who normally published vernacular and Latin texts consecutively for the purposes of transparency and convenient reference. Furthermore, it was uncharacteristic of the Holy See’s policy to issue a legislative document of such weight and solemnity concerning the entire Catholic world in the vernacular and only much later in the universal language of the Church.

Another notable anomaly is the manner in which the Latin version is dated. Instead of the customary format found in the Acta Sanctae Sedis since 1865, it was written according to the method of calculation of the ancient Romans as X Kalendas Decembris. Thus the impression is given that the Latin text had been composed long after TLS, as if it were an afterthought and of relative unimportance. Only those who are familiar with the ancient dating system would realize that X Kalendas Decembris is, in fact, the equivalent of November 22, the same date as TLS. (5)

This has prompted some to assume that the Italian version, simply because it appeared first, is the official papal text. (6) TLS may be “official” in the sense of having been published by officials of the Vatican bureaucracy, but the fact remains that the Latin is invariably the only authoritative and official version of papal documents, even if it happens that this text only becomes available later.

Out of sight, out of mind

Therefore, it is to be deplored that the Latin version was buried from immediate view and relegated to an inconvenient position. To add to the difficulties in locating the Latin text, the page number in the Acta Sanctae Sedis was printed as 587 instead of 387, thus misdirecting the researcher.

Why such obfuscation surrounding the only version of the motu proprio (i.e. the Latin) that conveys in indisputable terms the mind of the Pope? The answer will become clear when we come to examine the important discrepancies between the two documents.

Which version to follow – the Italian or Latin?

As the use of Latin in drafting documents was considered by the Church as the ultimate safeguard of objectivity, it is vitally important for the faithful transmission of the truth in a seamless way. Later generations of Catholics can recognize in the Latin words the exact meaning intended by the Popes. Thus it averted the risk of misleading the faithful through imprecise formulae or the rapid changes in meaning typical of vernacular languages.

As we shall see, misrepresentation is exactly what happened when TLS was placed into the hands of liturgical reformers. An examination of this document will show that it contains a number of key words and phrases for which there is no translational equivalence in the Latin version.

In other words, ideas had been inserted into TLS that pander to the aims and objectives of those who wanted to change the liturgy in ways not envisaged by Pope Pius X. Someone even managed to get the word attiva (“active”) written into the text of TLS to describe the participation of the laity, a term entirely missing in the Latin version.

It is noteworthy that the reformers could not have misinterpreted the Pope’s words in the Latin version because it was drafted with tamper-proof precision designed to give the crystal clear meaning of the Pope and deny any wiggle room for liturgical interventionists. But, for all its official status, the Italian version, as with all documents in the vernacular, could offer no such guarantees. In fact, the more it was translated into other vernacular languages, the greater the confusion and error that was transmitted.

Continued (https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f074_Dialogue_2.htm) [/font][/size]
I forgot to add the attribution/link to the above article (which is only part 1 of a book-length study): https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f073_Dialogue_1.htm
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 03, 2019, 08:21:03 PM
Downthumb this anonymous trash. The CI member who posted it even knew it was trash; hence the reason it was posted anonymously.

St. Pius X clearly said he wanted the Faithful to sing the Kyrie, Gloria, etc. While interpreting his Motu Proprio, this fact should be taken into account.

This was clearly authored by an American, which is the only nation where the people don't like to actively participate in singing. Pretty much every other culture around the world the people love to sing. It isn't something left for "music majors" or "the choir". Sometimes I hate American culture. This is one of those times.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 03, 2019, 08:40:03 PM
Downthumb this anonymous trash. The CI member who posted it even knew it was trash; hence the reason it was posted anonymously.

St. Pius X clearly said he wanted the Faithful to sing the Kyrie, Gloria, etc. While interpreting his Motu Proprio, this fact should be taken into account.

This was clearly authored by an American, which is the only nation where the people don't like to actively participate in singing. Pretty much every other culture around the world the people love to sing. It isn't something left for "music majors" or "the choir". Sometimes I hate American culture. This is one of those times.
The author is British.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 03, 2019, 09:04:45 PM
Downthumb this anonymous trash. The CI member who posted it even knew it was trash; hence the reason it was posted anonymously.

St. Pius X clearly said he wanted the Faithful to sing the Kyrie, Gloria, etc. While interpreting his Motu Proprio, this fact should be taken into account.

This was clearly authored by an American, which is the only nation where the people don't like to actively participate in singing. Pretty much every other culture around the world the people love to sing. It isn't something left for "music majors" or "the choir". Sometimes I hate American culture. This is one of those times.
By that rationale, your own post is trash, hence the reason YOU posted it anonymously.  But if you want to critique Dr. Carol's study, then have at it!
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 05, 2019, 09:56:51 AM
What a silly thing to say that the dialogue mass is only hated in America, when the reality is that it is hated in all the Anglo countries of the world (USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, etc).  The SSPX has met significant resistance in all these countries where they tried to import this French/Belgian modernism.  If the other European countries have accepted the novelty of the dialogue Mass (which has no precedence in the Church before Beauduin ad company in the early 1900s), it is not because those innovations are good or traditional, but because the liberals were successful in finding weak clerics, bishops, and popes to accept their modernism (and then exported it throughout the world like the SSPX is doing today).

As for the idea that the dialogue Mass is traditional because Archbishop Lefebvre permitted it, it should be recognized that the dialogue Mass was already triumphant all over France and western and central Europe by the time he was an adult/priest, and this was de facto the only Mass he ever knew (i.e., for him, it was normal, even if in the history of the church it is a complete anomaly and aberration).  For this, I say give the man a pass.

And regarding the contention that because the dialogue mass arrived before Vatican II, it is therefore traditional, well, I would recommend Fr. Didier Bonneterre's (SSPX) book "Liturgical Revolution," which details how these modernists bent the mass to their own ends and used it to introduce new concepts like Mass facing the people, vernacular, etc.

Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 05, 2019, 10:08:12 AM
A modernist explains why the modernists love the dialogue mass: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/mcnamarasblog/2009/01/h-a-reinhold-and-the-dialogue-mass.html 

(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_vjlTTnUPlbc/SX1M5wNdb9I/AAAAAAAAAY4/ZWC_NgiSy7c/s320/reinhold%2520portrait%2520for%2520web%5B1%5D.jpg) (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_vjlTTnUPlbc/SX1M5wNdb9I/AAAAAAAAAY4/ZWC_NgiSy7c/s1600-h/reinhold%2520portrait%2520for%2520web%5B1%5D.jpg)
Today marks the death of Hans Ansgar Reinhold (1907-1968), a German born priest who took a leading role in the Liturgical Movement (http://www.usml.edu/liturgicalinstitute/exhibits/hillenbrand%20exhibit/liturgical%20movement.html). Begun in late 19th century Europe, the movement made its way to America in the 1920’s. Its purpose was twofold: to make the liturgy more attuned to early Christian traditions, and to make it more relevant to modern Christian life. One of its major themes was the connection between the liturgy and social action. Born in Hamburg, he studied with Monsignor Romano Guardini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romano_Guardini) at the University of Freiburg. In 1925 he was ordained a priest. An opponent of the Nazi regime, he was forced to leave Germany in 1935. In America he served at several parishes while promoting liturgical reform. He wrote several books on the subject, including The American Parish and the Roman Liturgy (1958) and Bringing the Mass to the People (1960). He was a major proponent of the “Dialogue Mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Mass),” which stressed active participation by the laity in the preconciliar era.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: JezusDeKoning on January 05, 2019, 11:09:07 AM
Downthumb this anonymous trash. The CI member who posted it even knew it was trash; hence the reason it was posted anonymously.

St. Pius X clearly said he wanted the Faithful to sing the Kyrie, Gloria, etc. While interpreting his Motu Proprio, this fact should be taken into account.

This was clearly authored by an American, which is the only nation where the people don't like to actively participate in singing. Pretty much every other culture around the world the people love to sing. It isn't something left for "music majors" or "the choir". Sometimes I hate American culture. This is one of those times.
I have no idea how this thread got from its initial point (a valid one) to active participation.

Yes, the Faithful should sing from the Kyriale. That's not the issue. I'll present a hypothesis about the actual issue.

IF the faithful cannot follow chironomy -- the conducting and leading of Gregorian chant -- , or read chant notation, period, which is basically all non-Traditionalist clergy, schola directors and students of sacred music...

THEN this narcissistic conductor of the schola should not be treating the congregation like their own schola cantorum

They know the Kyriale because they've heard that before at Mass, and if one goes every Sunday of the year, one will likely hear most, if not all of the Gregorian Mass settings. 

Should there be a dialogue Mass ever? No. That is a French tradition and it can stay in the Francophone world. But that is not the point here.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: JezusDeKoning on January 05, 2019, 11:11:15 AM
And to add to that hypothesis:

IF The Mass is not as it was in the 18th and 19th century with narcissistic operatic bombastic solos, and setting of popular music to Latin texts, and it is about the Holy Sacrifice

THEN this narcissist's place is in the choir loft. 
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 05, 2019, 11:26:38 AM
I have no idea how this thread got from its initial point (a valid one) to active participation.

Yes, the Faithful should sing from the Kyriale. That's not the issue. I'll present a hypothesis about the actual issue.

IF the faithful cannot follow chironomy -- the conducting and leading of Gregorian chant -- , or read chant notation, period, which is basically all non-Traditionalist clergy, schola directors and students of sacred music...

THEN this narcissistic conductor of the schola should not be treating the congregation like their own schola cantorum.

They know the Kyriale because they've heard that before at Mass, and if one goes every Sunday of the year, one will likely hear most, if not all of the Gregorian Mass settings.

Should there be a dialogue Mass ever? No. That is a French tradition and it can stay in the Francophone world. But that is not the point here.
No, the faithful should NOT sing from the Kyrie (or any other portion of the Mass).
Congregational singing has no precedent in the Catholic Church prior to the liturgical movement, unless you go all the way back almost to apostolic times.

The only singing during the Mass is done formerly by the choir (which was completely composed of clerics), and is more recent times by a trained choir.

To have the whole congregation singing the whole Mass (or any part of it, for that matter) is a total innovation of the 20th century liturgical movement.

To get back to it, you must demolish 1600+ years of organic liturgical development, to be the Church's liturgical messiah, and finally uncover "true" liturgy.

Apparently, you did not read any of Dr. Byrne's study cited previously (much less attempt to refute it).
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 05, 2019, 11:34:17 AM
Even if every person in Sanford, FL has a voice like Pavorati, and a PhD in Gregorian Chant, still they have no business singing the parts proper to a choir.  Everyone forgets that the choir used to be completely comprised of priests and monks, and it was to these that the responses were appointed.  Later, lay choirs were introduced where there were not sufficient numbers of priests/monks to make the responses (i.e., your average parish church).  Then lay choirs were introduced everywhere.  So far, no problem: A high Mass (or missa cantata) would not otherwise be possible.  But the idea of the whole darn church singing was a terrible innovation with ulterior motives today manifest worldwide.  Have you ever been on a pilgrimage in Europe?  When they say mass, they get a band leader/conductor up on a podium flapping his arms around for the faithful, who from 300 yards away begin singing at the rear of the crowd prayers that ended 5 seconds ago at the front of the crowd.  It is total chaos and cacophany.  terrible to listen to.  The priest, front of the crowd, and back of the crowd are each at 3 different points of the Mass.......but we must all "participate"......."actively."  No thanks!
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 05, 2019, 11:41:05 AM
 A little off subject, but not too far: Seems to me that a lot of SSPX priests used to say their low Masses with a very quiet voice (i.e., You could not hear their responses, or barely so, from the pews).  In recent years, the priests at my chapel all say the prayers very loudly, as though they were dialogue wiwth the people, rather than to God.  This discussion made me realize this subtle change.  Has anyone else noticed this in their chapels?  I would prefer to hear responses from people who have attended the SSPX for at least 10-15 years, otherewise those with less tenure really have no basis compare recent years vs former years.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 05, 2019, 11:59:42 AM
Do sedevacantists accept dialogue masses?
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 05, 2019, 12:04:48 PM
A little off subject, but not too far: Seems to me that a lot of SSPX priests used to say their low Masses with a very quiet voice (i.e., You could not hear their responses, or barely so, from the pews).  In recent years, the priests at my chapel all say the prayers very loudly, as though they were dialogue wiwth the people, rather than to God.  This discussion made me realize this subtle change.  Has anyone else noticed this in their chapels?  I would prefer to hear responses from people who have attended the SSPX for at least 10-15 years, otherewise those with less tenure really have no basis compare recent years vs former years.
Attended first SSPX in 1995, departed SSPX in 2014.  What you say is true, with one exception, a French priest.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 06, 2019, 11:49:26 AM
Would you find it distracting if someone were to "conduct" the congregation from the altar rail with his back toward the altar during sung parts of the Mass? Especially since there is a choir loft/choir to begin with?
Did the "conductor" clown lead the laity from the altar rail again this Sunday January 6th, the Feast of the Epiphany ?
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 06, 2019, 11:56:10 AM
Did the "conductor" clown lead the laity from the altar rail again this Sunday January 6th, the Feast of the Epiphany ?
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh1FMBa9XNQ)
Yes. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh1FMBa9XNQ)

Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: JezusDeKoning on January 06, 2019, 11:57:07 AM
The above was me, my apologies.

But yes, he did it again.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 06, 2019, 12:56:33 PM
Do sedevacantists accept dialogue masses?
Yes, many do, as all sedevacantists recognize and remain obedient to Popes Pius XI and Pius Xii who authorized and encouraged the dialogue mass.  
Some sedevacantists who reject Pope Pius XII’s Holy Week law also reject Catholic teaching on the dialogue mass.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 06, 2019, 01:17:37 PM
Some sedevacantist parishes have a Pontifical Missa Cantata on Sundays, an innovation by Pope Paul VI and his 1964 document, Inter Oecuminici and a pope they don't recognize.

If they will do that, they'll accept a dialogue Mass.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 06, 2019, 01:40:05 PM
The above was me, my apologies.

But yes, he did it again.
Well, it must be that the prior likes it. I believe this is a punishment upon the laity for their indifference to the customs of their country. Totally Novus Ordo and effeminate. 
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 06, 2019, 03:11:50 PM
Well, it must be that the prior likes it. I believe this is a punishment upon the laity for their indifference to the customs of their country. Totally Novus Ordo and effeminate.
Not just our country: There was no such thing as a dialogue mass anywhere in the world just 110 years ago!
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 06, 2019, 06:46:42 PM
So aside from the SSPX parish in Florida, is it regular to sing and participate in other countries around the world?  With all this about the dialogue Mass, is this something that independent break offs from the SSPX condemn?
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 06, 2019, 07:07:23 PM
So aside from the SSPX parish in Florida, is it regular to sing and participate in other countries around the world?  With all this about the dialogue Mass, is this something that independent break offs from the SSPX condemn?
I can assure you that there is not one SSPX, Indult, independent or sedevacantes chapel in the USA does what that prior and "conductor" clown are doing, they are totally winging it, inventing their own mass. This is the standard operating procedure of the Novus Ordo, each priest invents his own twist. It is totally effeminate for a man to want that kind of attention (the conductor).
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 07, 2019, 12:43:07 AM
One of the priests from the old days, a diocesan priest who went independent, was one of the first to resist the Novus Ordo and he regularly used the dialogue mass at his chapel. 

Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 07, 2019, 05:09:33 AM
One of the priests from the old days, a diocesan priest who went independent, was one of the first to resist the Novus Ordo and he regularly used the dialogue mass at his chapel.
Unfortunately, though he escaped the Novus Ordo, by retaining the dialogue Mass he retained all the false liturgical principles which lead right back to the Novus Ordo: Experimentation and variety, extending the liturgical action beyond the sanctuary, false active participation = vocal participation, blurring of the distinction between the ministerial priesthood and the priesthood of the faithful, etc.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Stubborn on January 07, 2019, 06:03:27 AM
So *forgetting the priest*, who is really more in the wrong here - the guy up front doing the distracting, or the people for allowing it?

That is my question.

1) The guy should have refused to do it, that would have been the right thing for him to do.

2) The people should have refused to let it happen, stopping it as soon as they saw what was going on, that is the right thing to do. No need to be violent or overly dramatic about it, just go tell the guy we don't do that because it is very distracting. My guess is he'd be relieved and go back to his pew happy. 

One of these two have to claim the higher fault, especially to let it continue as business as usual.
 
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 07, 2019, 06:36:19 AM
So *forgetting the priest*, who is really more in the wrong here - the guy up front doing the distracting, or the people for allowing it?

That is my question.

1) The guy should have refused to do it, that would have been the right thing for him to do.

2) The people should have refused to let it happen, stopping it as soon as they saw what was going on, that is the right thing to do. No need to be violent or overly dramatic about it, just go tell the guy we don't do that because it is very distracting. My guess is he'd be relieved and go back to his pew happy.  

One of these two have to claim the higher fault, especially to let it continue as business as usual.
 
I’m thinking this is Fr Vernoy’s Priory (a Frenchman), which would explain where this balony came from.
He was the one who 1.5 years ago gave a sermon uploaded onto YouTube (then quickly deleted) saying it was a mortal sin to reject a deal with Francis.
So the faithful there have been formed to revere authority more than truth and doctrine, which makes them ripe for the picking, in which case they are certainly culpable, and deserving of this punishment.
May the trad world behold this sorry spectacle as an example of what awaits those SSPXers who allow themselves to be bamboozled into modernist Rome!
Little by little they will lose everything, just like a repeat of Vatican II.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Stubborn on January 07, 2019, 08:19:20 AM
Little by little they will lose everything, just like a repeat of Vatican II.
And this is what is at risk of the people just going along. They know better yet they just go along, so they should not be surprised when they lose everything, and like a replay of the 60s and 70s, they have no one to blame but themselves.

I think that the people letting it happen are fools for sure, but the the guy doing the distracting, he is the bigger fool.

 
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 07, 2019, 10:06:33 AM
The conductor should get a cape with rhinestones and sequins sewn into it, leather gloves, and a magic wand.  Incorporating some more gesticulating head movement (and maybe an occasional 360 spin to swoosh his cape) would liven things up a bit.  And if he could drop a couple of them ninja smoke bombs at particularly dramatic music, that would be sweet.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 07, 2019, 12:42:57 PM
Unfortunately, though he escaped the Novus Ordo, by retaining the dialogue Mass he retained all the false liturgical principles which lead right back to the Novus Ordo: Experimentation and variety, extending the liturgical action beyond the sanctuary, false active participation = vocal participation, blurring of the distinction between the ministerial priesthood and the priesthood of the faithful, etc.
No, he obeyed the trueand certain Popes, Pius XI and Pius XII.  Roma locuta est, cause finita est.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 07, 2019, 01:00:10 PM
No, he obeyed the trueand certain Popes, Pius XI and Pius XII.  Roma locuta est, cause finita est.
Like the conciliar Legionaires of Christ once said:  “If the pope ordered us to say the clown mass tomorrow, we would stay up all night practicing it.”
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 07, 2019, 02:13:27 PM
There is no holiness where there is dissent from the (true) Pope.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 07, 2019, 02:19:34 PM
There is no holiness where there is dissent from the (true) Pope.
That’s painting with a pretty broad brush.  By implication, it means either all the sedes or all the r&r’s are damned.
It also ignores the possibility of a true pope being a dissenter, but read the quote from “Stubborn’s” post signature from St Bellarmine (no, I am not Stubborn).
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 07, 2019, 03:48:39 PM
That’s painting with a pretty broad brush.  By implication, it means either all the sedes or all the r&r’s are damned.
It also ignores the possibility of a true pope being a dissenter, but read the quote from “Stubborn’s” post signature from St Bellarmine (no, I am not Stubborn).
It’s direct from St Pope Pius X.  Not my words, his words.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 07, 2019, 06:04:52 PM
No, he obeyed the trueand certain Popes, Pius XI and Pius XII.  Roma locuta est, cause finita est.
The novelty of a music conductor leading the laity from the altar rail is the subject of this thread. Please post where Pius XI and XII said that a mass should have a music conductor lead the laity from the altar rail.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 07, 2019, 06:13:01 PM
There is no holiness where there is dissent from the (true) Pope.
A Catholic educated in the history of the liturgical movement understands the reformers of the liturgy were the dissenters (and that Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII revolted against St. Pius X):
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f080_Dialogue_8.htm
It is they, therefore, who are the dissenters, and they, therefore, who fall under your (and Pius X's) condemnation.
As for the pre-conciliar modernist American bishops who imported the dialogue Mass (and girls in choir, which was explicitly condemned by Pius X), see here:
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/Snap/f080_Dialogue_8_1.pdf
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 07, 2019, 06:25:26 PM
A Catholic educated in the history of the liturgical movement understands the reformers of the liturgy were the dissenters (and that Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII revolted against St. Pius X):
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f080_Dialogue_8.htm
It is they, therefore, who are the dissenters, and they, therefore, who fall under your (and Pius X's) condemnation.
As for the pre-conciliar modernist American bishops who imported the dialogue Mass (and girls in choir, which was explicitly condemned by Pius X), see here:
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/Snap/f080_Dialogue_8_1.pdf
From the article above:

"The really revolutionary element of Divini Cultus, however, is that female singers of the liturgical texts were promoted by Pope Pius XI himself. As we have seen with his blessing of Justine Ward’s work, he had already approved girl choristers, even though they had been banned by his predecessor. 

(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F080_Gibbons.jpg)Americanist Card. Gibbons was a friend of Roosevelt and an opposer of St. Pius X
Whereas Pius X ordered that liturgical chant should be taught to seminarians and clerics and restricted to their use (https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f079_Dialogue_7.htm), Pius XI extended this instruction to the whole Catholic population, starting in the schools. He told heads of religious communities of women as well as men to “devote particular attention to the achievement of this purpose in the various educational institutions committed to their care.” (7) 

This not only means that females were also allowed to perform a liturgical function, but that choirs should be formed for their instruction in the Chant. It was a concession to the recalcitrant American Bishops. Predictably, it led to a divisive situation with Bishops everywhere taking the part of Pius XI against Pius X and leading the faithful to do likewise."
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 07, 2019, 06:31:05 PM
From the article above:

"The really revolutionary element of Divini Cultus, however, is that female singers of the liturgical texts were promoted by Pope Pius XI himself. As we have seen with his blessing of Justine Ward’s work, he had already approved girl choristers, even though they had been banned by his predecessor.

(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F080_Gibbons.jpg)Americanist Card. Gibbons was a friend of Roosevelt and an opposer of St. Pius X
Whereas Pius X ordered that liturgical chant should be taught to seminarians and clerics and restricted to their use (https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f079_Dialogue_7.htm), Pius XI extended this instruction to the whole Catholic population, starting in the schools. He told heads of religious communities of women as well as men to “devote particular attention to the achievement of this purpose in the various educational institutions committed to their care.” (7)

This not only means that females were also allowed to perform a liturgical function, but that choirs should be formed for their instruction in the Chant. It was a concession to the recalcitrant American Bishops. Predictably, it led to a divisive situation with Bishops everywhere taking the part of Pius XI against Pius X and leading the faithful to do likewise."
At this point, supporters of congregational singing need to ask themselves an honest question:
If women can suddenly become members of the choir (by episcopal revolt against Pope St. Pius X), thereby usurping a liturgical function, then per the Novus Ordo, what logical objection can there be to altar girls (likewise performing a liturgical function)?
Perhaps now you can see the problem with congregational singing (and the Dialogue Mass, in which women also make the spoken or sung responses, usurping a liturgical roll, and much closer to the altar than from the choir loft!)?
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 07, 2019, 06:32:48 PM
At this point, supporters of congregational singing need to ask themselves an honest question:
If women can suddenly become members of the choir (by episcopal revolt against Pope St. Pius X), thereby usurping a liturgical function, then per the Novus Ordo, what logical objection can there be to altar girls (likewise performing a liturgical function)?
Perhaps now you can see the problem with congregational singing (and the Dialogue Mass, in which women also make the spoken or sung responses, usurping a liturgical roll, and much closer to the altar than from the choir loft!)?
Step by step by step...
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 07, 2019, 06:37:50 PM
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f081_Dialogue_9.htm


The beginning of the end of papal protection for liturgical tradition 

With his support for congregational singing and responses in Divini Cultus, Pope Pius XI produced a landmark mandate for change, which corresponded neither with the lex orandi of the Roman rite nor with the requirements, interests or desires of the Catholic faithful who had been worshipping in silence for centuries. 

(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F081_pius.jpg)Pius XI reportedly celebrated the dialogue Mass several times
Pius XI is reported to have publicly celebrated the Dialogue Mass himself in 1922 and 1925 and to have encouraged individuals and groups who were consciously advancing the liturgical revolution. (3) 

It is not surprising, therefore, that by the late 1920s, liturgical experimentation was already well under way in Europe, especially in some Benedictine Abbeys , (4) in the German-speaking lands (5) as well as in parts of America. (6) This involved “Dialogue Mass,” Mass facing the people, vernacular responses, congregational singing, Offertory procession, handshaking etc., all of which went into the melting pot to emerge as a ready-made template for a “democratized” liturgy. 

So, by the time Pius XI issued Divini Cultus in 1928, the vague expression “active participation” had a circumscribed meaning among the reformers, but was unknown among the mass of ordinary Catholics who had never asked for it. This suggests that the spirit, which hovered over Pius XI when he recommended “active participation,” was akin to the spirit of Beauduin, which eventually gave rise to a new perception of the Church and the priesthood. 
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 07, 2019, 08:53:57 PM
I’ll stick with the Vicars of Jesus Christ on earth, Popes Pius XI and Pius XII, not the dissenter group TIA.  
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 07, 2019, 08:55:29 PM
For a withering indictment of the dialogue Mass (and the modernist standing nonsense the SSPX is now pushing in its chapels to reverence the priest), see this video from Fr. Jenkins (a sedevacantist priest), see this video from minute 7:02 - 23:45

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGp80qetI0s
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 07, 2019, 08:56:46 PM
I’ll stick with the Vicars of Jesus Christ on earth, Popes Pius XI and Pius XII, not the dissenter group TIA.  
I'll stick with Pope St. Pius X and all the vicars which preceded him, and not the dissenter popes who rejected their predecessors!
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 07, 2019, 09:01:46 PM
I’ll stick with the Vicars of Jesus Christ on earth, Popes Pius XI and Pius XII, not the dissenter group TIA.  
Stick with them on what? Going to a mass with a conductor leading the singing in front of the altar rail? You are not ever clear on what you are "sticking with" , nor posting the quotes from Pius XI and XII which you claim you are flowing. 
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 07, 2019, 09:03:09 PM
The novelty of a music conductor leading the laity from the altar rail is the subject of this thread. Please post where Pius XI and XII said that a mass should have a music conductor lead the laity from the altar rail.
Chapter 3 #5 of the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, De Musica Sacra et sacra liturgia
Sept. 3, 1958, approved by Pope Pius XII.  
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 07, 2019, 09:03:47 PM
Stick with them on what? Going to a mass with a conductor leading the singing in front of the altar rail? You are not ever clear on what you are "sticking with" , nor posting the quotes from Pius XI and XII which you claim you are flowing.
It’s easy, I obey them, not you or TIA.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 07, 2019, 09:08:38 PM
Chapter 3 #5 of the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, De Musica Sacra et sacra liturgia
Sept. 3, 1958, approved by Pope Pius XII.  
...from the same pope who destroyed Holy Week?
PUH-LEASE!!!
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 07, 2019, 09:09:32 PM
It’s easy, I obey them, not you or TIA.
Its easy: I obey the 250 before them, not Pius XI or Pius XII when they import modernism into the liturgy which ended in the Novus Ordo.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 07, 2019, 09:09:56 PM
...from the same pope who destroyed Holy Week?
PUH-LEASE!!!
Yes, and he hardly ruined it.  I am not a dissenter.  I love and trust the Pope.  I do,not trust dissenters. 
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 07, 2019, 09:10:45 PM
Its easy: I obey the 250 before them, not Pius XI or Pius XII when they import modernism into the liturgy which ended in the Novus Ordo.
Nope, not modernism, just organic development.  There is no holiness in dissenters.  I’ll stick with the Pope.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 07, 2019, 09:10:54 PM
It’s easy, I obey them, not you or TIA.
Obey who on what? That is the question. What are you talking about? The others have posted clearly what they are talking about and you have said nothing but that you follow Pius XI and XII, but you do not post what you are talking about or the instructions from PIUS XII and XII on your mysterious subject. 
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 07, 2019, 09:11:53 PM
Yes, and he hardly ruined it.  I am not a dissenter.  I love and trust the Pope.  I do,not trust dissenters.
Your 1st sentence shows you a an ignorant zealot.
Your 2nd sentence shows you despise Archbishop Lefebvre ( a "dissenter").
Your 3rd sentence shows you a hippocrite for not showing the same love to Francis.
Your 4th sentence show you a hippocrite as a sede who doesn't like dissenters.
Go to bed, please.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 07, 2019, 09:13:04 PM
Nope, not modernism, just organic development.  There is no holiness in dissenters.  I’ll stick with the Pope.
A totally fabricated rite with no basis in Church history is somehow "organic development."
You have no idea what you are talking about. :facepalm:
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 07, 2019, 09:24:13 PM
Pius XII Empowered Progressivists 
for the Liturgical Reform
Dr. Carol Byrne, Great Britain
By the time Pius XII was elected Pope in 1939, neo-Modernism or Progressivism had already begun to re-establish itself in the Church with the rise of the “New Theology” and to make itself manifest in the liturgy – the place where the ordinary Catholic comes regularly in touch with the Faith.


(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F083_Mass_2.jpg)A reform that changed the face of Catholic worship...
[color][size][font]
We have seen how the slogan “active participation” has become the motto for liturgical reform and acted as a catalyst to change the face of Catholic worship. But the real revolt was not superficial: It was aimed at changing the fundamentals of the Faith itself, especially the doctrine of the Eucharist and the priesthood. 

“Active participation” also raises deeper questions.
[/font][/size][/color][color][size][font]
The answers to these questions lie in the fact that it was the Popes themselves (from Pius XI onwards) who personally promoted “active participation” of the laity, first tentatively and then in increasingly lethal doses. In this way, they advanced the progressivist agenda of the reformers and effectively undermined the objections of the faithful. 

The new concept of the Church as that ‘of the people’ 

Pope Pius X had taught that the singing of the liturgy was a function of the sacerdotal office, i.e., a prerogative of the ordained ministers of the altar and the choir of Levites. Pius XI, on the contrary, presented it as the right and duty of all the baptized, whether clerical or lay. 


[/font][/size][/color]
(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F083_SINGING.jpg)Catholics today, above, followed the Protestants with congregational singing
[color][size][font]
In these two approaches – the former strictly clerical, the latter open and “democratic” – we find an echo of the types of liturgies characteristic of two opposing religions: Catholicism and Protestantism. One cannot help drawing the inference that such a revolutionary move on the part of Pius XI echoes the doctrinal conflicts of the two religions as well. 

As the 16th-century Protestant reformers rejected the Catholic priesthood, their congregational singing was among the most efficient agencies in carrying this principle to the minds of the people. It can be regarded as the liturgical expression of principles common to Protestantism and embodied in Lutheranism and Calvinism alike. 

One wonders, therefore, what place such a practice might be thought to have in a Catholic liturgy codified by order of the Council of Trent, until the realization dawns that congregational singing was the sine qua non demand of the Liturgical Movement initiated by Lambert Beauduin (https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f075_Dialogue_3.htm) for the purposes of promoting Ecumenism.

Pius XII: a vacillating Pope 

Pius XII tried to solve the problem by taking both sides of the dispute.
[/font][/size][/color][color][size][font]
It is evident from this brief sketch that, for Pius XII, the liturgy had two faces, the traditional (sacred) and the modern (worldly), now differentiated, now enigmatically confused in Mediator Dei. This explains how the message it contained was capable of being filtered through various prisms, with the result that the Pope is hailed by conservatives as a defender of Tradition and by progressivists as a friend of aggiornamento or adapting the liturgy to the demands of the modern world. 

In keeping with this dual vision, the liturgy became the battleground where these two antagonistic forces confronted each other and fought for hegemony in the Church.


[/font][/size][/color]
(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F083_development.jpg)A chronicle of the Liturgical Reform by Card. Antonelli from 1948 to 1970
[color][size][font]
Whether this duality was a product of the Pope’s mind or whether it reflected the pressures he was under from the massive, co-ordinated actions of the Liturgical Movement, we do not know. But because of his vacillation and refusal to fly the Catholic flag in a recognizable manner, he left himself open to the suspicion that he may have been attracted by the “adaptations” which he pretended to censure. While recognizing that the Liturgical Movement could produce harmful effects, he, nevertheless, gave it his blessing and stated his desire to assist it forward. (5) 

But perhaps the greatest boost he gave to the progressivist reformers was his recognition of their efforts as a “movement” within the Church (Mediator Dei § 4). Bugnini saw this as a major strategic coup: 

“In his Encyclical Mediator Dei of November 11 [sic], 1947, Pius XII put the seal of his supreme authority on this movement, which by now was to be found everywhere in the Church.” (6) 

In this sense, the encyclical can be said to have applied not so much the bridle as a rather sharp spur to the Liturgical Movement in the lead up to Vatican II. 

But what clinches the Pope’s willing complicity in the Liturgical Movement is the fact that a year earlier than Mediator Dei, in 1946, he had already set in motion plans for a select group (7) of liturgical specialists to institute a general reform of the liturgy. (8) 

The rise of a bureaucratic team to ‘manufacture’ liturgical renewal 

Pope Pius XII, having first surrounded himself with a "Praetorian Guard" (9) of scholars and experts, established the Pontifical Commission for the General Reform of the Liturgy in 1948 and stacked it with a majority of progressivists. These included:
[/font][/size][/color][color][size][font]
With this Commission, Pius XII created a new class of liturgical specialists and entrusted key offices, carrying great power and influence, to them, and allowed them to become the dominant force in the Liturgical Movement. 

The fundamental contradiction inherent in his policy is that Mediator Dei was hijacked within a few years by the type of progressivist reformers he seemed to think he was opposing. 

Continued  (https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f085_Dialogue_11.htm)


[/font][/size][/color]
  • Mgr. George Roche, Pie XII Devant l’Historire, Editions Robert Laffont, Paris, 1972, p. 52.
  • Then, still in the reign of Pius XII, he was appointed Consultant to the Sacred Congregation of Rites (1956) and to Professor of Sacred Liturgy in the Lateran University (1957).
  • Address of Pope Pius XII to the International Congress on Pastoral Liturgy held at Assisi, September 22, 1956. See Acta Apostolici Sedis, October 29, 1956, p. 712, and L'Osservatore Romano, September 24, 1956.
  • He urged that “the whole congregation, in accordance with the rules of the liturgy, either answer the priest in an orderly and fitting manner, or sing hymns suitable to the different parts of the Mass, or do both.” (Mediator Dei § 105).
  • Address of Pope Pius XII given to the International Congress on Pastoral Liturgy at Assisi in 1956.
  • A. Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy (1948-75), Collegeville, Liturgical Press, p. 6.
  • Fr Bugnini, at that time a rising star in the Liturgical Movement, correctly claimed that the liturgical reform under Pius XII was “a fruit produced by the thought and prayer of elite minds and then gradually shared with ever widening circles of the faithful.”
  • A. Bugnini, op. cit., p. 7 (footnote 5): “In an audience granted to Cardinal Carlo Salotti, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, on May 10, 1946, Pope Pius XII expressed his wish that a start be made on studying the problem of a general reform of the liturgy. In another audience, granted to Archbishop Alfonso Carinci, Secretary of the same Congregation, on July 17, 1946, it was determined ‘that a special commission of experts should reflect on the general reform of the liturgy and offer concrete proposals.’”
  • The Praetorian Guard was an elite corps of soldiers chosen from among the most experienced and trustworthy troops to act as the Roman Emperor’s bodyguard.

Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 07, 2019, 09:49:36 PM
By the way: Did you ever wonder why the sacrilegious and blasphemous gatherings take place at Assisi? 

Its because the liturgical reforms of Pius XI and Pius XII were geared toward ecumenical unity, and many of the liturgical modernists' innovations had thir origins in pre-conciliar meetings held in Assisi:



Pius XII: 
‘The Reforms Come from the Holy Spirit’
Dr. Carol Byrne, Great Britain
Pope Pius XII’s address to the participants at the Assisi Congress in 1956 contains a number of unwelcome surprises for those who thought of him as in every way a solidly traditional Pope. Just as the Congress itself had turned out to be a platform for tendentious propaganda, so the Pope’s speech reflected and perpetuated the reformers’ “narrative,” endorsing their message about “active participation” for the faithful in the liturgy. 

A papal fanfare for the Liturgical Movement


(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F101_P-12-1956.jpg)Pius XII in 1956, Conservative in appearance but already deep in the Liturgical Reform
[color][size][font]
In his speech, Pius XII lauded what he termed the “practical accomplishments” of the Liturgical Movement in the last 30 years. Among the “practical accomplishments” which he had so far enabled were the following:
[/font][/size][/color][color][size][font]
The Pope stated that “undeniable progress” had been made through these reforms. But “progress” does not necessarily guarantee improvement, as in the case of the progress of a terminal disease. In the context of the Liturgical Movement, “progress” meant only an advance along the road toward the goals envisaged by the architects of Progressivism. 

And we know exactly what those goals were – the replacement of the Church’s traditional liturgy with a man-centred construct in which the “active participation (https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f074_Dialogue_2.htm)” of the laity would be the predominant feature. Yet, Pius XII stated: “We sincerely desire that the Liturgical Movement progress and we wish to help it.” 

A new ‘pastoral’ approach to the liturgy 

These reforms represented a significant turning point in the Church’s liturgical development, the precedence of so-called “pastoral liturgy” (aimed at adapting the ceremonies to the prevailing mentality of modern man) over the objective liturgical tradition of the Church.


[/font][/size][/color]
(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F101_Jungmann.jpg)Progressivist Fr. Jungmann accused the traditional rite of losing its power to sanctify
[color][size][font]
As Bugnini explained in his Memoirs, the Liturgical Movement, with the support of Pope Pius XII, “entered upon its true course – that of pastoral concern – and was, thus, returning to the ideal it had had in the beginning.” (3) But where does that leave the liturgy of all the intervening centuries? It was obviously to be passed over as neither “true,” nor “pastoral,” nor “ideal.” 

In fact, one of the speakers at the Assisi Congress, Fr. Josef Jungmann, posited that the Church’s liturgy had, since early Christian times, become “corrupted” and had lost its power to sanctify the faithful because they could neither understand nor participate in it. 

The implication of this blasphemous smear on the Church’s sacred patrimony is that what we once esteemed was never really valuable in the first place. From which it follows that somewhere in its early history the Holy Spirit had departed from the Catholic liturgy, only to return in the 20th century with the new “pastoral” approach of the Liturgical Movement. 

Playing to the gallery 

It is undeniable that Pius XII favored this new “pastoral” approach and even thought that it bore the Divine stamp of approval. To the delight of the Assisi participants gathered in Rome, he stated: 

“The Liturgical Movement is, thus, shown forth as a sign of the providential dispositions of God for the present time, of the movement of the Holy Spirit in the Church.”

If God was with it, who could be against it? A more imprudent and divisive opinion could hardly be imagined – imprudent because it seemed to imply that the traditional liturgy was grossly deficient and needed Spirit-led changes; and divisive because it signalled the Pope’s preference for the reformers, rather than the conservatives in the Church, at least on certain issues.


[/font][/size][/color]
(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F101_Papers.jpg)The Assisi Papers were approved by Pius XII - a huge step forward for Liturgical Reform
[color][size][font]
But, the salient point is that the Pope – or whoever wrote his speech – simply assumed that because the liturgical reforms were promoted by members of the Church, their Movement must perforce enjoy Divine approval. His statement that “the chief driving force, both in doctrine and in practical application, has come from the hierarchy” is deeply troubling for two reasons. 

First, it is an admission devastating in its implications. It reveals that it was the Church’s leaders, including the Pope himself, who were the driving force behind the international effort to reform the liturgy. In other words, it was the Pastors, more so than the liturgists, who were responsible for driving the sheep towards a liturgical cliff over which they would fall with astonishing suddenness within a few years. 

However, only a tiny minority of Bishops at that time favored the reforms; and at the beginning of his pontificate most did not even have the slightest suspicion that such reforms were being planned. It is incomprehensible, therefore, that he should seek to alter the spirituality of Catholics who valued the Church’s traditions to suit those who did not. 

Second, the Pope talked as if the reforms were unimpeachably orthodox “both in doctrine and in practical application” as if the lex credendi were in perfect accord with the lex orandi. Here we are not addressing the orthodoxy of Pius XII’s magisterial teaching on matters of Catholic doctrine. But to the degree that his reforms promoted “active participation” of the laity in the sacred functions, they introduced a tension between the Faith and pastoral practice. The laity was now seen to be “on the move” against a “despotic” clergy, who had allegedly robbed them of their rightful roles in the liturgy, to take back what belonged to them by virtue of their Baptism. The clergy-laity class struggle (https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f077_Dialogue_5.htm) had been the raison d’être of the Liturgical Movement since its inception by Dom Lambert Beauduin. 

Even though Pius XII taught the true doctrine of the Catholic priesthood, he nevertheless gave official impetus to the rolling revolution of lay “active participation,” which challenged the exclusive role of the priest. By promoting this competitive spirit, he initiated the process that turned the liturgy into an ideological battleground which continues to our day, to the detriment of the ministerial priesthood and the confusion of the faithful. 

Pius XII misled by false propaganda 

Much of Pius XII’s Assisi speech echoed the desiderata which the reformers had been putting forward in their various congresses and publications. The fact that the forces of Progressivism should play a pivotal role in the Pope’s speech is highly significant. It shows that he was swayed by their rhetoric in making policy decisions for the rest of the Church. He took their word for it that “the faithful received these directives with gratitude and showed themselves ready to respond to them.” 

But, that was pure fabrication put about by Bugnini, who had massaged the results of the liturgical Commission’s surveys to give the misleading impression (https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f095_Dialogue_17.htm) of general acceptance. For all his efforts, Bugnini had not produced evidence that was in reality objectively convincing or statistically significant. 

Also, the reformers had been spreading a false sense of despondency about how useless the traditional rites were and claiming that the faithful welcomed with relief all the new, exciting initiatives that were on offer. 

There was no general euphoria (https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f099_Dialogue_20.htm) among the Catholic population, clerical or lay, in response to the reforms. In fact, the reformers themselves complained for years about the lack of enthusiasm for “active participation” and the extreme difficulty in getting the faithful to say or sing the responses. Besides, it is dishonest to claim that the laity accepted the reforms with joy on the basis of their presence at ceremonies, which they attended out of duty and obedience. 

Continued (https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f102_Dialogue_23.htm)


[/font][/size][/color]
  • See the Encyclical Musicae Sacrae (Of Sacred Music), 25 December 1955, § 74. The document allows female choristers on the lame excuse “where there are not enough boys” to sing in church. But how few are “not enough?” Men (of whom there was never a shortage in those days) could always have been recruited to make up the numbers. As with the altar server debacle of the 1990s, the best way to ensure a dearth of boys in liturgical roles is to have girls perform alongside them.
  • La Maison-Dieu, No. 47-8, 1956, pp. 44-5
  • A. Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy, p. 6

Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 07, 2019, 11:41:34 PM
Hmm, Carol Byrne a modern woman who writes on theology vs Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII, both Vicars of Jesus Christ on earth. 

It takes me not even a second to figure this one out.  
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 08, 2019, 03:57:30 AM
Hmm, Carol Byrne a modern woman who writes on theology vs Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII, both Vicars of Jesus Christ on earth.

It takes me not even a second to figure this one out.  
Yes: Pius XI and Pius XII did well because Dr. Byrne is a woman.
Well done.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 08, 2019, 07:50:45 AM
Hmm, Carol Byrne a modern woman who writes on theology vs Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII, both Vicars of Jesus Christ on earth.

It takes me not even a second to figure this one out.  
It takes us forever to figure out what you are specifically talking about and specifically what Pius XI and XII said to support whatever you are talking about. For all we know you are an effeminate who likes to stand in front of the laity at mass and make a spectacle of yourself. The "lovers"  of the Dialogue, the Novus Ordo, are all effeminate feelings oriented types, that is why men do not go to mass anymore, only the feelings oriented types "love the show". 
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Student of Qi on January 08, 2019, 08:43:40 AM
Yes, that's exactly my point. There were musical practices that greatly took away from the Mass back then, but Pope Pius X brought Gregorian chant back to eliminate those practices. Ironically, he is using Gregorian chant to distract from the Mass.

It is such a distracting practice. They don't need Flappity-flap-flap-flap in the front. They need him in the loft, upstairs. He needs to stay up there.
I love your post here, I found it especially amusing that youyou say he needs to stay in the loft and your avatar is a pigeon outside of one.  :laugh2:
I totally agree with you though.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 08, 2019, 11:23:28 AM
It takes us forever to figure out what you are specifically talking about and specifically what Pius XI and XII said to support whatever you are talking about. For all we know you are an effeminate who likes to stand in front of the laity at mass and make a spectacle of yourself. The "lovers"  of the Dialogue, the Novus Ordo, are all effeminate feelings oriented types, that is why men do not go to mass anymore, only the feelings oriented types "love the show".
The dialogue mass isn’t the Novus Ordo!  It’s a mass that encouraged laypeople to say some prayers at the mass.  No big deal here.  Since when is encouraging laypeople to pray a bad thing?  
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 08, 2019, 11:26:07 AM
Yes: Pius XI and Pius XII did well because Dr. Byrne is a woman.
Well done.
No, nice try at twisting things.  You  and others seem to trust her writings more than you trust the Popes.  Is Ms. Byrne your teacher or is the Pope your teacher?  As I said before, I’ll stick with the Pope.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 08, 2019, 11:38:55 AM
The dialogue mass isn’t the Novus Ordo!  It’s a mass that encouraged laypeople to say some prayers at the mass.  No big deal here.  Since when is encouraging laypeople to pray a bad thing?  
The dialogue mass is the Novus Ordo with different prayers.
To promulgate and promote it, Pius XI had to contradict St Pius X’s explicit reservation for this LITURGICAL ROLE to clerics and seminarians (which precluded women in choir, precisely because of this role’s liturgical function).
If you side with Pius XI’s introduction of women into choir (a liturgical role, per Pius X), then you can have no logical objection to the introduction of altar girls .
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 08, 2019, 11:40:27 AM
No, nice try at twisting things.  You  and others seem to trust her writings more than you trust the Popes.  Is Ms. Byrne your teacher or is the Pope your teacher?  As I said before, I’ll stick with the Pope.
Rather, myself and others seem to acknowledge she has a better grasp of those papal writings than you do.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 08, 2019, 05:13:33 PM
The dialogue mass is the Novus Ordo with different prayers.
To promulgate and promote it, Pius XI had to contradict St Pius X’s explicit reservation for this LITURGICAL ROLE to clerics and seminarians (which precluded women in choir, precisely because of this role’s liturgical function).
If you side with Pius XI’s introduction of women into choir (a liturgical role, per Pius X), then you can have no logical objection to the introduction of altar girls .
No, the dialogue mass is the Roman missal (the real one, pre-V2) that had laypeople say some of the prayers.  
A choir is not the same as an altar boy, that much should be obvious.  Apples ain’t oranges.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 08, 2019, 05:16:26 PM
Rather, myself and others seem to acknowledge she has a better grasp of those papal writings than you do.
Why is she a better teacher than the Pope who gave us Casti Connubi or Mortaliusm Animos, or the Pope who have us Humani Generis, Mystici Corporis, and Mediator Dei.
Who exactly is this lady who all are willing to so easily believe, even over Popes?  What kind of doctor is she?  What did she write her doctoral dissertation on?  
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 08, 2019, 05:21:18 PM
No, the dialogue mass is the Roman missal (the real one, pre-V2) that had laypeople say some of the prayers.  
A choir is not the same as an altar boy, that much should be obvious.  Apples ain’t oranges.
Please show me where in the pre-conciliar Missale Romanum, "laypeople say some of the prayers."
That's just stupidity.
As for your next confused claim, who here has asserted a choir is the same as an altar boy?"
Nobody.
"That much should be obvious."
However, both altar boy and choir perform a liturgical function, which is why women have never been permitted to make the responses (until Pius XI overturned St. Pius X's affirmation that only seminarians, altar boys, and clerics may sing the responses, that is).
Now, may you please give a coherent explanation why, for someone like you who believes women should be allowed to perform liturgical functions, they should not be allowed to be altar boys?
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 08, 2019, 05:25:36 PM
Why is she a better teacher than the Pope who gave us Casti Connubi or Mortaliusm Animos, or the Pope who have us Humani Generis, Mystici Corporis, and Mediator Dei.
Who exactly is this lady who all are willing to so easily believe, even over Popes?  What kind of doctor is she?  What did she write her doctoral dissertation on?  
What in the wide world of sports does Casti Connubi, Mortalium Animos, Humani Generis, or Mystici Corporis have to do with your defense of women assuming liturgical roles?
More to the point, could you please offer a cogent explanation as to why women who are permitted to exercise liturgical functions (condemned by Pius X, but overturned by Pius XI) ought not be altar girls?
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 08, 2019, 05:28:33 PM
Better still: Please explain why women should not be allowed to be altar girls, if Pius XI said they could assume liturgical functions formerly reserved to clerics and males.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 08, 2019, 05:30:00 PM
Whether girls make the liturgical responses from the choir or the altar, what's the dif?  Please explain!
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 08, 2019, 05:42:06 PM
Dialogue Mass - LXVIII
Preparing for the Novus Ordo Missae
Dr. Carol Byrne, Great Britain

Anyone who sets out to consider the reforms of Pius XII in their historical detail cannot fail to notice the sequence of events linking them to the Novus Ordo Missae

In the Instruction De musica sacra (1958), the “community Mass” was, to the delight of the progressivist reformers, given explicit approval by the Pope, down to the finest detail of lay “active participation.” The Instruction laid the foundation for the final creation of the Novus Ordo Missae insofar as it gave the laity an integral role in the enactment of the Mass:


(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F151_Congreg.jpg)Congregational singing, introduced by Pius XII in his instruction De musica sacra (1958)
[color][size][font]
§ 21: “Everything which the liturgical books prescribe to be sung, either by the priest and his ministers, or by the choir or congregation, forms an integralpart of the sacred liturgy.” [emphasis added] 

For something to be an integral part of the liturgy, it must be an intrinsic element of those activities of which the liturgy is composed, necessary for its completeness, and one which the principal actor (the priest) cannot properly function without. 

Of course, § 21 meant that the prescribed texts must be sung in their entirety. Nevertheless, the impression is conveyed, through elliptical wording, that when the laity sings the liturgical texts, their “active participation” is as integral to the liturgy as the singing of the priest, his ministers and the choir. But that is a Protestant, not a Catholic, viewpoint: It was Luther who made the congregation and the choir equal in importance and held that the singing of the congregation was no less integral to the service. 

If we wish to know the authentic Catholic position that guided the Church throughout History, it was expressed by Pope Pius X:

“The Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of persons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful.” (1)


[/font][/size][/color]
(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F151_Clerics-3.jpg)Traditionally clerics or monks composed the church choir - Photo from the New Liturgical Movement
[color][size][font]
In the context of this two-tier system, it is of the greatest significance that the choir was traditionally considered a class apart from the congregation because its function of singing the liturgical texts belongs to the Bishops and the clergy. In other words, the choir is essentially a clerical entity. 

It follows, therefore, that choir members – even though they may be laymen – exercise “a real liturgical office,” for which purpose it was laid down that they should “wear the ecclesiastical habit and surplice.” (2) 

As for the other category of persons included in the “multitude of the faithful,” no specific directives were given to them by Pius X, from which we can infer that they were under no obligation to sing the liturgical texts. This is indisputably clear in his explanation that, apart from the singing of the “celebrant at the altar and the ministers,” “all the rest of the liturgical chant belongs to the choir.” (3) [emphasis added] 

The ordinary faithful were, therefore, by definition not included among the singers performing liturgical functions. So, there are no grounds for believing that Pius X had a congregational rendition in mind when he issued his motu proprio on Sacred Music in 1903. 

Even before he became Pope, when he was Bishop of Mantua and Patriarch of Venice, the future Pius X issued documents on Sacred Music. (4) It is interesting that while they are all practically identical in wording and content to the 1903 Latin motu proprio, none of them mentioned “active” participation of the laity – or even broached the subject of congregational singing. 

Contrast with Pius XII 

Very different was the approach of Pius XII under the influence of the Liturgical Movement. He not only exhorted communal singing of the Mass, but issued a positive mandate for its accomplishment:


[/font][/size][/color]
(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F151_vocalists.jpg)What we have today: Badly dressed vocalists lead the congregational singing
[color][size][font]
“Every effort must be made that all the faithful throughout the world learn to sing these parts [of the Mass]” (De musica sacra§ 25 a and b) 

There is nothing comparable in any of the documents signed personally by Pius X, either before or during his papacy. He had always promoted the formation of male-voice choirs, [5] particularly among seminarians, and the instructions he issued in his motu proprio for training in Gregorian Chant were directed exclusively to clergy, seminarians and choirs. The only “active participation” he promoted for the laity was in the temporal sphere which they must infuse with Christian principles. 

As we have seen (https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f126_Dialogue_45.htm), mandatory rubrics for lay activism in the liturgy were an invention of Pius XII, and first appeared in the 1956 Ordo for Holy Week. This innovation was later developed in Vatican II’s Constitution on the Liturgy, which stipulated that when the liturgical books were revised, they “must carefully attend to the provision of rubrics also for the people’s parts.” (Sacrosanctum Concilium § 31) 

The pre-eminent assembly displaces the celebrating priest 

When the General Instruction of the Novus Ordo was produced in 1969, Cardinal Ottaviani noted its “obsessive references to the communal character of the Mass,” adding that “the role attributed to the faithful is autonomous, absolute – and hence completely false.”


[/font][/size][/color]
(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F151_Clerics.jpg)Monks chanting in a procession
[color][size][font]
The blame for this deviation from Tradition can be laid at the door of the “new theology” espoused by the Liturgical Movement – and later adopted by Vatican II – which rejected the clearly defined two-tiered clergy-laity paradigm and redefined the Constitution of the Church as a homogeneous “communion” of all the faithful. 

The liturgical innovators reduced the priest to the same level as the laity on the basis of their “common priesthood,” the only discernible difference being the functions allocated to them in the liturgy. Thus, the sacramental priesthood was dissolved into Luther’s “universal priesthood of all believers.” 

From this fundamental error, which disguises the difference in essence between the baptized faithful and the ordained priesthood, came the novel concept that the congregation had both theright and duty to sing or recite liturgical texts formerly reserved to the clergy. 

How did such a startling distortion of the clergy-laity distinction, reminiscent of Luther’s abolition of the priesthood, begin to take hold in the Church? 

Pius XII incubated the early stages of the process by conceding many of the desiderata of the reformers in the realm of “active participation” of the laity. If, as De musica sacra § 21 states, everyone’s singing of the liturgical texts is integral to the liturgy, there is basically only one celebrant: the assembly. (6) 

And all who exercise the role of singer – celebrant, clergy, choir, soloist, the congregation – do so as members of the assembly. The song of the assembly becomes ipso facto more important than that of any individual, including the priest celebrant. 

However, few today perceive the ideological nature of the engine pulling the Liturgical Movement’s train, or realize the deeper and more subversive issue for the Church – the diminution of the celebrant’s role in the Mass and the ease with which lay people could take over the ministry of priests. For, what was being impugned by the progressivist reformers from Beauduin to Vatican II was the right of the clergyto sing or say Mass – which is their divinely appointed role – without the people muscling in on the liturgical action. 

The inevitable consequence of the new liturgical theology was the declericalization of the liturgy to focus on the primacy of the assembly. 

Continued  (https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f152_Dialogue_69.htm)[/font][/size][/color]
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 08, 2019, 05:55:57 PM
(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F157_malechoir.jpg)
Pope Pius X specified he wanted all male, well-trained Scholae for every parish

In the wider context, Pius X had never mentioned “active participation” in any document he wrote on Sacred Music before he became Pope – nor did his predecessor, Pope Leo XIII. Indeed, such a concept was never mentioned in any previous papal document going back in history to the earliest centuries. 

There is simply no convincing evidence that Pius X intended the congregation to participate by singing Gregorian Chant, for in his motu proprio he stated that “singers in church have a real liturgical office.” Therefore, he designated the clergy and the all-male choir as the sole legitimate executors of Gregorian Chant. We may infer that the congregation was, by definition, not included in this form of participation. 

It is clear, then, that Pius X regarded the laity as listeners, not singers. This is reinforced in another part of the same document where he mentioned two distinct categories of participants in the liturgy: those who sing (the clergy and the choir) and those for whose spiritual benefit the singing is undertaken (the rest of the faithful). 
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 08, 2019, 06:42:21 PM
What in the wide world of sports does Casti Connubi, Mortalium Animos, Humani Generis, or Mystici Corporis have to do with your defense of women assuming liturgical roles?
More to the point, could you please offer a cogent explanation as to why women who are permitted to exercise liturgical functions (condemned by Pius X, but overturned by Pius XI) ought not be altar girls?
Because the posters on here are attacking the Popes who gave us these great teachings are are trying to pretend that these Popes were promoting modernism.  I gave some of these great encyclicals to remind those of good will that these Popes were hardest modernists, and the attacks against them are ignorant and rash.
Altar boys are on the altar standing in for the ordained, an acolyte.  I would like to see your proof that a woman cannot sing in a choir, and that this is an instrusion into the hierarchical priesthood.  
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 08, 2019, 06:55:56 PM
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]Women in church choirs[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]In connexion with singing in the vernacular it is necessary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm) to advert briefly to the question of women's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) participation in choirs. As the injunction of the Apostle that woman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) keep silence in church was never made applicable in the matter of her participation in the singing of the congregation, and as in religious (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12748b.htm) communities of women (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) the liturgical chant (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09304a.htm) has to be performed by women (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm), we may take it for granted that in our ordinary lay choirs, representing the congregation, the participation of women (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) is not forbidden. The following words from the "Motu proprio" have, however, caused a great deal of uncertainty: "With the exception of the melodies proper to the celebrant at the altar and to his ministers (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10326a.htm), which must always be sung only in Gregorian chant (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06779a.htm) and without the accompaniment of the organ, all the rest of the liturgical chant (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09304a.htm) belongs to the choir of levites; therefore, singers in church, even when they are laymen (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08748a.htm), are really taking the place of the ecclesiastical (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) choir." "On the same principle it follows that singers in church have a real liturgical (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09306a.htm)office and that, therefore, women (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm), as being incapable of exercising such office, cannot be admitted to form part of the choir or of the musical chapel (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03574b.htm). Whenever, then, it is desired to employ the acute voices of sopranos and contraltos, these parts must be taken by boys, according to the most ancient usage of the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm)." But the Holy Father speaks here (as in the beginning) of the choir of levites, among whom laymen (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08748a.htm) may be included, and declares soon after these quoted words that it is becoming for them to wear the ecclesiastical (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) habit and surplice (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14343d.htm). But our ordinary lay choir represents not only the congregation, but also the official choir, without wishing to play the role of "levites"; for this reason it is not stationed in the sanctuary, and no one would think of proposing that its members, like acolytes (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01106a.htm), should wear the ecclesiastical (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) habit. The lay choir is simply a substitute for the absent chorus cantorum, in the liturgical (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09306a.htm) sense, as is the nun (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11164a.htm) for the absent acolyte (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01106a.htm) when she supplies from a distance the responses to the celebrant during the celebration of Mass.[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]Consequently, the presence of women (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) in choirs is excusable under certain circumstances, although choirs composed of men and boys are for many reasons preferable. It is true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) that an inquiry about this point received an apparently negative answer on 18 Dec., 1908, but this was in regard to the conditions described in the inquiry (prout exponitur), and it is added that the Decree (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670a.htm) is to be understood in the sense that the women (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) must be kept entirely separate from the men, and every precaution taken to render impossible all conduct unbecoming to the sacred edifice. From these clauses it appears that, in principle, choirs composed of men and women (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) are not inadmissible; however, the desirability of banishing every possible occasion of indecorousness from the church renders it preferable to employ boys, rather than women (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) in choirs. The employment of women (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) as soloists is all the more questionable, since solos in church are admissible only within certain limits (Motu proprio). A choir composed of women (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) only is not forbidden (Decree (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670a.htm) of 17 Jan., 1908). To employ non-Catholics in church as singers and organists is only tolerated in case of urgent necessity, because they neither believe nor feel the words which they sing.[/color]
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10648a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10648a.htm)
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 08, 2019, 06:59:13 PM
Because the posters on here are attacking the Popes who gave us these great teachings are are trying to pretend that these Popes were promoting modernism.  I gave some of these great encyclicals to remind those of good will that these Popes were hardest modernists, and the attacks against them are ignorant and rash.
Altar boys are on the altar standing in for the ordained, an acolyte.  I would like to see your proof that a woman cannot sing in a choir, and that this is an instrusion into the hierarchical priesthood.  
I don't see a single comment in the entire thread even so much as mentioning Casti Connubii, Mortalium Animos, Humani Generis, or Mystici Corporis.
So far as "attacking" Mediator Dei is concerned, if posting Dr Byrne's observation that Pius XII gave the green light there to that which he had condemned just a few years prior (i.e., before he had totally capitulated to Bugnini and company), guilty as charged.
May I suggest that your zeal in defense of everything ever said and written by Pius XI and Pius XII is based on your ignorance of their works (i.e., That you have probably read their encyclicals, but do not understand the surrounding pressures and forces who succeeded in manipulating their judgment and decisions), and that if you continue to study another 10 years, you will very likely recall this thread with a smile, and the days when you naively believed the popes were for all practical purposes impeccable?
Regarding your observation that altar boys are standing in for the ordained, please explain why that is not the case with the choir (as it clearly is, according to Pius X, which is why women were never allowed in either).
Proof that women were verboten to sing in the choir?  Refer back to p.6 of this thread (which also shows the Americanist bishops like the condemned Cardinal Gibbons revolting against St. Pius X's prohibition):
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/Snap/f080_Dialogue_8_1.pdf
Yes, the revolution in American hearts LONG predates Vatican II!
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 08, 2019, 07:12:01 PM
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]Women in church choirs[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]In connexion with singing in the vernacular it is necessary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm) to advert briefly to the question of women's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) participation in choirs. As the injunction of the Apostle that woman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) keep silence in church was never made applicable in the matter of her participation in the singing of the congregation, and as in religious (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12748b.htm) communities of women (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) the liturgical chant (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09304a.htm) has to be performed by women (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm), we may take it for granted that in our ordinary lay choirs, representing the congregation, the participation of women (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) is not forbidden. The following words from the "Motu proprio" have, however, caused a great deal of uncertainty: "With the exception of the melodies proper to the celebrant at the altar and to his ministers (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10326a.htm), which must always be sung only in Gregorian chant (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06779a.htm) and without the accompaniment of the organ, all the rest of the liturgical chant (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09304a.htm) belongs to the choir of levites; therefore, singers in church, even when they are laymen (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08748a.htm), are really taking the place of the ecclesiastical (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) choir." "On the same principle it follows that singers in church have a real liturgical (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09306a.htm)office and that, therefore, women (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm), as being incapable of exercising such office, cannot be admitted to form part of the choir or of the musical chapel (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03574b.htm). Whenever, then, it is desired to employ the acute voices of sopranos and contraltos, these parts must be taken by boys, according to the most ancient usage of the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm)." But the Holy Father speaks here (as in the beginning) of the choir of levites, among whom laymen (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08748a.htm) may be included, and declares soon after these quoted words that it is becoming for them to wear the ecclesiastical (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) habit and surplice (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14343d.htm). But our ordinary lay choir represents not only the congregation, but also the official choir, without wishing to play the role of "levites"; for this reason it is not stationed in the sanctuary, and no one would think of proposing that its members, like acolytes (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01106a.htm), should wear the ecclesiastical (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) habit. The lay choir is simply a substitute for the absent chorus cantorum, in the liturgical (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09306a.htm) sense, as is the nun (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11164a.htm) for the absent acolyte (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01106a.htm) when she supplies from a distance the responses to the celebrant during the celebration of Mass.[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]Consequently, the presence of women (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) in choirs is excusable under certain circumstances, although choirs composed of men and boys are for many reasons preferable. It is true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) that an inquiry about this point received an apparently negative answer on 18 Dec., 1908, but this was in regard to the conditions described in the inquiry (prout exponitur), and it is added that the Decree (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670a.htm) is to be understood in the sense that the women (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) must be kept entirely separate from the men, and every precaution taken to render impossible all conduct unbecoming to the sacred edifice. From these clauses it appears that, in principle, choirs composed of men and women (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) are not inadmissible; however, the desirability of banishing every possible occasion of indecorousness from the church renders it preferable to employ boys, rather than women (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) in choirs. The employment of women (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) as soloists is all the more questionable, since solos in church are admissible only within certain limits (Motu proprio). A choir composed of women (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) only is not forbidden (Decree (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670a.htm) of 17 Jan., 1908). To employ non-Catholics in church as singers and organists is only tolerated in case of urgent necessity, because they neither believe nor feel the words which they sing.[/color]
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10648a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10648a.htm)
The Catholic Encyclopedia was completed under Benedict XV, who relaxed the suppression of modernism and disbanded the Sodalitium Pianum, as is commonly known.
He was also the first to say the experimental dialogue Mass, and consequently, it is not surprising to find the Encyclopedia endorsing congregational singing.
Hence, the quote which you supply more or less acknowledges our contention, then shows the post-Pian author overturning Pius X's norms with a novel interpretation then in favor with BVX (and the popes which followed).
The proof of this reading of things is that you will not find females in choir (unless we are speaking of conventual Masses in which case special laws govern) before Pius X in the entire history of the Church, unless you go all the way back almost to apostolic times (archaeologism).
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 08, 2019, 07:14:06 PM
The Catholic Encyclopedia was completed under Benedict XV, who relaxed the suppression of modernism and disbanded the Sodalitium Pianum, as is commonly known.
He was also the first to say the experimental dialogue Mass, and consequently, it is not surprising to find the Encyclopedia endorsing congregational singing.
Hence, the quote which you supply more or less acknowledges our contention, then shows the post-Pian author overturning Pius X's norms with a novel interpretation then in favor with BVX (and the popes which followed).
The proof of this reading of things is that you will not find females in choir (unless we are speaking of conventual Masses in which case special laws govern) before Pius X in the entire history of the Church, unless you go all the way back almost to apostolic times (archaeologism).
And more than this, not only did the same article you quoted from note a negative ruling in 1908 on the subject, but the newspaper article I quoted previous to you CE post clearly shows the American hierarchy as understanding Pius X affirmed the ban on women in the choir, and they were rebelling against it.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 08, 2019, 07:28:32 PM
More on the same subject:  http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2008/08/fr-paul-and-his-st-peters-singers.html#.XDVMFVxKiUk

"St. Pius X had forbidden women to sing in scholas in his 1903 encyclical but Fr. Anthony Ruff's new book Sacred Music and Liturgical Reformdemonstrates two very important points with regard to this prohibition. 

1) The prohibition against women singers was completely ignored all over Europe and especially the United States. The encyclical itself had a huge impact on the Catholic world but for this narrow point. In fact, "indults" to depart from the letter of the law were being issued by the Pope personally just days after publication [because of massive revolt], and ever more leniency was in effect within a few years at the hands of legislative bodies overseeing the liturgy. 

It was nowhere enforced [because of massive revolt], and one can tell that just by looking at pictures of chant classes conducted by Justine Ward [feminist/modernist mentioned who had the ear of Pius XI, mentioned by Dr. Byrne] in the United States: more than half the students were girls and women. Indeed, women were at the forefront of the movement. The tradition of women singing at Mass has always been integral to life in a convent, and there are extensive records of women singing polyphony in England. As for the Vatican itself, its practice of using only men and boys to sing reflected a long-standing tradition and not so much an adherence to doctrinal norms. Later, as is well known, Pius XII legislated in favor of permitting women to sing, legislation which didn't change the practice much either since the original edict had not had much effect in any case [because of massive revolt]. 

2) Fr. Ruff further demonstrates that the edict of Pius X had nothing to do with discrimination but rather stemmed from a widely held position of the Cecilian movement that the choir performed a clerical roll in the liturgy and hence it should share as closely as possible in the features of the clergy. The Cecilians believed that the singers should be men because the priesthood was limited to men; they further hoped that the vocation of schola member would be lifelong and that singers would, for example, under the ideal, receive tonsures. "
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 09, 2019, 12:38:41 AM
This discussion makes me wonder how many Catholics no longer see themselves as subjects to the Pope, but rather see the Church as a democracy with lay veto power over the laws and teachings of the Popes, in this case Pius XI and Pius XII.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 09, 2019, 05:44:11 AM
This discussion makes me wonder how many Catholics no longer see themselves as subjects to the Pope, but rather see the Church as a democracy with lay veto power over the laws and teachings of the Popes, in this case Pius XI and Pius XII.
That’s a rather ironic statement, coming from one who vetos the papacies of the last 6 pope’s!
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 09, 2019, 08:15:45 AM
Saint Pope Pius X taught:

Distracted with so many occupations, it is easy to forget the things that lead to perfection in priestly life; it is easy [for the priest] to delude himself and to believe that, by busying himself with the salvation of the souls of others, he consequently works for his own sanctification. Alas, let not this delusion lead you to error, because nemo dat quod nemo habet [no one gives what he does not have]; and, in order to sanctify others, it is necessary not to neglect any of the ways proposed for the sanctification of our own selves.

...

The Pope is the guardian of dogma and of morals; he is the custodian of the principles that make families sound, nations great, souls holy; he is the counsellor of princes and of peoples; he is the head under whom no one feels tyrannized because he represents God Himself; he is the supreme father who unites in himself all that may exist that is loving, tender, divine.

It seems incredible, and is even painful, that there be priests to whom this recommendation must be made, but we are regrettably in our age in this hard, unhappy, situation of having to tell priests: love the Pope!

And how must the Pope be loved? Non verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. [Not in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth - 1 Jn iii, 18] When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, "si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit," [if any one love me, he will keep my word - Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him. 

Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey - that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.

This is the cry of a heart filled with pain, that with deep sadness I express, not for your sake, dear brothers, but to deplore, with you, the conduct of so many priests, who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls.

Saint Pius X
Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union 
  • November 18, 1912

Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 09, 2019, 09:03:41 AM
Saint Pope Pius X taught:

Distracted with so many occupations, it is easy to forget the things that lead to perfection in priestly life; it is easy [for the priest] to delude himself and to believe that, by busying himself with the salvation of the souls of others, he consequently works for his own sanctification. Alas, let not this delusion lead you to error, because nemo dat quod nemo habet [no one gives what he does not have]; and, in order to sanctify others, it is necessary not to neglect any of the ways proposed for the sanctification of our own selves.

...

The Pope is the guardian of dogma and of morals; he is the custodian of the principles that make families sound, nations great, souls holy; he is the counsellor of princes and of peoples; he is the head under whom no one feels tyrannized because he represents God Himself; he is the supreme father who unites in himself all that may exist that is loving, tender, divine.

It seems incredible, and is even painful, that there be priests to whom this recommendation must be made, but we are regrettably in our age in this hard, unhappy, situation of having to tell priests: love the Pope!

And how must the Pope be loved? Non verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. [Not in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth - 1 Jn iii, 18] When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, "si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit," [if any one love me, he will keep my word - Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.

Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey - that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.

This is the cry of a heart filled with pain, that with deep sadness I express, not for your sake, dear brothers, but to deplore, with you, the conduct of so many priests, who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls.

Saint Pius X
Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union
  • November 18, 1912
Ahh, if only St Pius X’s successors would have heeded your/his advice....
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 09, 2019, 01:19:59 PM
The fact that St. Pius X’s teachings does not/cannot apply to Paul VI, JP2, Benedict XVI, and Francis is a red flag.  St. Pius X did not qualify his teaching, meaning it applies to all Popes.  The fact that it cannot apply to these so called Popes, should show us that we need to take a closer look at whether they were/are Popes at all.  

If we cannot dissent to Frankie in Rome, then logically we lose our Faith.  There is only one way out of this logical trap, to take out the of the syllogism that Frank is Pope, then it makes sense again and St. Pius X’s teaching remains perfectly intact and applicable.

Would anyone dare to say that St. Pope Pius X taught error to the Church on this point?
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 14, 2019, 11:42:39 AM
Another interesting thing is that the church's domain - SSPXFlorida.com is hosted by GoDaddy.Com. Go Daddy was known years ago for their sexually suggestive ads. Certainly there aren't Catholic options for hosting?
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on January 14, 2019, 05:27:46 PM
Did the clown conductor lead the laity again yesterday, Sunday January 13, 2019? 
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on February 06, 2019, 05:50:00 AM
Is this nonsense continuing in the Florida chapel?
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on February 06, 2019, 06:00:30 AM
Some more questions:

1) Which “dialogue” Mass are they saying?  Last I heard, before the “dialogue” Mass became the Novus Ordo, there were at least seven different approved variations of yapping available (just like the No us Ordo)?

2) If there is dialogue between the priest and people, isn’t the Mass taking on an excessively horizontal aspect (a conversation between men rather than a sacrifice offered by priest to God), just like the Novus Ordo?

3) Is this trend toward the Novus Ordo the reason SSPX priests now say even low Masses in a loud voice (ie., they want to converse with the people)?

4) Why is the SSPX publishing books like “Liturgical Revolution” which show the subversive and novel origins of the “talking” Mass, but still implementing it in its seminaries and schools?
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on February 06, 2019, 06:27:53 AM
More than all that, the dialogue Mass inappropriately emphasizes the educatory aspect of the Mass, rather than its primary sacrificial and propitiatory aspects (the main reason Latin gave way to the vernacular).

Also implicit is the idea that if you aren’t “doing something” you aren’t “participating,” and “participation” is the golden rule of the liturgical “reform.”

Once upon a time, Catholics went to church to “hear Mass.”

But through the antiliturgical reform, reads have been inculcated with the idea that we “participate in the Mass,” as though those who had no liturgical role (like making the responses) were somehow deficient.

To fight that trend, I no longer even use Lambert Beauduin’s invention of following along in a hand missal, but instead follow along with what’s happening at the altar and/or saying my Rosary.  I find I don’t feel like I missed the whole Mass anymore because my nose was buried in a missal.

Essentially, I am committed to rejecting the liturgical reform insofar as I can an an individual layman.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on February 09, 2019, 03:47:34 PM
It seems two completely separate things are being conflated in this thread:

1. the "Dialogue Mass", a low Mass where the people speak the responses out loud normally said by servers. This is considered normal and unremarkable among European traditional Catholics, but has never caught on in the English speaking world. Trying to impose this practice on English speakers in the U.S. or U.K. where it has never been a tradition would be a bad idea for all sorts of reasons.

2. the practice of people singing the responses and all or part of the Ordinary (Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus) at a Missa Cantata. This is a traditional practice that pre-dates the "Dialogue Mass." It was common in the Middle Ages, started to decline around the end of the Middle Ages with the introduction of polyphony (but never entirely disappeared) and started to be reintroduced in many places in the 18th and 19th centuries, and especially in the 20th century following the 1903 Motu Proprio of St. Pius X, who commanded that "Special efforts are to be made to restore the use of the Gregorian Chant by the people, so that the faithful may again take a more active part in the ecclesiastical offices, as was the case in ancient times."

Unlike the "Dialogue Mass," congregational singing of the Ordinary is widespread not only among European traditional Catholics, but also among English speakers, although it is not universal. 

Some people will try to tell you that the congregation did not sing the responses before the 1960s and that it is a modernist/Bunigni innovation. This can be disproved by many documented references from the old days to liturgical singing by the congregation (for example, in Fortescue)

There is a Hollywood movie from 1952 called "When in Rome." An American priest on pilgrimage to Rome has his cassock and saturno (and his money) stolen by a con man, who replaces them with his own clothes. Having nothing else to where, the priest dons the con man's clothes and goes to find the police to report the robbery. They instead suspect that he is the con man and arrest him. He protests that he's a priest. The Italian police officers ask him to prove it by chanting the Preface to the Mass: "only a priest would know how to do that." The priest obliges and the astonished police officers remove their hats as he sings "per omnia saecula saeculorum..." When he gets to "Dominus Vobiscum" and "Sursum Corda" all of the police officers respond to him by singing the responses perfectly. This scene makes absolutely no sense if it were not perfectly normal for Catholics to sing the responses at sung Mass in 1952; so normal that a police officer could sing "Sursum corda" as naturally as he could make the sign of the cross.

As far as having a layman stand in front of the altar rail and try to conduct the congregation as though they were a choir; this does look very silly and completely distracting, and reminiscent of Novus Order "cantors" waving their arms at the congregation. It's unnecessary and a bad idea, even if it is normal in Europe - you can see the practice in this video (https://youtu.be/Emrl9lLC4qc) of the SSPX pilgrimage to Lourdes in 2014 (at around the 11 minute mark). Better to use the organ as cue to the congregation of when they may sing.
Title: Re: Dialogue Mass/leading the choir in singing
Post by: Anonymous on February 09, 2019, 09:51:44 PM
It seems two completely separate things are being conflated in this thread:

1. the "Dialogue Mass", a low Mass where the people speak the responses out loud normally said by servers. This is considered normal and unremarkable among European traditional Catholics, but has never caught on in the English speaking world. Trying to impose this practice on English speakers in the U.S. or U.K. where it has never been a tradition would be a bad idea for all sorts of reasons.

2. the practice of people singing the responses and all or part of the Ordinary (Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus) at a Missa Cantata. This is a traditional practice that pre-dates the "Dialogue Mass." It was common in the Middle Ages, started to decline around the end of the Middle Ages with the introduction of polyphony (but never entirely disappeared) and started to be reintroduced in many places in the 18th and 19th centuries, and especially in the 20th century following the 1903 Motu Proprio of St. Pius X, who commanded that "Special efforts are to be made to restore the use of the Gregorian Chant by the people, so that the faithful may again take a more active part in the ecclesiastical offices, as was the case in ancient times."

Unlike the "Dialogue Mass," congregational singing of the Ordinary is widespread not only among European traditional Catholics, but also among English speakers, although it is not universal.

Some people will try to tell you that the congregation did not sing the responses before the 1960s and that it is a modernist/Bunigni innovation. This can be disproved by many documented references from the old days to liturgical singing by the congregation (for example, in Fortescue)

There is a Hollywood movie from 1952 called "When in Rome." An American priest on pilgrimage to Rome has his cassock and saturno (and his money) stolen by a con man, who replaces them with his own clothes. Having nothing else to where, the priest dons the con man's clothes and goes to find the police to report the robbery. They instead suspect that he is the con man and arrest him. He protests that he's a priest. The Italian police officers ask him to prove it by chanting the Preface to the Mass: "only a priest would know how to do that." The priest obliges and the astonished police officers remove their hats as he sings "per omnia saecula saeculorum..." When he gets to "Dominus Vobiscum" and "Sursum Corda" all of the police officers respond to him by singing the responses perfectly. This scene makes absolutely no sense if it were not perfectly normal for Catholics to sing the responses at sung Mass in 1952; so normal that a police officer could sing "Sursum corda" as naturally as he could make the sign of the cross.

As far as having a layman stand in front of the altar rail and try to conduct the congregation as though they were a choir; this does look very silly and completely distracting, and reminiscent of Novus Order "cantors" waving their arms at the congregation. It's unnecessary and a bad idea, even if it is normal in Europe - you can see the practice in this video (https://youtu.be/Emrl9lLC4qc) of the SSPX pilgrimage to Lourdes in 2014 (at around the 11 minute mark). Better to use the organ as cue to the congregation of when they may sing.
A few comments on this post:
1) That the Europeans consider the dialogue Mass "normal" is because the proto-liturgical reformers were European (particularly among the low countries).  They successfully connived, plotter, manipulated, and conspired (as anyone who has read the memoirs of Dom Lambert Beauduin will acknowledge) to prey upon weak and liberal bishops.  First obtaining permissions to hold congresses in their dioceses, usually in a monastery to keep things quiet.  Then once a plan was formulated, they would seek permission for experimentation.  Then the would fabricate reports about how well received the experiments were by the people, and the alleged good fruits obtained thereby.  This would cause the weal and liberal bishops to grant further concessions, and their colleagues seeing their brother bishops grant such concessions granted their own, and so the movement -illicit and illegitimate in origin- grew and spread, until finally you had popes saying dialogue Mass.
But it was always based on lies and deception, and contains fully the principles of the Novus Ordo.
English-speaking readers can read the SSPX's own "Liturgical Revolution" by Fr. Diddier Bonneterre for starters.
But let's not pretend the dialogue Mass was "traditional" simply because it was pre-conciliar modernism.
The mutilated 1956 Holy Week of Pius XII (which gained support by the same illicit means of experimentation) was also pre-conciliar, but had only a 13 year history in the Church (with Palm Sunday and the sacred Triduum being almost completely remade into new rites).
2) As for the Missa Cantata, it was to be permitted by exception only, where additional clergy were not present to fulfill the roles of deacon and subdeacon.  Why it is celebrated in some places having priests or ordained clerics to perform these offices is inexplicable.
But to say that it is the fulfillment of Pius X's falsely attributed exhortation for the faithful to take part in Gregorian chant is refuted in a recent study by Dr. Carol Byrne, who commenting on this old fable observes:
"If we wish to know the authentic Catholic position that guided the Church throughout History, it was expressed by Pope Pius X:

“The Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of persons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful.” (1)

(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F151_Clerics-3.jpg)Traditionally clerics or monks composed the church choir - Photo from the New Liturgical Movement
In the context of this two-tier system, it is of the greatest significance that the choir was traditionally considered a class apart from the congregation because its function of singing the liturgical texts belongs to the Bishops and the clergy. In other words, the choir is essentially a clerical entity. 

It follows, therefore, that choir members – even though they may be laymen – exercise “a real liturgical office,” for which purpose it was laid down that they should “wear the ecclesiastical habit and surplice.” (2) 

As for the other category of persons included in the “multitude of the faithful,” no specific directives were given to them by Pius X, from which we can infer that they were under no obligation to sing the liturgical texts. This is indisputably clear in his explanation that, apart from the singing of the “celebrant at the altar and the ministers,” “all the rest of the liturgical chant belongs to the choir.” (3) [emphasis added] 

The ordinary faithful were, therefore, by definition not included among the singers performing liturgical functions. So, there are no grounds for believing that Pius X had a congregational rendition in mind when he issued his motu proprio on Sacred Music in 1903. 

Even before he became Pope, when he was Bishop of Mantua and Patriarch of Venice, the future Pius X issued documents on Sacred Music. (4) It is interesting that while they are all practically identical in wording and content to the 1903 Latin motu proprio, none of them mentioned “active” participation of the laity – or even broached the subject of congregational singing. "
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f151_Dialogue_68.htm 

3)