I don't care for them, but they have, evidently, been around for awhile:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Mass
.....
Your thoughts on the Dialogue Mass? Is such common in traditional Catholic circles?
see thread on Dialogue mass :
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Dialogue-Mass-in-Vernacular-Part-of-the-SSPX-AgendaHere's some quotes:
Dialogue Mass by Rev. E. Black SSPX †
As must surely be the case with many readers of The Remnant, I have
followed the series of articles on the Dialogue Mass under the title
‘Debating the Relevant Issues’ with increasing bemusement.
In what sense is the question of the Dialogue Mass relevant to us and
where is this debate going? The extremely detailed article of Mr Tofari was
certainly reminiscent of the content and style of the liturgical reformers of
the 1950s and it is not surprising that it should have evinced the alarmed
response of Mr Dahl. Are there really any traditional Catholics ready to
repeat the painful experiences of 50 years ago? Mr Tofari’s article seems to
indicate that he, at least, is one. Although he rightly states that Dialogue
Mass is not a matter of doctrine but of praxis, he nevertheless also states
that it is an important question. Indeed it is. Silence and sound are
mutually exclusive. If his assertion is ever conceded in practice that a
single person who decides to avail himself of making the responses at
Mass has every right to do so then it spells the final end of what was once
the universal and exclusive practice of the Western Church for more than
1000 years. Although this is an important matter, it is likewise a tiresome
one – for it seems that every traditional institution and practice must be
permanently placed in a position of self-defence and called upon at any
time to justify itself.
Second Vatican Council (1962 – 1965)
The standard procedure of the liturgical reformers has always been to
appeal to the practice of the early Church, ignoring the greater part of her
history until the twentieth century, (save for the purposes of ridiculing it),
in order to justify their innovations. Once papal sanction is granted to their
ideas they invariably invoke this authority, oftentimes without adequate
justification. It is truly remarkable how they did, in fact, obtain sanction for
most of their proposed reforms both before and after the Second Vatican
Council even to the point of the de facto abolition of the traditional rite of
Mass itself! At the time, the average Catholic had no notion of the
machinations of the leaders of the Liturgical Movement, or indeed of the
liturgical practices of the primitive Church. The argument of papal authority
was enough for all of the reforms to be generally accepted without
question. The final step then is to present the innovations as the authentic
tradition of the Church.
Mr Tofari’s article follows the same method. He attempts to prove his case
by an appeal to the primitive Church and the Oriental rites to establish and
prove active lay participation in the sense that such participation should be
vocal; derides the liturgical practices of the medieval, baroque and
subsequent eras and he even makes a case that the development of the
liturgical practice during these long centuries was vitiated by the influence
of Protestant individualism and pietism, etc. Even more fantastically he
appropriates a description of the form of Low Mass which is known and
loved by all of us as ‘the great Irish silence’, as if this practice was not
universal throughout the worldwide Church! Such a thesis entirely
excludes the operation of the Holy Ghost in the development and
enrichment of the Church’s worship throughout history.
Solemn High Mass
One of the most perplexing assertions is as follows: ‘… for nearly 200 years
after the Renaissance the unfortunate liturgical status quo remained
virtually static despite the enormous efforts of Dom Guéranger and a host
of others. Despite more than a few errors from some, all agreed on one
completely orthodox thought: the Church’s liturgical piety must be restored
to the forefront of the daily life of the average Catholic.’ How can the
liturgical life of the Church as always practised be unfortunate? Whatever
they had in mind to foster liturgical piety it was certainly not the Dialogue
Mass which did not exist, nor indeed was envisaged at the time.
Furthermore, this statement overlooks the fact that it is precisely the Low
Mass which brings this liturgical piety to the forefront of the daily life of the
average Catholic. Given that the Solemn High Mass is the accepted original
and authentic form of the Roman liturgy, it is manifest that it could not be
celebrated every day except in places like great cathedrals and monastic
establishments. In order to make it possible for the priest to celebrate and
for the laity to participate on a daily basis the ‘silent’ Low Mass was
devised. [The author is aware that parts of the Low Mass are to be recited
in a clear voice. He uses the term ‘silent’ in order to distinguish it from
Dialogue Mass].
[uploaded attachment - it was too wide and I tried to shrink it ~ N.G.]
Iconostasis in a Greek Catholic Cathedral
Could anything be more apostolic – the possibility which the Low Mass
provided of having the Holy Sacrifice in almost any place or circuмstance –
thus rendering the highest act of worship accessible to all? This is surely
the greatest expression of an authentic active lay participation in the
liturgical life of the Church! To appeal to the Oriental rites as providing
superior lay participation is fatuous. Mr Tofari states that, ‘even today the
very idea of the laity attending the Divine Liturgy as muted spectators is
incomprehensible in the Eastern rites’. Of course, as in the Roman rite, the
laity of the Eastern Rites may participate in the liturgical chant but unlike us
they may not, in reality, be spectators at all as the iconostasis completely
obscures their view! Interestingly enough, the iconostasis is not intended
as a means of excluding the laity, but rather its doors represent the link
between heaven and earth. This indeed represents more authentically the
idea of the union of priest and people at the Mass throughout the
centuries. A notion which, of course, is completely rejected by the Liturgical
Movement of the twentieth century. Furthermore, the Orientals may not
assist at Mass every day for the reasons stated above, and finally, there is
no provision for Dialogue Mass in the their Rites!
The author of Liturgical Principles and Notions makes the case that as the
laity have always been permitted to sing the High Mass, it is logical that
they should be allowed to make the responses at Low Mass. As this seems
reasonable, we may well wonder why, until the twentieth century, this was
never done or even encouraged anywhere. The idea that it was the result
of persecution in anti-Catholic countries is a fallacy. Dialogue Mass was
quite as unknown in the Papal States as in the Ireland of penal times!
Indeed, the fact that Sung Mass (Missa Cantata) only appeared in the
eighteenth century and bilingual missals for laity in the nineteenth
suggests that the idea of active lay participation – if such an idea existed
at the time – was, in fact, discouraged. That this state of affairs existed for
more than 1000 years must surely mean that it cannot be considered
merely as an abuse [and] as the result of neglect of the laity by the popes
and ecclesiastical authorities. This being so, I submit that it stemmed from
the fact that it is never necessary to state the obvious. It is only when
things become obscured that it is necessary to explain their meaning. The
liturgy of the Church had always been understood as a common act, [that
is], the physical presence of the ritualised sacrifice of Calvary rather than
an exercise of Common prayer.
No doubt Christ’s sacrifice is indeed a prayer – even the highest prayer
which exists – but a distinction must be made. This is quite well summed
up in a nineteenth-century polemical writing against Protestant notions of
worship which I quote in extenso as it gives a view entirely opposite to
that of Mr Tofari; [that is], that rather it is active participation in the sense
in which he understands it that is influenced by Protestant notions – not
the reverse!
The main difficulty experienced by Protestants in witnessing Catholic
worship arises from their not understanding the difference between a
common act and a common prayer. The acts of the Church, such as
processions, expositions of the Blessed Sacrament, the administration of
the Sacraments, and above all the Holy Sacrifice, are indeed always
accompanied by prayer, and generally by prayers of priest and people,
though not necessarily by united or common prayer. In any case, the act
must be distinguished from the prayers.
A Protestant may easily understand what is meant by this distinction by
aid of a few illustrations: Suppose a ship, filled with a mixed crew of
[English,] French, Spanish and Portuguese is being wrecked off the coast
of England. A crowd is assembled on the cliff, watching with intense
earnestness the efforts being made by the captain and crew on the one
hand, and by life boats from the coast on the other, to save the lives of the
passengers. A great act is being performed, in which all are taking part,
some as immediate actors; others as eager assistants. We may suppose
this act carried out in the midst of united prayers. English, French, Spanish,
Portuguese, each in their own tongues and many without spoken words at
all, are sending up petitions to Almighty God for the safety of the
passengers. It is a common act at which they assist; it is accompanied by
the prayers of all; but they are not common prayers, in the sense of all
joining either vocally or mentally in the same form of words.
When the priest Zacharias had gone into the temple of the Lord to offer
incense, and ‘all the multitude of the people was praying without’ (Luke
1:9), there was a common act performed by priest and people – by the
priest as actor, by the people as assistants – and the act was accompanied
by united prayers. But it mattered not to the people what language was
spoken by the priest or what sacred formulae were used. Their intentions
were joined with his. Their individual and varied petitions were one great
Amen said to his sacerdotal invocations; and all ascended together in a
sweet-smelling cloud of incense to Heaven.
Or to come still nearer to Catholic worship, let the reader represent to
himself the great act of Calvary. Our Lord Jesus
‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?’
Christ is Priest and Victim. He accompanies His oblation of Himself with
mysterious and most sacred prayer. Two of His seven words are from the
Psalms; and it has therefore been conjectured that He continued to recite
secretly the Psalm, after giving us the clue to it, by pronouncing the words,
‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? – My God, my God , why hast Thou forsaken
Me?’ Or again, ‘Father, into Thy hands I commend My Spirit.’ There were
many assistants at that act and among those who assisted piously – the
Blessed Mother of Jesus, the Apostle St John, the holy women, the
centurion, the multitude ‘who returned striking their breasts’ – there was a
certain unity in variety, not a uniform prayer, yet a great act of harmonious
worship.
There are, then, prayers used in Catholic churches in which the whole
congregation joins, such as the singing of hymns, the recitation of the
Rosary, performing the Stations of the Way of the Cross, especially the
chanting of Vespers or Compline. Such prayers are either recited in the
vernacular, or, when Latin is used, they require some little education in
those who take a direct and vocal part in them. But the great act of
Catholic worship is the Holy Mass, or the Unbloody Sacrifice. One alone
stands forth and makes the awful offering; the rest kneel around, and join
their intentions and devotions with his; but even were there not a solitary
worshipper present, the sacrifice both for the living and dead would be
efficacious and complete. To join in this act of sacrifice, and to participate in
its effects, it is not necessary to follow the priest or to use the words he
uses. Every Catholic knows what the priest is doing, though he may not
know or understand what he is saying, and is consequently able to follow
with his devotions every portion of the Holy Sacrifice. Hence, [it is] a
wonderful union of sacrificial, of congregational and of individual devotion.
The prayers of the priest are not substituted for those of the people. No
one desires to force his brother against his will.
It is the most marvellous unity of liberty and law which this earth can
show. The beggar with his beads, the child with her pictures, the
gentleman with his missal, the maiden meditating on each mystery of the
Passion, or adoring her God in silent love too deep for words, and the
grateful communicant, have but one intent, one meaning, and one heart,
as they have one action, one object, before their mental vision. They bow
themselves to the dust as sinners; they pray to be heard for Christ’s sake;
they joyfully accept His words as the words of God; they offer the bread
and wine; they unite themselves with the celebrant in the Sacrifice of the
Body and Blood of Christ, which he as their priest offers for them; they
communicate spiritually; they give thanks for the ineffable gift which God
has given them. Their words differ, their thoughts vary; but their hearts are
united and their will is one. Therefore is their offering pure and acceptable
in the sight of Him who knows their secret souls, and who accepts a man,
not for the multitude or the fewness of his sayings, for his book or for his
beads, but for the intention with which he has, according to his sphere and
capacities, fulfilled His sacred will, through the merits of the Adorable Victim
who is offered for him. (Ritual of the New Testament by Rev. T. G. Bridgett)
Father William Doyle preaches his last homily in 1917 from a pulpit in the nave of the church.
One may also suppose that Dialogue Mass was never considered an option
until modern times as it would have been simply impractical. It is impossible
for a priest at a distant altar to dialogue with a large congregation without
the use of a microphone as otherwise he could not be heard and, in any
case, in many churches the priest was separated from the congregation by
the rood screen which divided the sanctuary from the nave. We are all
familiar with the fact that in large churches the pulpit was placed in the
nave quite far from the altar and raised up on high so that the sermon
could be heard. Similarly, churches would have had to be completely
reorganised in order for Mass to be heard, thus destroying all of the
mystical symbolism of the cruciform plan. Interestingly enough, the new
emphasis on vocal participation even before the Council, or any thought of
a new Mass in the minds of most people, had already produced the
beginnings of the new church architecture:
Reconceiving liturgical space had begun; especially with St Michael’s in
Burlington, Vermont in 1944. A more radical step was Blessed Sacrament
Church in Holyoke, Massachusetts, built in 1953. Here the altar was dead
centre in an octagonal church and surrounded by eight rows of pews. This
soon turned out not to be the answer, but it did herald the movement to
reconceiving the relationship of congregational space to the sanctuary. All
was still in flux when events after Vatican II soon gave new directions to
church building.’ (Roman Catholic Worship: Trent to Today by James White)
These churches were built for the old Mass – not the new – but a Mass in
which obviously active vocal participation was very strong in influencing the
design!
There is a very significant difference between singing and speaking in a
language which one does not understand. The music itself is a profound
expression of the soul and the meaning of the individual words which are
sung is often secondary. It is sufficient to consider that a person ignorant
of the Italian language might happily listen to an opera in that language
but would certainly hesitate to listen to a play. Indeed, raising the mind
and heart to God is the very essence and definition of prayer which need
not be synonymous with an exercise of the vocal chords.
A final reason why vocal participation was never encouraged, particularly
after the Tridentine missal was promulgated, was the danger that such
participation would demonstrate similarities to Protestant worship and the
likely conclusion that intelligent spoken participation would produce a
demand for vernacular liturgy. It was also this concern which motivated the
prohibition against translating the Missal mentioned below.
Later history was to prove that these concerns were entirely justified.
Finally, we come to the ultimate argument – that of authority – and indeed
Mr Tofari devotes almost the entire second part of his article to the 1958
Instruction ‘On Sacred Music And Liturgy’ with its unambiguous assertion
that ‘a final method of participation, and the most perfect form, is for the
congregation to make the liturgical responses to the prayers of the priest,
thus affording a sort of dialogue with him, and reciting aloud the parts
which properly belong to them.’ Obviously, this is intended to be the fatal
blow to all opposition!
Pope Alexander VII
It must be noted, however, that this ‘most perfect’ form of participation is
at odds with the Church’s traditional practice. The contemporary ideal of
placing the Roman missal in the hands of the faithful in such a way that
united to the priest, they may pray with the same words and sentiment of
the Church – whether the Mass be silent or dialogue – was impossible of
achievement for the far greater part of the Church’s history as the vast
majority of any congregation would have been unable to read, the printing
press not yet invented, or books too expensive. It is really only towards
the end of the nineteenth century that cheap books became available to
the average person so it is perfectly clear that the liturgy was never
designed with this type of participation in mind. In this connection Mr Tofari
observes ‘this individualist Protestant spirit began to gradually seep in
amongst the Catholic clergy and laity alike. It contributed to Catholics
following private devotions during their attendance at Mass, rather than
communally uniting themselves to the liturgical actions. Meanwhile, the age
of the printing press was on hand to deliver a prolific number of “Mass
prayer books” whose contents were usually devotions far removed from
the sacrificial action taking place at the altar.’ Of course, the true reason for
this state of affairs has nothing whatsoever to do with Protestantism but
the simple fact that it was forbidden by the Church authorities to translate
the missal, e.g., 1661 Pope Alexander VII condemned a missal translated
into French and forbade any further translations under pain of
excommunication. This prohibition was renewed by Pius IX as late as 1857
and only in 1897 was it no longer enforced.
Dismissing all objections against the Dialogue Mass, Mr Tofari generously
asserts that nevertheless, ‘…some Catholics still remain adamant in
following their own desires rather than the Church’s will. However, it must
be assumed that they act in good, but ill-informed faith.’ On the contrary,
however, we are rather too well informed! By 1958, Annibale Bugnini
(whose name is synonymous with the New Mass and [was] the key figure
in the pre- and post-Conciliar changes) had been secretary of the
Commission for Liturgical Reform for already ten years and much progress
had already been achieved, including limited use of the vernacular in
certain rites. Pius XII died only a few weeks later and things were set in
motion for the Council. As the Dialogue Mass was the spearhead of the
Liturgical Movement’s desire for active lay participation, it is not surprising
that it should be praised as the ‘most perfect form’ of assistance in this
docuмent. Nevertheless, this same Instruction of 1958 does not make this
method of participation in any sense obligatory but rather recognises that
‘…all are not equally capable of correctly understanding the rites and
liturgical formulas; nor does everyone possess the same spiritual needs;
nor do the needs remain constant in the same individual. Therefore, these
people may find a more suitable or easier method of participation in the
Mass when they meditate devotedly on the mysteries of Jesus Christ, or
perform other devotional exercises and offer prayers which, although
different in form from those of the sacred rites, are in essential harmony
with them.’
It is therefore obvious that to insist that this one manner of assisting at
Mass is more in conformity with ‘the mind of the Church’ is something of an
exaggeration.
Pope St Pius X
It is necessary to be clear in one’s mind that the Dialogue Mass is a novelty
in the history of the Church. Even those who approve of it and feel that it
is an improvement on what went before must, in all honesty, admit this for
it does nothing for their case to pretend otherwise. It was quite unknown
before the twentieth century. St Pius X did not envisage Dialogue Mass but
rather congregational singing when he advocated ‘active participation’ for,
although the Dialogue Mass simply did not exist in his day, he could easily
have introduced it. This is proved by his radical reform of the Roman
Breviary which clearly demonstrates that he did not hesitate to implement
liturgical change which he considered necessary. His successor Benedict XV
is credited with having done so and of having personally celebrated
Dialogue Mass once in his priesthood which lasted 44 years. It seems that
Pius XI celebrated it twice. This does not indicate that they considered it a
high priority but it was enthusiastically adopted in latter years by bishops
and clergy who were very progressive at the time, especially in France and
Germany.
Also it is not, and has never been, obligatory although, inevitably,
wherever it was introduced there would always be found someone who
would exercise their ‘right’ (!) to make the responses so that over a period
of time in the countries mentioned above where it was encouraged and
introduced early on, it eventually became the exclusive practice. The result
is that in these places the ‘silent’ Mass on public occasions has passed out
of living memory and consequently the average Traditional Catholic there
who understandably has little knowledge of liturgical history believes that
it has been practiced in every era since the early Church. Paradoxically, or
providentially, it was not adopted in English-speaking lands as their
bishops in the 1940s and 50s were generally very conservative and
therefore not particularly interested in the Liturgical Movement and its
ideas. The fact that the former countries are ‘Catholic’ while the latter are
‘Protestant’ has given rise to the misconception that reluctance to embrace
the Dialogue Mass is the result of unconscious Protestant influences but
nothing is further from the truth.
The Dialogue Mass, being less than 90 years old in comparison with the
2000 year old history of Church’s worship, must be seen in the context of
the unprecedented and constant changes in the liturgy which took place in
the twentieth century. Most of these were of very short duration. A striking
case is that of the Breviary. Even before the Council, the Roman Breviary –
the most important book after the Mass – suffered very important and
short-lived changes. In 1911 Pius X drastically altered the immemorial
breviary codified by Pius V in 1567. Only 34 years later Pius XII introduced
a completely new Latin Psalter to replace the one which had been in
constant use since the earliest days of the Church. Although in theory
optional, breviaries were no longer printed with the old Psalter. This was
reversed by John XXIII who made further alterations in 1960 and restored
the old Psalter. Almost everyone then abandoned that of Pius XII. This is
only one example of the numerous liturgical changes which took place
without ceasing throughout the period from the reign of Pius X to that of
John XXIII before the traditional liturgy was finally abandoned. Nothing like
it had ever been known in the entire history of the Church. It is therefore
obvious that liturgical directives do not remain binding for all time! If this is
true of Papal Bulls it is all the more so in the case of an instruction on
Sacred Music which seems to form the ultimate basis of Mr Tofari’s
argument from authority.
Most of these changes, unprecedented and far-reaching as they were,
passed unnoticed by the average layman. However, papal-approved
liturgical change was the daily bread of the priests for half a century before
the Council (being equal in length to the entire priestly life of many of
them) and had become all too familiar. This surely explains why the
post-Conciliar reforms met with little clerical resistance but indeed were
largely received with enthusiasm or equanimity much to the bewilderment
of the Faithful. The survival of the traditional liturgy was due largely to the
efforts of laymen to whom the New Mass and the notion of radical change
to the sacred liturgy was a tremendous shock. They had the very greatest
difficulty in finding priests prepared or interested in celebrating the
Traditional Mass for them since the direction in which things were moving
had been clear for years:
In 1956 Gerald Ellard published The Mass in Transition. He began by
acknowledging that his 1948 book The Mass of the Future was already out
of date, so rapidly had liturgical practice progressed. People were
beginning to grasp the difference between praying at Mass and praying
the Mass itself. Various practices were becoming common. Vernacular
missals were now in the hands of millions of lay people. In a few places the
altars had already been prised loose from walls and priests were
celebrating facing the people albeit it with a tabernacle in the way. The so
called Dialogue Mass was well on the way to being no longer a rarity in the
United States and was prevalent in Germany. (Roman Catholic Worship:
Trent to Today by James White)
Towards the end of his lengthy article, after having wistfully considered the
possibility of an authentic liturgical reform if the pre-Conciliar popes had
been heeded and the ‘intransigency of the pietists’ had not been a
contributing factor to frustrating this, Mr Tofari states:
Many may not prefer the Dialogue Mass and that is their prerogative.
Nonetheless, one must avoid equating the legitimate practice of the
Dialogue Mass with the illegitimate child which is the Novus Ordo Missae.
The illogical post hoc ergo propter hoc must stop in the assertion that the
Dialogue Mass was ‘the beginning of the end’ for the liturgical revolution
imposed in the wake of the Second Vatican Council.
Low Mass
Then finally, with amazing self confidence, he asserts that ‘both claims are
faulty, having liturgical misconceptions or improper context as their basis’.
However, it is perhaps rather Mr Tofari’s claims that are based on liturgical
misconceptions and improper context and dispel his assertion that the
‘silent’ Mass is in any way influenced by pietism. If the faithful were ‘mute
spectators’ before the twentieth century, it was the result of deliberate
policy by the Popes and the highest authorities of the Church for 1000
years and not the result of any ill-will or preference of their own. The mildly
derogatory expression of ‘mute spectators’ in a pontifical docuмent was
surely the indication of a radical change of policy and was understood as
such. This is surely why it is not possible to find pontifical docuмents in
praise of the ‘silent’ Mass for it was simply a fact of life in the Church and
required no praise or justification unlike the new form of participation which
required to be promoted.
Furthermore, these changes were all promoted by the very same people
who established the New Mass and the new liturgy, [and] so when Mr
Tofari poses the question, ‘What kind of liturgical reform would have
occurred in the wake of the Second Vatican Council if the pre-Conciliar
popes had been heeded?’, it is not too difficult to find an answer. What
indeed does Mr Tofari imagine himself? For after Dialogue Mass there is
nothing left to reform except the rite itself and/or render it in the
vernacular. This was, in fact, the direction of liturgical scholarship before
the Council. The most authoritative work on the Mass produced during
these years is Joseph Jungmann’s epic work ‘Missarum Solemnia’,
published in 1949 with several later additions. Much of Mr Tofari’s article
seems to be based on this book with which he appears to be familiar.
Here is what Jungmann has to say about the Tridentine form of Mass:
After fifteen hundred years of unbroken development in the rite of the
Roman Mass, after the rushing and the streaming from every height and
out of every valley, the Missal of Pius V was indeed a powerful dam holding
back the waters or permitting them to flow through only in firm, well-built
canals. At one blow all arbitrary meandering to one side or another was
cut off, all floods prevented, and a safe, regular and useful flow assured.
But the price paid was this, that the beautiful river valley now lay barren
and the forces of further evolution were often channelled into the narrow
bed of a very inadequate devotional life instead of gathering strength for
new forms of liturgical expression… In fact someone has styled this period
of Church history as the epoch of inactivity or of rubrics.
With regard to the vernacular he is much more cautious (after all this is written in 1949!):
The monumental greatness of the Roman Mass lies in its antiquity which
reaches back to the Church of the martyrs, and in its spread which, with its
Latin language, spans so many nations. Nowhere else is it so plain that
the Church is both apostolic and catholic. But this double advantage of the
Roman Mass also involves weaknesses. The Latin tongue is nowadays
become more and more unfamiliar even to cultured people. Will there ever
be any relaxing in this matter in the setting of the Mass? …
The Latin language is only one of the peculiarities of the Roman liturgy
that, due to its venerable age, has to some extent become a problem… In
the present shape of the Roman Mass, forms and practices have been
retained which are no longer comprehensible to the ordinary onlooker.
As the New Mass provides for nothing other than active lay participation, it
is surely not unreasonable to believe that the Dialogue Mass was a
significant step towards the introduction of the new liturgy. Although the
adage post hoc ergo propter hoc is certainly a logical fallacy if applied in
every circuмstance, it does not alter the fact that effect most surely follows
cause and we can now see with hindsight where all these changes were
leading. It is now no longer possible to maintain with objectivity that
liturgical changes such as the Dialogue Mass were completely unrelated to
what was to follow.
We conclude this article at the point where we began. The Dialogue Mass
is nothing more than a liturgical praxis. Although it may not be Modernist, it
is undoubtedly modern and imbued with the spirit of the age which
produced it as Joseph Jungmann in Missarum Solmenia frankly admits,
… from the Dialogue Mass the Faithful gain a living knowledge of the
actual course of the Mass and so they can follow the Low Mass as well as
the Solemn Mass with an entirely new understanding. To have been
deprived of such an understanding much longer would not have been
tolerable even to the masses in this age of advanced education and
enhanced self consciousness. But what is even more important, now that
the Faithful answer the priest and concur in his prayers, sacrifice with him
and communicate with him, they become properly conscious for the first
time of their dignity as Christians. (!)
Even if it is readily conceded that Dialogue Mass is neither Modernist nor
heretical, this is not to say that it is desirable. Many practices of the Church
in previous centuries were abandoned for good reasons and it is most
unwise to revive them now. Even if there was a liturgy in the early Church
which approximated to the Dialogue Mass it is well known that there was
also Mass in the vernacular, Communion under two kinds and in the hand,
Mass sometimes celebrated facing the people and a married priesthood
(even the first Pope was married!). None of these practices are in
themselves against the Faith and were quite legitimate but recent history
has proved what dire consequences have ensued when many of them
were revived after the Second Vatican Council.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Neither is it in any sense desirable to introduce Dialogue Mass in places
where it has never been the established practice before the Council. The
faith of most Catholics was nurtured by the liturgical forms of their youth
and there is no excuse to disturb this now and renew the bitter
experiences of the pre- and post-Conciliar years. This was the praxis
adopted by Archbishop Lefebvre in the Society of St Pius X during the years
when this Society was effectively the sole guardian of the traditional rites
and this is surely the most wise and considerate position to continue to
adopt at the present time. One day the Liturgical Movement with its
twentieth century ideas and assumptions will be judged in the light of
history. To some extent this has already begun. Until then, may all
reforming zeal according to its questionable principles, such as is
expressed by Mr. Tofari’s article, cease! As St. Paul says, ‘all things are
lawful to me; but all things are not expedient’ (I Cor.VI.12).
Let us, therefore, treasure the traditional form of ‘silent’ Low Mass as one
of our greatest treasures. This is the form of Mass developed at a high
point of Catholic culture and devotion in an era which we love to call the
‘Age of Faith’. This is the form of Mass which nurtured the spiritual life of the
saints who were the greatest of the true reformers of the Church, Sts.
Francis, Dominic, Bernard, Ignatius, Catherine of Sienna, Teresa of Avila,
etc. None of them were dissatisfied with the ‘silent’ Mass, as known by
them and us, but rather they loved it and there is no evidence that they
felt that they suffered any deprivation from their lack of ‘active
participation’ in the worship of Christ’s Mystical Body. Let us also love and
be thankful for this grace and ‘be zealous for the better gifts’ (I Cor. XII.31).
It is a precursor of the Novus Ordo, but remember who controls the Society: the French, and, to some extent, the Germans, and they have a virtual obsession with both the dialogue Mass and this notion of "full and active participation."
This is very disturbing but Fr Perez may well be right. Some may well believe that a Dialog Mass is best done entirely in the vernacular, so, Novus Ordo ... here we come! In this situation we are back to the 1965-68 pre NOM period. First, the Canon was retained in Latin, and then, even that went vernacular.
Once the door is open for women to say the mass out loud, it does not matter if it's in Latin or English, they will take over the mass, and the men will shut up. The men will eventually leave, if they can find an alternative.
I can't fathom what kind of men would want to go for this noise (badly pronounced, loud, in your face speech in Latin), other than those that are there because their wife tells them they must go. That is why the Dialogue mass never existed in the history of the Church.
People have an erroneuos manner of imposing their modern mindset to read past history. Here's a few wrenches in the works of those who are in favor of the Dialogue mass:
-the Dialogue mass is a novelty of the 20th century
- Women were not allowed to sing in choirs till the 20th century
- Sung Mass (Missa Cantata) only appeared in the 18th century and bilingual missals for laity were forbidden by the Church till 1897
- the Solemn High Mass, the accepted original and authentic form of the Roman liturgy, could not be celebrated every day except in places like great cathedrals and monastic establishments.(obviously because the laity did not sing)
-In other words the universal and exclusive practice of the laity in the Western Church for more than 1000 years was silent attendance.
and linked in the above article is an article entitled "The 1962 Missal Crisis", form that article I excerpt this related part:
"1958 saw the resuscitation of the “dialogue Mass” with Pius XII’s “Instruction on Sacred Music”, issued on September 3rd, just one month before his death. One is entitled to imagine that Pius XII was little aware of what was going on at that time as he had been gravely ill for some time.
Though this “dialogue Mass”, in which the congregation makes the responses formerly reserved to the altar boys, and even reciting some parts of the Mass formerly reserved to the priest (!), had been allowed on at least one occasion that we know of, and under duress, by Pope Benedict XV in 1922, it nonetheless represented a significant violation of the traditional practice of the Church and theology of the Mass which holds that the right to make the Mass responses and serve at the altar is technically one enjoyed by clerics alone. Hence altar boys are to wear cassocks and surplices which are clerical dress, to indicate that although lay males could serve Mass when required to do so, this was by way of exception and they are substituting by indult for clerics when such could not be had. One of the obvious implications of allowing all of the faithful, females included, to make those responses traditionally reserved to men in Orders, is that females could, in fact, receive Orders as well, even the Priesthood!
Following the death of Pius XII and the election of John XXIII in 1958, the changes continued unabated. "
Topic: A Dialogue Mass? (Read 5055 times)