CathInfo.com

I'm skeptical here, if only because the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom has responses through, and it (or at least the longer liturgy of St James off which it was based) is at least 1600 years old.

One struggle I have in the attempt to be Traditional is its often hard for me to know for sure what was actually taught "always, everywhere, by everyone", vs what was widely but not universally held in the Second Millennium prior to the 20th century.

I also question the sheer prudential value of ignoring catechetical value of the mass, regardless of who may have pushed it, in our current situation.

You are confused here precisely for the reason given which you are questioning:
"4) The faithful are ignorant of the liturgical reform, and consequently do not understand that some of the principles cited in favor of the dialogue Mass (eg., using the Mass as a training ground, or as a catechism, or to further active participation, etc. are modernist innovations which were not concerns -and were unheard of except in Protestant circles- just 110 years ago"
A good beginning would be this book by Fr. Diddier Bonneterre (SSPX): 

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. 


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 circuмscribed 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.