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. "

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!

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 docuмents; 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....

Another interesting thing is that the church's domain - SSPXFlorida.com is hosted by GoDaddy.Com. Go Daddy was known years ago for their sɛҳuąƖly suggestive ads. Certainly there aren't Catholic options for hosting?

Is this nonsense continuing in the Florida chapel?

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.

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 docuмented 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 Vobiscuм" 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 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)

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 docuмents 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)