Author Topic: A Dialogue Mass? (Read 5413 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #15 on:** November 12, 2013, 09:30:33 AM »

Quote from: RonCal26

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!

Quote

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 Obstat · « **Reply #16 on:** November 15, 2013, 06:28:21 PM »

.

So, you see, the "dialogue Mass" is not traditional.

.

soulguard · « **Reply #17 on:** November 20, 2013, 11:46:18 AM »

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.

Ambrose · « **Reply #18 on:** November 20, 2013, 12:02:56 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: RonCal26
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!

Quote
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."

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #19 on:** November 20, 2013, 05:24:02 PM »

Quote from: soulguard

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."

Quote

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:

Quote from: Ambrose

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.

Quote

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?

Quote

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.

Quote

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!

.

Matto · « **Reply #20 on:** November 20, 2013, 05:47:59 PM »

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.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #21 on:** November 20, 2013, 07:01:25 PM »

.

When we lost Pope Pius XII we lost a treasure.

Has the world forgotten what it's like to have a holy pope?

.

Ambrose · « **Reply #22 on:** November 20, 2013, 07:39:38 PM »

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 · « **Reply #23 on:** November 20, 2013, 07:40:46 PM »

Quote from: Matto

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 Obstat · « **Reply #24 on:** November 20, 2013, 08:00:47 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

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.

.

Ambrose · « **Reply #25 on:** November 21, 2013, 03:13:39 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Ambrose
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!

Jehanne · « **Reply #26 on:** November 21, 2013, 07:07:50 AM »

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 Obstat · « **Reply #27 on:** November 22, 2013, 04:16:29 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

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.

.

bowler · « **Reply #28 on:** November 22, 2013, 09:39:08 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Matto
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.

SJB · « **Reply #29 on:** November 22, 2013, 11:36:38 AM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Matto
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.