.

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.  


.