Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Jehanne on November 07, 2013, 08:34:40 AM
-
I don't care for them, but they have, evidently, been around for awhile:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Mass
I attended my very first CMRI Mass here last week, very beautiful. Just four of us, the priest, a server, me, and a stranger. The server was definitively "on his game"; knew all of his responses by memory. The Mass was very beautiful, the most rememberable moment (so far) in my entire life. I have never felt so close to the Risen Christ.
Your thoughts on the Dialogue Mass? Is such common in traditional Catholic circles?
-
I don't care for them, but they have, evidently, been around for awhile:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Mass
I attended my very first CMRI Mass here last week, very beautiful. Just four of us, the priest, a server, me, and a stranger. The server was definitively "on his game"; knew all of his responses by memory. The Mass was very beautiful, the most rememberable moment (so far) in my entire life. I have never felt so close to the Risen Christ.
Your thoughts on the Dialogue Mass? Is such common in traditional Catholic circles?
Is "Dialogue Mass" just another name for the novus ordo which is a dialogue "mass"? I don't think it features in a traditional Latin mass, but the whole notion of having the laity pronounce words of the mass is flawed, it makes them think that there is not much difference between them and a priest, which is why the whole new mass invented by a freemason was a dialogue mass, to remove respect for the priesthood and imply that women can be priests, since they participate in dialogue and say the mass just as the priest does. There is no respect for priests anymore and one of the reasons for this is the new mass where people participate. Their egos have become bloated and they see the restriction that only men can be priests as being pointless. The only force that is stopping women priests and other liberal protestant elements from being adopted is tradition, and the people not getting tradition anywhere, and only having the new dialogue mass have no reason to be traditional other than what little remains of the past that may have influenced them.
Its a complicated game of psychological warfare carried out by freemasons to utterly destroy the Catholic church in my opinion. The laity have been brainwashed, that's the one and only reason to think the changes in the church, more realistically called "Apostasy" are for the better. They haven't a clue what they talk about and are not even remotely Catholic, regardless of what nonsense they speak about being Catholic, they are NOT.
-
I don't care for them, but they have, evidently, been around for awhile:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Mass
I attended my very first CMRI Mass here last week, very beautiful. Just four of us, the priest, a server, me, and a stranger. The server was definitively "on his game"; knew all of his responses by memory. The Mass was very beautiful, the most rememberable moment (so far) in my entire life. I have never felt so close to the Risen Christ.
Your thoughts on the Dialogue Mass? Is such common in traditional Catholic circles?
Doesn't sound like a dialogue mass. Just two people attending a mass? Was it a low mass with no singing? If so, then I'm envisioning "a dialogue" between the priest and the other person attending the mass, since you are new to it all. Now, the altar server always responds in all masses, so that would not be anything new. Therefore, you attended a mass where one person in the pews was responding with the altar server. Sorry, but I can't picture "the most rememberable moment (so far) in my entire life".
Any High Mass with a choir would be infinitely more memorable.
-
I don't care for them, but they have, evidently, been around for awhile:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Mass
I attended my very first CMRI Mass here last week, very beautiful. Just four of us, the priest, a server, me, and a stranger. The server was definitively "on his game"; knew all of his responses by memory. The Mass was very beautiful, the most rememberable moment (so far) in my entire life. I have never felt so close to the Risen Christ.
Your thoughts on the Dialogue Mass? Is such common in traditional Catholic circles?
Doesn't sound like a dialogue mass. Just two people attending a mass? Was it a low mass with no singing? If so, then I'm envisioning "a dialogue" between the priest and the other person attending the mass, since you are new to it all. Now, the altar server always responds in all masses, so that would not be anything new. Therefore, you attended a mass where one person in the pews was responding with the altar server. Sorry, but I can't picture "the most rememberable moment (so far) in my entire life".
Any High Mass with a choir would be infinitely more memorable.
I and the other guy were completely silent; we said absolutely nothing. Still, it was such a blessing to see the CMRI priest and the altar server conduct the Mass. I have not been to many true traditional Masses, only poorly conducted Indult Masses. I have never been to a traditional Catholic High Mass, only several SSPX Low Masses, which were very well done. However, the hotel room where those Masses took place was cramped and hot. They were all memorable experiences, but as we sat near the back of the hotel room, we could hear almost nothing.
-
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-Agenda
Here'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.
(http://credidimus.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/vaticanii.jpg?w=164&h=89)
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
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Miguel_Angel_Crucifixion_La_Redonda_Logrono_Spain.jpg)
‘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)
(http://fatherdoyle.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/fr-doyle-in-pulpit_0002.jpg?w=136&h=194)
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!
(http://www.uhrenaktuell.de/castello_buonconsiglio/Gianbattista%20Gaulli%20detto%20il%20Baciccio,%20Papa%20Alessandro%20VII~1.jpg)
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.
(http://www.csvfblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Pope-St-Pius-X.jpg)
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.
(http://credidimus.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/lowmass.jpg?w=166&h=111)
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.
(https://mundabor.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/archbishop-marcel-lefebvre2.jpg?w=146&h=207)
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. "
-
I don't care for them, but they have, evidently, been around for awhile:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Mass
I attended my very first CMRI Mass here last week, very beautiful. Just four of us, the priest, a server, me, and a stranger. The server was definitively "on his game"; knew all of his responses by memory. The Mass was very beautiful, the most rememberable moment (so far) in my entire life. I have never felt so close to the Risen Christ.
Your thoughts on the Dialogue Mass? Is such common in traditional Catholic circles?
Doesn't sound like a dialogue mass. Just two people attending a mass? Was it a low mass with no singing? If so, then I'm envisioning "a dialogue" between the priest and the other person attending the mass, since you are new to it all. Now, the altar server always responds in all masses, so that would not be anything new. Therefore, you attended a mass where one person in the pews was responding with the altar server. Sorry, but I can't picture "the most rememberable moment (so far) in my entire life".
Any High Mass with a choir would be infinitely more memorable.
I and the other guy were completely silent; we said absolutely nothing. Still, it was such a blessing to see the CMRI priest and the altar server conduct the Mass. I have not been to many true traditional Masses, only poorly conducted Indult Masses. I have never been to a traditional Catholic High Mass, only several SSPX Low Masses, which were very well done. However, the hotel room where those Masses took place was cramped and hot. They were all memorable experiences, but as we sat near the back of the hotel room, we could hear almost nothing.
OK, so you were not attending a Dialogue mass then, it was just a low mass where you were close enough to hear the responses of the altar server. Just sit in the front pews and you'll hear it the same way all the time. That's what I did from the first day I attended the Latin Mass as an adult.
-
OK, so you were not attending a Dialogue mass then, it was just a low mass where you were close enough to hear the responses of the altar server. Just sit in the front pews and you'll hear it the same way all the time. That's what I did from the first day I attended the Latin Mass as an adult.
The CMRI Mass which I attended was definitively not a Dialogue Mass; sorry for any confusion about that. I have attended Indult Masses, all High Masses, which are Dialogue Masses, and I can't stand them. No one is able to say the responses in unison; just a jumbled mess.
-
OK, so you were not attending a Dialogue mass then, it was just a low mass where you were close enough to hear the responses of the altar server. Just sit in the front pews and you'll hear it the same way all the time. That's what I did from the first day I attended the Latin Mass as an adult.
The CMRI Mass which I attended was definitively not a Dialogue Mass; sorry for any confusion about that. I have attended Indult Masses, all High Masses, which are Dialogue Masses, and I can't stand them. No one is able to say the responses in unison; just a jumbled mess.
I've found that many Indult masses were not supposed to be dialogue masses, just that the people who were used to the Novus Ordo didn't know any better. in the earlier days, if someone was saying the responses, you knew they were from the Indult.
-
Why are the SSPX weekday school Masses all dialogue?[ When did this start?size=3][/size]
-
:facepalm:
The two dialogue Masses I've attended were, to me, a huge distraction. Regardless of the solemnity with which offered, the sound of the people butchering the Latin responses was most unpleasant. At one of these, the loudest respondent was a shrill female who was obviously unfamiliar with Latin vowels. She even prayed along with some of the priest's words. It was hardly conducive to prayer, but I suppose God's purpose was fulfilled nonetheless in giving us something to offer up!
-
A long time ago, I used to own a Father Stedman Sunday Missal.
According to the Fr. Stedman Sunday Missal, the first Dialogue Mass first was introduced by Pope Pius XI and when he celebrated such a thing in St. Peter's Basilica.
The Holy Father wanted to encourage vocal participation from the Catholic faithful during the celebration of the Eucharistic Liturgy.
However Dialogue Mass was allowed in certain dioceses but in others it wasn't. When I attended the Sunday Liturgy at the CMRI chapel in Santa Clarita, I remembered the faithful enunciating the responses with the altar boys. This was a sedevacantist chapel.
From reading Fr. Stedman's Sunday Missal, I believe the Dialogue Mass predates the papacy of Pius XII and Vatican II altogether. Even Archbishop Lefebvre made mention of it before in refuting Archbishop Annibale Bugnini.
Bugnini falser claimed the faithful were silent spectators at Mass and Archbishop Lefebvre retorted back saying that the Church had allowed the faithful to respond in Latin which is why he saw no reason why the Liturgy ought to be changed.
-
.
I've heard arguments for both sides, but in my experience, it is
very distracting to hear people try to imitate being an altar boy.
They don't pronounce the Latin properly, they're too loud, and
they are not on time with others. It sounds TERRIBLE. The
entire Mass should not sound terrible all the time. The prayers
of the Mass are complex, and I think the people ought to stick
with prayers AFTER Mass, such as for Benediction.
Perhaps there could be a few spots in the Mass where the
people say something, but they should be very few. The
problem with that is people can't control themselves. Most of
the time it should be quiet so that everyone can hear the priest
and the altar boys. Also when the choir sings, the congregation
should not sing along, unless it is the recessional hymn(s) and
they all know their parts.
When the Leonine Prayers After Low Mass were introduced in
the latter years of the 19th century, it was the introduction of
the people having a voice in the setting of the Mass, but that
again is AFTER the Mass is over.
There are a lot of things to do in church besides hear Mass.
Litanies of the Saints and Loretto, and the Sacred Heart, and
St. Joseph, and others; the Rosary; the Benedicite; the
Anima Christi; various prayers of consecreation, like St.
Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort's prayers, the Angelus or
in Paschal time, the Regina Coeli, Stations of the Cross, etc.
Too many want to escape and run away ASAP after Mass,
and maybe that's why they want to have 'dialogue' Mass,
so they don't have to stick around for the litanies and stuff.
.
-
A long time ago, I used to own a Father Stedman Sunday Missal.
According to the Fr. Stedman Sunday Missal, the first Dialogue Mass first was introduced by Pope Pius XI and when he celebrated such a thing in St. Peter's Basilica.
The Holy Father wanted to encourage vocal participation from the Catholic faithful during the celebration of the Eucharistic Liturgy.
However Dialogue Mass was allowed in certain dioceses but in others it wasn't. When I attended the Sunday Liturgy at the CMRI chapel in Santa Clarita, I remembered the faithful enunciating the responses with the altar boys. This was a sedevacantist chapel.
From reading Fr. Stedman's Sunday Missal, I believe the Dialogue Mass predates the papacy of Pius XII and Vatican II altogether. Even Archbishop Lefebvre made mention of it before in refuting Archbishop Annibale Bugnini.
Bugnini falser claimed the faithful were silent spectators at Mass and Archbishop Lefebvre retorted back saying that the Church had allowed the faithful to respond in Latin which is why he saw no reason why the Liturgy ought to be changed.
Did you read any of this on page one of this thread. It answers all your observations:
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-Agenda
Here'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.
(http://credidimus.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/vaticanii.jpg?w=164&h=89)
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
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Miguel_Angel_Crucifixion_La_Redonda_Logrono_Spain.jpg)
‘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)
(http://fatherdoyle.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/fr-doyle-in-pulpit_0002.jpg?w=136&h=194)
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!
(http://www.uhrenaktuell.de/castello_buonconsiglio/Gianbattista%20Gaulli%20detto%20il%20Baciccio,%20Papa%20Alessandro%20VII~1.jpg)
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.
(http://www.csvfblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Pope-St-Pius-X.jpg)
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.
(http://credidimus.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/lowmass.jpg?w=166&h=111)
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.
(https://mundabor.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/archbishop-marcel-lefebvre2.jpg?w=146&h=207)
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. "
-
.
These are good things to keep in mind:
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're 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.
I have no qualms with what you wrote there, bowler.
I only have a few comments.
Speaking of my own situation, and the chapels where we have Mass
in my area (and elsewhere in my experience) I can say this:
If the laity could not sing at our Masses we would have no singing.
If the organ could only be played by a cleric we would have no organ.
If it were not for the women in our choirs we would have no choirs.
I would, myself, be singing all the Mass propers, hymns and chants
by my lonesome (and if I had to become a cleric to do so then
maybe that would be worth thinking about!!!) because men are
real hard to find for singing. They didn't used to be, in the 1930's
through '50s, though. Interesting, ain't it?!
As for the dialogue Mass, our priest forbids it, and I appreciate
that, because at a sedevacantist chapel nearby, the women have
taken over, and all you hear is their voices for the responses, and
when men are present, they are generally not audible.
This is in accord with what you wrote, above. It goes also into the
so-called choir there too (the sedes), where everything is geared
toward the female voice. There is only concern for the MELODY,
sung by 'sopranos' (their voices are not soprano voices but
imitations thereof), with an occasional help from a few altos
(usually the altos are singing the soprano part as well, and they
can't reach a lot of the higher notes). I DO NOT FAULT the singers,
it is just a matter of fact. The problem is there are too few
young women interested in learning to sing God's music,
and 95% of the voices are those of older women. They have
what they have and they give it to God, which is fine, but it's not
what a choir could be.
When men sing they usually take the soprano melody an octave
down, to parallel there, which sounds like Purgatory revisited.
Only on RARE occasions is there any Bass singing the Bass part,
and practically never any Tenor, because the choir conductor (a
woman) won't allow Tenor as a matter of principle.
If what your words quoted above are on target, then what we
have in progress, wherever the dialogue Mass is allowed, is a
generation of trad Catholics who are acclimated to the notion of
female clergy, even if they say they are not, and it's because of
militant feminism in the secular world and the dialogue Mass in
many chapels.
******************
There is more to this.
When men get older, their voices mature and they do not lose the
power and virility of youthful sound, but rather it becomes better.
Gregorian chant sung by men of experience in their 50's and older
has superior quality potential.
The opposite is true of women. Young girls and women up to
about 35 make good sopranos, and women from about 25 to 60
make good altos. However, with proper training from their early
years, sopranos can go past 50, and a good example of that is
Marilyn Horne, who is now 79. Her voice isn't what it used to be,
but she has certainly endured her latter years with a surprising
continuity of quality.
Curiously, the most ideal sound for the soprano range is achieved
with the singing of BOY SOPRANOS. And long ago, there were
the castrati, who were gifted boys who dedicated their lives to
the art of the "Countertenor" range, or mezzo-Soprano, effectively,
but that practice was abandoned long ago. There has been a
recent resurgence of Countertenors in recent years, but how they
achieve that is another question.
.
-
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).
Thank you, bowler, for bringing back the thread on the Dialogue Mass in which you quote Rev. E. Black, SSPX.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Dialogue-Mass-in-Vernacular-Part-of-the-SSPX-Agenda
-
A long time ago, I used to own a Father Stedman Sunday Missal.
According to the Fr. Stedman Sunday Missal, the first Dialogue Mass first was introduced by Pope Pius XI and when he celebrated such a thing in St. Peter's Basilica.
It's misleading to say that Pius XI "introduced the dialogue Mass" by having
it in St. Peter's Basilica. There was only one instance of that. How could
one time be an "introduction?" It is the typically Liberal way, to take the
exception to the rule and make it the new rule. They're looking for an
excuse to say that it's now different because of that one time.
This also goes to show how important consistency in doctrine is. And then
you have all the crazy stuff Francis is doing -- all those crazy things are
going to be touted by Liberals as being the new norm for what is taught by
the Church!
The Holy Father wanted to encourage vocal participation from the Catholic faithful during the celebration of the Eucharistic Liturgy.
However Dialogue Mass was allowed in certain dioceses but in others it wasn't. When I attended the Sunday Liturgy at the CMRI chapel in Santa Clarita, I remembered the faithful enunciating the responses with the altar boys. This was a sedevacantist chapel.
From reading Fr. Stedman's Sunday Missal, I believe the Dialogue Mass predates the papacy of Pius XII and Vatican II altogether. Even Archbishop Lefebvre made mention of it before in refuting Archbishop Annibale Bugnini.
Bugnini falser claimed the faithful were silent spectators at Mass and Archbishop Lefebvre retorted back saying that the Church had allowed the faithful to respond in Latin which is why he saw no reason why the Liturgy ought to be changed.
"When I attended the Sunday Liturgy at the CMRI chapel in Santa Clarita, I remembered the faithful enunciating the responses with the altar boys. This was a sedevacantist chapel."
Fr. Dominic Radecki, CMRI (priest stationed at Queen of Angels
Catholic Church in Newhall or 'Santa Clarita'*) does encourage the
women to respond with the altar boys. He says this is what Pius
XII taught and since he was a valid Pope, he could do no wrong,
basically.
We ought to know better than that.
We have the experience of what has become of the Church in the
past 60 years, and it's not only due to what happened after Vat.II.
Vat.II was not the beginning of trouble, but a continuation of it.
The trouble was there, even in the days of Pius X and Pius IX and
Leo XIII. But it took until Pius XI for the Liberals to get one day
of an exception pushed through, and then with Pius XII they got
a whole parade of exceptions pushed through, and then with John
XXIII they got new Modernist players trucked in by the dozen,
and then with Paul VI they got the Pope himself to be a pushover
-- or, should we say, an "active participant" in the Revolution?
Some of the people who go to Radecki's Mass also go to the Masses
of Msgr. Perez, especially at St. Patrick's Mission in Northridge, and
some of them have stood near the front rows and have voiced
responses there, like they do at Newhall with Fr. Radecki. At the
Garden Grove Our Lady Help of Christians, the influence there is
more spillover from the various 'Indultery' venues in town, including
the California Mission San Fernando (Mission Hills, CA) and other
venues south into Orange County (where Garden Grove is located).
Msgr. has had to make mention of this from the pulpit, that we do
not respond with the acolytes, that we do not have a 'dialogue
Mass' because that is not traditional.
The dialogue Mass is not traditional.
You might think you're assisting at a "traditional Latin Mass" but
if it's a dialogue Mass, it's a lie, because it's not traditional.
This seems to be one of the major differences between these two
venues, because it applies to every Mass. Fr. Radecki refuses to
recognize his own practice of Liberalism while he claims to be a
traditional priest, but to be fair, it goes higher than him, because
he wouldn't be doing this if Bishop Pivarunas were to prohibit it.
It would take a big act of humility for them to abjure their error,
because they have been practicing this error for many years. And
just as XSPXSGBF is not about to abjure his longstanding errors, so
to +Pivarunas is not about to abjure his longstanding errors. They
have a lot more in common than it might seem at first, for both of
them practice Liberalism in these matters.
*The area called Newhall, CA, has had that name for about 100
years, and it was only about 20 years ago that the city of
Santa Clarita was incorporated. It includes Newhall, Stevenson
Ranch, Valencia, Saugus, parts of Canyon Country and Placerita
Canyon. Santa Clarita is a city, but Newhall is a region or a
district within the city, like these other regions are.
.
.
-
.
So, you see, the "dialogue Mass" is not traditional.
.
-
I bought a missal today from before Vatican 2 times. It mentions "community mass / dialogue mass" as being superior to the old mass. The arguments it uses to suggest that it is superior are identical to those that the novus ordo supporters use today. It recounts stories of increased success in getting more people to go to mass with the new dialogue mass - how ridiculous their claims look today when the church is dying. The reasons are obvious to us, but what was not obvious is that the dialogue mass was a stepping stone to the novus ordo, and it was intended as such. It shows that the seeds of the novus ordo mass were in place long before Vatican 2.
-
A long time ago, I used to own a Father Stedman Sunday Missal.
According to the Fr. Stedman Sunday Missal, the first Dialogue Mass first was introduced by Pope Pius XI and when he celebrated such a thing in St. Peter's Basilica.
It's misleading to say that Pius XI "introduced the dialogue Mass" by having
it in St. Peter's Basilica. There was only one instance of that. How could
one time be an "introduction?" It is the typically Liberal way, to take the
exception to the rule and make it the new rule. They're looking for an
excuse to say that it's now different because of that one time.
This also goes to show how important consistency in doctrine is. And then
you have all the crazy stuff Francis is doing -- all those crazy things are
going to be touted by Liberals as being the new norm for what is taught by
the Church!
The Holy Father wanted to encourage vocal participation from the Catholic faithful during the celebration of the Eucharistic Liturgy.
However Dialogue Mass was allowed in certain dioceses but in others it wasn't. When I attended the Sunday Liturgy at the CMRI chapel in Santa Clarita, I remembered the faithful enunciating the responses with the altar boys. This was a sedevacantist chapel.
From reading Fr. Stedman's Sunday Missal, I believe the Dialogue Mass predates the papacy of Pius XII and Vatican II altogether. Even Archbishop Lefebvre made mention of it before in refuting Archbishop Annibale Bugnini.
Bugnini falser claimed the faithful were silent spectators at Mass and Archbishop Lefebvre retorted back saying that the Church had allowed the faithful to respond in Latin which is why he saw no reason why the Liturgy ought to be changed.
"When I attended the Sunday Liturgy at the CMRI chapel in Santa Clarita, I remembered the faithful enunciating the responses with the altar boys. This was a sedevacantist chapel."
Fr. Dominic Radecki, CMRI (priest stationed at Queen of Angels
Catholic Church in Newhall or 'Santa Clarita'*) does encourage the
women to respond with the altar boys. He says this is what Pius
XII taught and since he was a valid Pope, he could do no wrong,
basically.
We ought to know better than that.
We have the experience of what has become of the Church in the
past 60 years, and it's not only due to what happened after Vat.II.
Vat.II was not the beginning of trouble, but a continuation of it.
The trouble was there, even in the days of Pius X and Pius IX and
Leo XIII. But it took until Pius XI for the Liberals to get one day
of an exception pushed through, and then with Pius XII they got
a whole parade of exceptions pushed through, and then with John
XXIII they got new Modernist players trucked in by the dozen,
and then with Paul VI they got the Pope himself to be a pushover
-- or, should we say, an "active participant" in the Revolution?
Some of the people who go to Radecki's Mass also go to the Masses
of Msgr. Perez, especially at St. Patrick's Mission in Northridge, and
some of them have stood near the front rows and have voiced
responses there, like they do at Newhall with Fr. Radecki. At the
Garden Grove Our Lady Help of Christians, the influence there is
more spillover from the various 'Indultery' venues in town, including
the California Mission San Fernando (Mission Hills, CA) and other
venues south into Orange County (where Garden Grove is located).
Msgr. has had to make mention of this from the pulpit, that we do
not respond with the acolytes, that we do not have a 'dialogue
Mass' because that is not traditional.
The dialogue Mass is not traditional.
You might think you're assisting at a "traditional Latin Mass" but
if it's a dialogue Mass, it's a lie, because it's not traditional.
This seems to be one of the major differences between these two
venues, because it applies to every Mass. Fr. Radecki refuses to
recognize his own practice of Liberalism while he claims to be a
traditional priest, but to be fair, it goes higher than him, because
he wouldn't be doing this if Bishop Pivarunas were to prohibit it.
It would take a big act of humility for them to abjure their error,
because they have been practicing this error for many years. And
just as XSPXSGBF is not about to abjure his longstanding errors, so
to +Pivarunas is not about to abjure his longstanding errors. They
have a lot more in common than it might seem at first, for both of
them practice Liberalism in these matters.
*The area called Newhall, CA, has had that name for about 100
years, and it was only about 20 years ago that the city of
Santa Clarita was incorporated. It includes Newhall, Stevenson
Ranch, Valencia, Saugus, parts of Canyon Country and Placerita
Canyon. Santa Clarita is a city, but Newhall is a region or a
district within the city, like these other regions are.
.
.
Neil, the Pope is Tradition! (Pius IX)
Popes Pius XI and Pius XII both authorized the use of the dialogue Mass. It is true liberalism to reject the Pope's laws and think you know better.
A Catholic loves authority and wants to submit his will to it. A Catholic loves the Pope, wants to learn from the Pope, and would never put his judgment above the Pope.
The liberal says: "No, I know better! I am the judge of Tradition! If a Pope dares to use his authority in such a way that I think is liberal, then my judgment is greater than the Pope! It's always about me, I am the judge of the Pope's laws."
-
I bought a missal today from before Vatican 2 times. It mentions "community mass / dialogue mass" as being superior to the old mass. The arguments it uses to suggest that it is superior are identical to those that the novus ordo supporters use today. It recounts stories of increased success in getting more people to go to mass with the new dialogue mass - how ridiculous their claims look today when the church is dying.
I have seen three pre-Vat.II missals that said the same thing as yours,
basically, soulguard. Just because things are printed in the missal
doesn't make them the truth, unfortunately, when they were printed
in this troublesome time. Which went into third gear during the reign
of Pius XII. It went into OVERDRIVE under John XXIII, and stayed there.
The princes of the Church were using the liberalism on the rise
leading up to Vat.II to promote such errors, especially under the
ailing Pius XII. As you say here, and as Our Lord Himself says,
"By their fruits you shall know them."
The reasons are obvious to us, but what was not obvious is that the dialogue mass was a stepping stone to the novus ordo, and it was intended as such. It shows that the seeds of the novus ordo mass were in place long before Vatican 2.
Those who laid the plans for the revolution knew exactly what they
were doing and why. And the same goes on even today.
Those who are totally on board with such liberalisms as the dialogue
Mass are contributing even today to the same revolutionary spirit,
even while they presume to be on the good side, fighting against that
liberalizing revolutionary spirit.
For example, here's one right here:
Neil, the Pope is Tradition! (Pius IX)
Therefore, when the Pope says or does something unprecedented,
that becomes the new "tradition," correct?
WRONG.
The Church has never taught this and never will. In fact, you can
be sure that whatever it is teaching such a thing is due to the
influence of the DEVIL not the Holy Ghost.
Traditionally, the new Pope took a coronation oath that said just
this, that he vows to protect and defend the Sacred Traditions of
the Church. But they stopped using that oath, of course, and
guess why? Oh, right, I'm talking to Ambrose who thinks that
proves that it's no longer the Church. Sorry, I forgot.
Popes Pius XI and Pius XII both authorized the use of the dialogue Mass. It is true liberalism to reject the Pope's laws and think you know better.
That's a lie. If Pius XI "authorized its use" then why was it only
done one time while he was pope? Not enough Freemasons yet?
A Catholic loves authority and wants to submit his will to it. A Catholic loves the Pope, wants to learn from the Pope, and would never put his judgment above the Pope.
A true Catholic loves the Faith and Tradition more than he loves
authority especially when the authority is hell-bent on destroying
it. This is why there's so much trouble in the SSPX these days,
because too many who ought to know better have not yet learned
the lesson of the Vat.II debacle, when it was the masterstroke of
satan to destroy Tradition, under the color of authority.
The liberal says: "No, I know better! I am the judge of Tradition! If a Pope dares to use his authority in such a way that I think is liberal, then my judgment is greater than the Pope! It's always about me, I am the judge of the Pope's laws."
For Ambrose, the answer is,
THEREFORE, the pope is not the pope
and the bishops are not the bishops
and the priests are not the priests.
And to top it off, if you don't agree
with me, then YOU are the LIBERAL!
.
-
Ambrose tells us that we have to believe whatever the Pope says and follow him no matter what he does, and then when he doesn't like what the Pope says or does he declares they are anti-popes instead of believing whatever the Pope says and following them.
-
.
When we lost Pope Pius XII we lost a treasure.
(http://www.cathnewsusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/pope-pius-xii.jpg)
(http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1407/1410467225_b12325a197_z.jpg)
(http://totallyhistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Pope-Pius-XII-in-Regalia.jpg)
(http://www.splendorofthechurch.com.ph/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/p12.jpg)
Has the world forgotten what it's like to have a holy pope?
.
-
Neil,
That is the best post you have ever penned. I would give you a 100 likes if I could. Such magnificent pictures of our late great Holy Father.
-
Ambrose tells us that we have to believe whatever the Pope says and follow him no matter what he does, and then when he doesn't like what the Pope says or does he declares they are anti-popes instead of believing whatever the Pope says and following them.
Matto,
Do you enjoy twisting my words, or are you just ignorant.
-
Neil,
That is the best post you have ever penned. I would give you a 100 likes if I could. Such magnificent pictures of our late great Holy Father.
Thank you, Ambrose.
My mother had a very keen Catholic sense, and she loved Pope
Pius XII. I was only 3 when he died but even today I can recall
her sadness, for boys are very aware of their mother's
unhappiness. I recall she cried a lot in those days, and I wanted
to do something to help her, but I was only 3 years old. I think
that even young boys can console their mothers, though.
And then came the election of John XXIII. I shouldn't say much
about that on this thread. Suffice it to say: that election evoked
a change in my mother's sadness, for it went from grief to a
rather abiding dread and somber foreboding. If she had been
of lesser mettle, she would have become clinically depressed,
but she picked up her cross and followed Our Lord. And Our
Blessed Mother poured onto her head blessings I dare not try to
describe, to give her strength. She was a great example of holy
perseverance. I don't have much trouble with contemplation of
Our Lady's penance in the Stations of the Cross, thanks to this
experience early in life.
.
-
Neil,
That is the best post you have ever penned. I would give you a 100 likes if I could. Such magnificent pictures of our late great Holy Father.
Thank you, Ambrose.
My mother had a very keen Catholic sense, and she loved Pope
Pius XII. I was only 3 when he died but even today I can recall
her sadness, for boys are very aware of their mother's
unhappiness. I recall she cried a lot in those days, and I wanted
to do something to help her, but I was only 3 years old. I think
that even young boys can console their mothers, though.
And then came the election of John XXIII. I shouldn't say much
about that on this thread. Suffice it to say: that election evoked
a change in my mother's sadness, for it went from grief to a
rather abiding dread and somber foreboding. If she had been
of lesser mettle, she would have become clinically depressed,
but she picked up her cross and followed Our Lord. And Our
Blessed Mother poured onto her head blessings I dare not try to
describe, to give her strength. She was a great example of holy
perseverance. I don't have much trouble with contemplation of
Our Lady's penance in the Stations of the Cross, thanks to this
experience early in life.
.
Neil,
Your mother's love for our beloved deceased Holy Father is very moving and is a great tribute to her. Catholics used to bond with the Pope, and that connection led to a true bond of love as a Father to his child.
So many of that time took Pius XII for granted, thinking it would just continue the same after his death. Little did anyone see the nightmare that was coming. If only Pius XII were here to teach us, guide us, and lead us everything would be alright again.
But, that is just a dream and our reality is this nightmare. Our only consolation is that God is in control.
Pope Pius XII, pray for us!
-
None of the pre-Vatican II Popes mandated the dialogue Mass, they only permitted it, perhaps in the same vein in which they permitted and tolerated NFP. It's not "the ideal," but is still within "the bounds."
-
Neil,
Your mother's love for our beloved deceased Holy Father is very moving and is a great tribute to her. Catholics used to bond with the Pope, and that connection led to a true bond of love as a Father to his child.
So many of that time took Pius XII for granted, thinking it would just continue the same after his death. Little did anyone see the nightmare that was coming. If only Pius XII were here to teach us, guide us, and lead us everything would be alright again.
But, that is just a dream and our reality is this nightmare. Our only consolation is that God is in control.
Pope Pius XII, pray for us!
Thanks again, Ambrose.
Pope Leo XIII had a vision and when he pulled himself together, he sat
down and wrote the famous Leonine Prayer to St. Michael Archangel.
There is a long form of that, which isn't used much. What we have after
Low Mass is the abbreviated form. But even there it asks St. Michael to
"defend us in the day of battle." That day is now. As you say, we are
living a nightmare in today's reality. The "wickedness and snares of the
devil" are everywhere: at work, at play, in the grocery store, in your
child's classroom, on the playground, in our government, in the
courtrooms, on billboards overlooking the highways of America, and
especially on TV and the radio and in movies.
Now we're even getting it from the Chair of Peter, dressed up to look
like it's respectable to be embarrassed of the Word of God.
In the long form it says that the iniquity of the devil will reach into the
very highest offices of the Church, and lay its foul hands onto Her
most sacred treasures.
At least in some degree, the Dialogue Mass does that -- it lays hands
onto the treasures of the Church where they do not belong. It is not a
part of the Roman Rite for the people to respond as if they are clerics
or acolytes. It's just not right. And it should be RARE, if ever.
.
-
Ambrose tells us that we have to believe whatever the Pope says and follow him no matter what he does, and then when he doesn't like what the Pope says or does he declares they are anti-popes instead of believing whatever the Pope says and following them.
Matto,
Do you enjoy twisting my words, or are you just ignorant.
No, he is a simple person that reads things as they are. It is called reality.
-
Ambrose tells us that we have to believe whatever the Pope says and follow him no matter what he does, and then when he doesn't like what the Pope says or does he declares they are anti-popes instead of believing whatever the Pope says and following them.
Matto,
Do you enjoy twisting my words, or are you just ignorant.
No, he is a simple person that reads things as they are. It is called reality.
The reality is also that simple people can get things wrong. Simple and truly humble people submit themselves to approved teachers for proper explanations and proper understanding.
-
Matto,
Do you enjoy twisting my words, or are you just ignorant.
I did not lie at all. Twisting your words would be lying. I stated your position accurately as I believed it to be based on reading your posts for a long time in many different threads.
-
Matto,
Do you enjoy twisting my words, or are you just ignorant.
I did not lie at all. Twisting your words would be lying. I stated your position accurately as I believed it to be based on reading your posts for a long time in many different threads.
Your statement was an oversimplification of what I said. I asked you a question rather than accuse you.
Looking back, though, I should have used a milder tone, and for that I retract what I said.
-
We are friends here. If you think my statement of your position was inaccurate, I invite you to state your true position and let me know where you think I was wrong in my statement.
-
We are friends here. If you think my statement of your position was inaccurate, I invite you to state your true position and let me know where you think I was wrong in my statement.
Matto,
Thank you, we are friends here.
You wrote:
Ambrose tells us that we have to believe whatever the Pope says and follow him no matter what he does, and then when he doesn't like what the Pope says or does he declares they are anti-popes instead of believing whatever the Pope says and following them.
The Pope can err is his private statements, letters, and even in sermons. In all of these cases he is not exercising his magisterium, or another way of saying it is that he is not using the power given to the Pope by Jesus Christ to teach, therefore to bind the flock.
When the Pope exercises his office as the Supreme Teacher of Christendom by teaching the universal Church on a matter of Faith and morals, even when the Pope does not exercise his infallibility, all Catholics must give a sincere firm assent to his teaching.
When a Catholic rejects the Pope's non-infallible universal teaching on matters of Faith and morals, they do not by that become a heretic, but it is a serious sin of disobedience. Catholics do not have the liberty to hold positions at odds with the Pope's ordinary magisterium. It is not permissible for a Catholic to just remain silent and not publicly disagree with the Pope, a Catholic is bound under pain of serious sin to believe the Pope.
Regarding your second point: "when he doesn't like what the Pope says or does he declares they are anti-popes instead of believing whatever the Pope says and following them."
This has nothing to do with my likes or dislikes. I never wanted to believe that these men, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and now Francis have defected from the Faith.
For a long time in my life, I simply resisted, went to the traditional Mass, at that time SSPX and the Ukrainian rite. But, one longs for a complete position, that answers all the questions. I never bought the SSPX line that Catholics can just resist the Pope, not learn from the Pope, open seminaries, chapels and schools all in defiance to the Pope and his bishops, and not accept the laws of the Pope.
i take no pleasure in recognizing the fact of these men's defection from the Faith. This goes beyond any moral certitude I have formed about them based on the evidence.
The strongest argument that these men are not Popes is that they have done things that the Office prevents a Pope from doing. The Pope cannot bind the Church to sin, or to believe heresy or grave errors.
Let me give an example. John Paul II in his universal law in canon 844 allows Catholics to receive Communion from schismatics and heretics with valid orders, and likewise for Non-Catholics to receive from Catholic priests.
This is a break with Catholic teaching. This is an evil law, and such a law cannot come from the Church. St. Peter's successor has the power to bind and loosen the laws of the Church. If John Paul II were Pope, then he would have bound the Church to a heretical and evil law.
If this were true, then the Church would have defected and become unholy, as it would have given heresy and taught Catholics to sin by actively participating in non-Catholic worship to the point of receiving Communion from them. It would have also bound Catholic priests to sin by knowingly administering Holy Communion to non-Catholics.
This law alone proves that John Paul II, who in his pretended power as Pope bound the Universal Church to obey this law, could not have been the Pope.
It is only after a long process of being morally certain that these men have defected, while trying to excuse them, that one should ever make the determination that they are not Popes. The example I gave you above is iron-clad, there is no way out of it.
-
Thank you for taking the time to explain your position more fully. I am sorry for oversimplifying your position. I admit that I do not understand your position fully, but I see that it is not exactly as I described it to be.
-
Maybe the Dialogue Mass was commissioned by the Pope for occasional use but I certainly do not recall saying the responses out loud as a child in the '50s and early '60s. I remember a golden silence where I could commune with Heaven but maybe I just have a faulty memory and the silence was all in my head.
Once as an adult, I went to a Mass said in the Dialogue form and I found it disruptive. If it really was the norm when I was a child, the remembered silence could be because I was closer to heaven then through innocence and piety than I am as an adult.
-
Regarding the New Mass while this is still fresh on this thread
Pope Leo XIII had a vision and when he pulled himself together, he sat
down and wrote the famous Leonine Prayer to St. Michael Archangel.
In the long form it says that the iniquity of the devil will reach into the
very highest offices of the Church, and lay its foul hands onto Her
most sacred treasures. .
This quote from Paul VI certainly fulfills Pope Leo XIII's vision.
"It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power, and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant. We have reason for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. Why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church's values?"
-
Regarding the New Mass while this is still fresh on this thread
Pope Leo XIII had a vision and when he pulled himself together, he sat
down and wrote the famous Leonine Prayer to St. Michael Archangel.
In the long form it says that the iniquity of the devil will reach into the
very highest offices of the Church, and lay its foul hands onto Her
most sacred treasures. .
This quote from Paul VI certainly fulfills Pope Leo XIII's vision.
"It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power, and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant. We have reason for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. Why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church's values?"
Not that you said this, but I believe it is important to keep in mind that the Dialogue Mass has nothing to do with the Novus Ordo.
The Dialogue Mass was given to us by Pope Pius XI and continued by Pope Pius XII, therefore it is good, holy and pleasing to God.
The Novus Ordo was given by a heretical antipope, therefore we cannot be certain of its validity, and we can with certainty know that is impious and contains both explicit and implicit heretical and erroneous ideas.
I am not advocating the Dialogue Mass, but it is not my duty as a layman to advocate or refuse anything, it is my duty to obey the one with the commission to govern the Church, St. Peter's successor. Since he approved the Dialogue Mass, our duty is to accept it, and trust the Pope.
-
The formatting of my last post was off, I have fixed it here.
Regarding the New Mass while this is still fresh on this thread
Pope Leo XIII had a vision and when he pulled himself together, he sat
down and wrote the famous Leonine Prayer to St. Michael Archangel.
In the long form it says that the iniquity of the devil will reach into the
very highest offices of the Church, and lay its foul hands onto Her
most sacred treasures. .
This quote from Paul VI certainly fulfills Pope Leo XIII's vision.
"It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power, and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant. We have reason for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. Why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church's values?"
Not that you said this, but I believe it is important to keep in mind that the Dialogue Mass has nothing to do with the Novus Ordo.
The Dialogue Mass was given to us by Pope Pius XI and continued by Pope Pius XII, therefore it is good, holy and pleasing to God.
The Novus Ordo was given by a heretical antipope, therefore we cannot be certain of its validity, and we can with certainty know that is impious and contains both explicit and implicit heretical and erroneous ideas.
I am not advocating the Dialogue Mass, but it is not my duty as a layman to advocate or refuse anything, it is my duty to obey the one with the commission to govern the Church, St. Peter's successor. Since he approved the Dialogue Mass, our duty is to accept it, and trust the Pope.
-
The formatting of my last post was off, I have fixed it here.
Regarding the New Mass while this is still fresh on this thread
Pope Leo XIII had a vision and when he pulled himself together, he sat
down and wrote the famous Leonine Prayer to St. Michael Archangel.
In the long form it says that the iniquity of the devil will reach into the
very highest offices of the Church, and lay its foul hands onto Her
most sacred treasures. .
This quote from Paul VI certainly fulfills Pope Leo XIII's vision.
"It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power, and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant. We have reason for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. Why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church's values?"
Not that you said this, but I believe it is important to keep in mind that the Dialogue Mass has nothing to do with the Novus Ordo.
The Dialogue Mass was given to us by Pope Pius XI and continued by Pope Pius XII, therefore it is good, holy and pleasing to God.
The Novus Ordo was given by a heretical antipope, therefore we cannot be certain of its validity, and we can with certainty know that is impious and contains both explicit and implicit heretical and erroneous ideas.
I am not advocating the Dialogue Mass, but it is not my duty as a layman to advocate or refuse anything, it is my duty to obey the one with the commission to govern the Church, St. Peter's successor. Since he approved the Dialogue Mass, our duty is to accept it, and tru
st the Pope.
I hear what you are saying Ambrose. I meant no connection between the two posts.
It seems that the "sifting" that is happening here and amongst many Catholics is of the particles of modernism that seeped back into the Church once St. Pius X went to his heavenly reward. Introducing the laity's oral responses into the Low Mass seems to be an intrusion into the individual contemplation of the Mass - the very thing condemned by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei.
Truly you are correct, it is beyond our ability to sift. We do not have the commission to do so but in the meantime looking back at these constant tiny changes, they give the impression of bringing on the greater shifts in the Liturgy and the Faith. We are living in the age of apostasy which we know did not happen all at once. So many of us are acting like detectives, with the reason of trying to save ours and others souls, trying to pinpoint the root cause. There were forewarnings by the popes for at least a century prior to Pope St. Pius X, and he gave the loudest and largest warnings of all. Even he knew that he did not destroy all of the Modernists but that they just dug in deeper until it was safe to emerge.
So there is a mystery as to why during the times of the popes who were our last great shepherds, modernism and its attending ills of liberalism and change were allowed to seep back into the Church. It has a name - the mystery of iniquity - and good Catholics are simply reacting to it. I pray that this is all resolved soon so that more souls are not lost.
-
So there is a mystery as to why during the times of the popes who were our last great shepherds, modernism and its attending ills of liberalism and change were allowed to seep back into the Church.
I would like to amend that sentence to read :
So there is a great mystery as to why during the times of the popes who were our last great shepherds, modernists, liberals and change agents were allowed to seep back into the Church and function within the hierarchy.
I must declare that the good shepherds did not allow any errors themselves.
-
The formatting of my last post was off, I have fixed it here.
Regarding the New Mass while this is still fresh on this thread
Pope Leo XIII had a vision and when he pulled himself together, he sat
down and wrote the famous Leonine Prayer to St. Michael Archangel.
In the long form it says that the iniquity of the devil will reach into the
very highest offices of the Church, and lay its foul hands onto Her
most sacred treasures. .
This quote from Paul VI certainly fulfills Pope Leo XIII's vision.
"It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power, and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant. We have reason for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. Why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church's values?"
Not that you said this, but I believe it is important to keep in mind that the Dialogue Mass has nothing to do with the Novus Ordo.
The Dialogue Mass was given to us by Pope Pius XI and continued by Pope Pius XII, therefore it is good, holy and pleasing to God.
The Novus Ordo was given by a heretical antipope, therefore we cannot be certain of its validity, and we can with certainty know that is impious and contains both explicit and implicit heretical and erroneous ideas.
I am not advocating the Dialogue Mass, but it is not my duty as a layman to advocate or refuse anything, it is my duty to obey the one with the commission to govern the Church, St. Peter's successor. Since he approved the Dialogue Mass, our duty is to accept it, and tru
st the Pope.
I hear what you are saying Ambrose. I meant no connection between the two posts.
It seems that the "sifting" that is happening here and amongst many Catholics is of the particles of modernism that seeped back into the Church once St. Pius X went to his heavenly reward. Introducing the laity's oral responses into the Low Mass seems to be an intrusion into the individual contemplation of the Mass - the very thing condemned by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei.
Truly you are correct, it is beyond our ability to sift. We do not have the commission to do so but in the meantime looking back at these constant tiny changes, they give the impression of bringing on the greater shifts in the Liturgy and the Faith. We are living in the age of apostasy which we know did not happen all at once. So many of us are acting like detectives, with the reason of trying to save ours and others souls, trying to pinpoint the root cause. There were forewarnings by the popes for at least a century prior to Pope St. Pius X, and he gave the loudest and largest warnings of all. Even he knew that he did not destroy all of the Modernists but that they just dug in deeper until it was safe to emerge.
So there is a mystery as to why during the times of the popes who were our last great shepherds, modernism and its attending ills of liberalism and change were allowed to seep back into the Church. It has a name - the mystery of iniquity - and good Catholics are simply reacting to it. I pray that this is all resolved soon so that more souls are not lost.
I'm not trying to change the subject here, but there is wisdom in many of the things popes have done that we may not yet be able to see.
Take Pius XII's changes to the Eucharistic fast law, for example. It might have seemed liberal, though if you read his explanation, it is not. But, in God's Providence, through His Shepherd, it has been a blessing in our times.
How many people are driving, some of them elderly, an hour or more to mass? That they can eat before such a trip, before the three hours, is a blessing and may actually help some get to Holy Communion more often. Since many traditional priests travel, mass is sometimes later in the day. Sometimes a priest must travel between masses, this gives him a chance to eat as well.
That is to say nothing of the obligations of a father to work. Some have to work different shifts, Sundays, even, in order to keep their jobs or because they are necessary. The law helps the working man, too, who is unfortunately caught in a secular society. Now a father (or any man)in a non-traditional 9-5/weekends off situation can get to mass and recieve Our Lord after he finishes a overnight shift. Thankfully, he can take a lunch break so he has the energy to drive his family to mass. I know more than a few men in such situations, with the sacraments so critical to family life, it truly is a good law.
There may be some good reasons for a dialogue mass, I'm not familiar with the intricacies, maybe even the purpose has not yet come to light. But, the Church cannot give us bad laws or rites that harm souls, so there is no need to worry about it, at least for my part.
-
I completely agree with your post Mabel. It does seem providential to have the 3 hour Eucharistic fast. So, it may also be providential to have the Dialogue Mass.
-
Not that you said this, but I believe it is important to keep in mind that the Dialogue Mass has nothing to do with the Novus Ordo.
The Dialogue Mass was given to us by Pope Pius XI and continued by Pope Pius XII, therefore it is good, holy and pleasing to God.
Kind of like divorce in the Old Testament? As I posted in my OP, the Wikipedia article seems to be accurate, especially, given Mabel's recollections:
Nevertheless, Dialogue Mass was never made obligatory until the introduction of the vernacular in the 1960s and for a time there were conflicting statements about the practice emanating from the Vatican e.g. a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites of August 4, 1922, shortly after the incipient Dialogue Mass was raising questions in certain quarters. The Decree was in reply to the question "May the congregation, assisting at the Sacrifice make the responses in unison, instead of the server?" Reply: The norm is: Things that in themselves are licit are not always expedient. Owing to the difficulties which may easily arise, as in this case, especially on account of the disturbances which the priests who celebrate and the people who assist may experience, to the disadvantage of the sacred Action and of the rubrics. Hence it is expedient to retain the common usage, as we have several times replied in similar cases.
In view of this ambivalence, Dialogue Mass never became prevalent in English-speaking countries, and current celebrations of Tridentine Mass in these countries are in practice rarely structured as a Dialogue Mass. In other countries, however, such as France, and Germany, the Dialogue Mass met with a greater acceptance as the Church hierarchies of these countries in the 1940s and 50’s tended to be more progressive than the generally traditionally- minded bishops in English speaking lands as became evident during the Second Vatican Council. Quite a number of Tridentine Masses currently celebrated in these countries use the Dialogue Mass form.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Mass
-
Not that you said this, but I believe it is important to keep in mind that the Dialogue Mass has nothing to do with the Novus Ordo.
The Dialogue Mass was given to us by Pope Pius XI and continued by Pope Pius XII, therefore it is good, holy and pleasing to God.
Kind of like divorce in the Old Testament? As I posted in my OP, the Wikipedia article seems to be accurate, especially, given Mabel's recollections:
Nevertheless, Dialogue Mass was never made obligatory until the introduction of the vernacular in the 1960s and for a time there were conflicting statements about the practice emanating from the Vatican e.g. a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites of August 4, 1922, shortly after the incipient Dialogue Mass was raising questions in certain quarters. The Decree was in reply to the question "May the congregation, assisting at the Sacrifice make the responses in unison, instead of the server?" Reply: The norm is: Things that in themselves are licit are not always expedient. Owing to the difficulties which may easily arise, as in this case, especially on account of the disturbances which the priests who celebrate and the people who assist may experience, to the disadvantage of the sacred Action and of the rubrics. Hence it is expedient to retain the common usage, as we have several times replied in similar cases.
In view of this ambivalence, Dialogue Mass never became prevalent in English-speaking countries, and current celebrations of Tridentine Mass in these countries are in practice rarely structured as a Dialogue Mass. In other countries, however, such as France, and Germany, the Dialogue Mass met with a greater acceptance as the Church hierarchies of these countries in the 1940s and 50’s tended to be more progressive than the generally traditionally- minded bishops in English speaking lands as became evident during the Second Vatican Council. Quite a number of Tridentine Masses currently celebrated in these countries use the Dialogue Mass form.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Mass
I would not equate it with divorce in the Old Testament. It depends on the motivation of the Pope in allowing this. If the Pope allowed this as a concession for the weakness of Catholics who had an almost uncontrollable urge to participate then your analogy would be correct. According to this interpretation, the Pope would have permitted the Dialogue Mass as a remedy for human weakness and fallen nature.
It appears to me, however, that the motivation was to get Catholics more involved by vocally praying the Mass. It appears that the Pope did not make this a universal law as particular dioceses and parishes may be harmed by it, while others may benefit.
I do agree, though, that this was not a universal law, and it appears to me that each individual Pastor could choose to use it or not use it.
It is will be for a future Pope to decide what to do with the Dialogue Mass. For myself, I will trust the judgment of the Pope and follow him in whatever he decides on this matter.
-
.
Not that you said this, but I believe it is important to keep in mind that the Dialogue Mass has nothing to do with the Novus Ordo.
The Dialogue Mass was given to us by Pope Pius XI and continued by Pope Pius XII, therefore it is good, holy and pleasing to God.
In one sense alone you can say that the dialogue Mass has nothing to do with the NovusOrdo, and that is in regards to their respective chronological occurrence. And that is the end of it.
However, when you consider the principles at stake, that is NOT "the end of it." For the Newmass of the NovusOrdo is extremely invested in the principle of getting the congregation involved with the liturgy, which is the essence of the dialogue Mass.
Therefore your statement that "the Dialogue Mass has nothing to do with the Novus Ordo," is a half truth, and since a half truth is a whole lie, it is all wrong, and by "keeping it in mind" you are merely deceiving yourself, Ambrose.
I can understand your motivation, that upholding the "valid" papacies of Pius XI and XII means you have to look for ways of defending each and every thing they did on a principled basis, for fear that anything questionable would render them "invalid" popes. But that is another mistake. For by that logic, the promotion of one nefarious Annibale Bugnini to the head of the new office, whose purpose in life was to reform the liturgy, would have to then be likewise "good, holy and pleasing to God."
Your stretching of the indefectibility of the pope would seem to contradict the dogmatic definition of papal infallibility which says that there are a lot of restrictions on it, and this infallibility only applies to what the pope does under very narrow and limiting parameters.
While I sympathize with your premise and instinct that many of the problems in the practice of the Faith today would be resolved with a great pope in office, at the same time that's not the same thing as presuming that any such good pope would not be prone to making a mistake here and there, like with the dialogue Mass.
If people want to get involved there are a lot of ways of doing so, and they don't have to be in context of the Mass. There are Stations of the Cross, there is communal prayer of the Rosary, there are the Litatanies, such as the Loretto, St. Joseph, of the Saints, of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and so on. There is Benediction and singing of the Tantum Ergo, etc. There is the Benedicite...
When is the last time you have heard and/or participated in the communal recitation of the Benedicite?
Maybe you haven't noticed, Ambrose, but the two-fisted attack, the ONE-TWO PUNCH of the Modernists, has been in two phases:
1) First, they remove from the practice of the Faith key elements, so as to effect a void, or a vacuum, as it were.
2) Second, they supply something "new" to fill the vacuum, and "presto!" there is change.
There are numerous examples of this, but in this case, the thing that has happened is this: First, the Modernists removed from our practice of the Faith all these other devotions, some of which I mentioned above. Oh, another one would be Vespers on Sunday evening.
First (1) they removed those devotions and the people who had been getting a chance to be "involved" in church suddenly didn't have any part to contribute as before, so they became anxious and felt "left out." Therefore (2) to solve the problem, the Modernists supplied the dialogue Mass to provide a way for those people to be more "actively participating" in church.
The subtle change was, now they were chiming in during Mass, which was previously forbidden and now it was encouraged. That is a huge change.
The huge change is actually an attack on the SACREDNESS OF THE MASS.
Try to imagine for a minute, Ambrose, the whole scene. You have people coming to Mass who also were there the day before or two, reciting the Benedicite or the Litany of Loretto, or singing the Litany of the Saints. Then comes the Mass, and especially High Mass on Sunday. But to some degree it's even more stark at Low Mass on weekdays, when the church is SILENT except for the voices off the priest and his acolytes. They are in the Holy of Holies, where no one else is allowed, and they are doing the sacred worship of the Catholic Church, the most sacred ritual that man can possibly perform. And the voices of the people are NOT appropriate because this is a SACRED and SPECIAL ceremony, the Holy Mass. The silence of the people does MUCH MORE for this sacredness than their "dialogue" ever could, and their "dialogue" only interrupts and profanes the Sacrifice of the Mass, making it seem pedestrian and banal.
And for the Modernists, appearances are everything, so if the Mass SEEMS to be profane and banal, then it IS.
.