CathInfo.com

Quote from: Ladislaus

St. Pius X declared that by the very nature of liturgical office, being as it was clerical and therefore ultimately an extension of Holy Orders, choirs in Solemn Mass could not admit of women.......  

With that said, I could see women / girls perhaps singing chant, etc. ... under certain circuмstances, during a Missa Cantata, since the Missa Cantata is not technically a Solemn Mass but rather a Low Mass, and the singing would just be for aesthetic purposes and not have an actual direct liturgical role in the Mass

The Missa Cantata is a relatively new mass, from the 18th century, while the Low Mass is over 1000 years old. How do you conclude that women can sing at Misa Cantatas and Low mass?  I understand it, women were never allowed to respond aloud at mass at all, and the Low Mass was always a silent mass for both men and women.

I agree.  Missa Cantata is really just a Low Mass with some singing.  It's not a Solemn Mass.  I don't think that there's anything wrong, per se, with having people (even women, or the congregation) sing during Low Masses.  What's important is that it be made clear that the singing does not have a liturgical function in such a Mass (if the singing be done by women for instance).  In a Solemn Mass, the singing is definitely Liturgical in nature, while the singing at a Missa Cantata is not ... except when it's done in the Sanctuary by the sacred ministers.  As long as the distinction remains clear, congregational and choir singing (including with women) can, if properly governed, be OK.  But the minute you start having it appear as if the lay choir and the congregation have assumed properly liturgical function, that must be put to a stop immediately ... since it leads right to Vatican II Novus Ordo Missae liturgical theology, where the secondary aspects become dominant (e.g. participation of the faithful) over the primary aspect (official worship of God performed by THE CHURCH).

Now, on the other hand, I strenuously object to the so-called "Dialogue" Masses, because it makes it seem as if the entire congregation, including women, are actually taking on the role of the altar server or acolyte.  To me that crosses a line.

Even in a sung Missa Cantata, I believe that this can get blurred when the choir responds to the priest as an altar server would.  I think that those parts should be eliminated unless the choir meets the standards laid out by St. Pius X.

Pius XII with what seemed like an innocuous comment really undermined traditional liturgical theology.

Quote from: Ladislaus

This idea that to be involved in the Mass one has to yammer and move one's mouth is all liturgical modernism that transitions nicely to Novus Ordo liturgical theology.

It appears that by allowing women to sing in a chorus, thereby allowing them to make aloud the mass responses of a Missa Cantata, it opened the door for all the women in the congregation to respond aloud, which set up the Dialogue Mass for women, which "transitioned nicely to Novus Ordo liturgical theology".

You're right.  I think that the choir, especially when including women, should be forbidden even in the Missa Cantata from making responses that would be "proper to the sacred ministers", as St. Pius X put it.  In other words, when the Priest says, "Dominus Vobiscuм", no choir consisting of women should sing in response "Et cuм Spiritu Tuo".  Now, during a Missa Cantata, the altar servers are still supposed to say, "Et cuм Spiritu Tuo", and that would in fact be the official Liturgical response, but even with that being the case, allowing a choir that does not meet the standards put forward by St. Pius X to sing those responses clearly starts to blur the line.  I think that it's probably OK for the choir to sing things like the Introit and the Kyrie and the Gloria, since to me IMO it's quite obvious that the official liturgical version of that is the PRIEST saying it at the altar, and not what's sung by the choir.  If I recall the rubrics correctly, in a Missa Cantata, the priest says the Gloria, for instance, in spoken tone, at the altar.  But in a Solemn Mass I believe that the priest just intones it and then can sit down without reciting the Gloria himself ... so that the official liturgical version is the one being sung by the choir.  Thus the distinction.  But someone can correct me if I'm wrong, since it's been 20 years since I was at the seminary and in attendance at Solemn Masses.

It is my contention that were it not for women, the effeminate and feelings oriented priests who took over the priesthood (the takeover, the effeminizing of the mass, started years before the Novus Ordo), could not have succeeded AT ALL. Had men not been cast aside and replaced by women, the "Novus Ordo" would have died a quick death.

It's not just women either, but also lay men.  It's a declericalization of the liturgy intended to erode Holy Orders and liturgical theology and the theology of the priesthood and to blur the line between priests/clerics and lay people.  That's why I would like to go beyond even what St. Pius X did and restore the conferral of Minor Orders upon people who would exercise such liturgical functions.  At risk of sounding a bit like an "antiquarianist", the Minor Orders conferred OFFICIAL LITURGICAL ROLES on people, making it clear that by exercising these functions, by commission from the Church, they were participating in an extension of Holy Orders.  Minor Orders have since become purely ceremonial.  As I mentioned, even among clerics, it used to be that one needed to be a Lector to chant the Epistle, but someone insidiously changed that to allow any tonsured cleric to sing the Epistle.  That guts the meaning of the Order of Lector.

I contend that in the SSPX's obvious FORCED implementation of the Dialogue Mass that is slowly being implemented, is 1964 all over again. Remember, ALL the clergy were celebrating the traditional Latin mass then, they were just like the SSPX which celebrates the 1962 missal. Within the SSPX, we will once again experience 1964 and on, again with the women supplying the "feelings" to go along with the "beautiful" changes. The SSPX will end in the same mess as the Novus Ordo, and the children that went through it will end up leaving the Church when they reach their teens to adulthood.

I agree.  As I mentioned above, Dialogue Masses erode traditional liturgical theology.

Oh, and another abusive custom that I absolutely detest is that when the priest does not have a male altar server, a woman would say the Mass responses, albeit from outside the sanctuary ... as if being outside the sanctuary means anything.  She is STILL taking the place of the Church in making those responses and is consequently assuming a LITURGICAL ROLE, i.e. acting like a cleric.  Only clerics can OFFICIALLY REPRESENT the Church in the public worship of God.  In other words, it was deemed MORE IMPORTANT to have "alternating dialogue" than that an official clerical representative of the Church make the responses that represent the Church, subverting once again the primary function of liturgy to secondary considerations.

People clearly do not understand traditional liturgical theology anymore.

This isn't just about modes of participation in the Sacred Liturgy of the Church ("liturgy" by the way is a term that refers to the official worship of God by the CHURCH).  It's MUCH MORE FUNDAMENTAL than all that; it's about our understanding of WHAT Sacred Liturgy is and what it is not.  And the line-blurring that started long ago and continues to happen in the SSPX is contributing to all that.

As I've said on other issues, you'd be an idiot to think that Vatican II happened overnight, that all theologians in 1961 were absolutely orthodox and Traditional, but that in 1962 these were all hertics.  It's ridiculous and absurd.  Sorry, LoT, SJB, and Ambrose.