Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Marlelar on October 12, 2017, 12:59:15 AM
-
I was in CA last week and went to Mass at the SSPX retreat chapel. To my surprise (and disappointment) there was overwhelming participation by the congregation!
Is the dialogue Mass being promoted by the SSPX now?
Anyone here regularly go to Mass at the retreat chapel?
-
Is this the chapel in Duarte?
-
Is this the chapel in Duarte?
No, the Retreat Center is in Los Gatos, and the chapel you are referring is actually in Arcadia (next city over from Duarte).
-
well it is one of the great graces given to the english speaking world that we don't have it. It is a precursor to the Novus Ordo and when this crises in the Church ends it will be gone FOREVER.
And yes it seems that the SSPX is promoting the dialogue Mass. Another reason not to go!!!! Wake up people!!!!
And I am not Pfeifferite. Just a Catholic who thinks for himself and doesnt follow the advice of indifferent and lazy priests and (bishops!?)
-
None of the priests or Bishops "offer" the dialogue Mass. They offer Mass, but the faitfhul make it a dialgue Mass by their "interaction". If they just kept their mouths closed it would not be a dialogue Mass.
The point is that even if they disagree with it, they can do nothing about it practically speaking.
Of course they CAN if they REALLY want to, try to educate the faithful on it. But most of them just don't bother...
-
I was in CA last week and went to Mass at the SSPX retreat chapel. To my surprise (and disappointment) there was overwhelming participation by the congregation!
Is the dialogue Mass being promoted by the SSPX now?
Anyone here regularly go to Mass at the retreat chapel?
The Dialogue mass is a substitute mass for the Low Mass, on top of the difference in the laity answering out loud, it has different postures than the Low Mass. The Dialogue Mass is not the custom in English speaking countries. It was practiced/is in France as I understand it. I'm told that in France, in the Dialogue Mass the laity stand at the Preface and the Sanctus. I do not know the customs of France since I am in the USA.
I've already seen in the Novus Ordo what happens when the laity start responding, all the loud old ladies take over and the men depart.
-
I don't mind that the faithful do some of the responses at High Mass at the SSPX chapel, and it's always been done that way (well, for quite awhile), but I wouldn't call it specifically a Dialogue Mass. It's not an intentional Dialogue Mass.
It's quite different from the local FSSP Mass, where the faithful tend to be very quiet, even in singing the processional and recessional hymns. At least at the SSPX chapel, the faithful sing along, and mostly they don't even need a hymnal (though I do).
-
I was in CA last week and went to Mass at the SSPX retreat chapel. To my surprise (and disappointment) there was overwhelming participation by the congregation!
Is the dialogue Mass being promoted by the SSPX now?
Anyone here regularly go to Mass at the retreat chapel?
I think you've touched a neo-trad nerve Marlelar :cowboy:
As I recall, the SSPX has been doing the dialogue in Winona as far back as 2010.
Bp. Fellay has frequently expressed his wish to have license with the Tridentine rite.
-
Where I live they don't offer the dialog mass.
-
I was in CA last week and went to Mass at the SSPX retreat chapel. To my surprise (and disappointment) there was overwhelming participation by the congregation!
Is the dialogue Mass being promoted by the SSPX now?
Anyone here regularly go to Mass at the retreat chapel?
When I was a child I remember the people regularly offering the responses at mass. (In those days the regular TLM mass was the only mass.)
-
When I was a child I remember the people regularly offering the responses at mass. (In those days the regular TLM mass was the only mass.)
That means nothing. Different countries have different customs, and we do not know how old you are. You may have been a child in the 1960's when everything changed. You may have bee going to mass in a liberal country like France.
In English speaking countries, the Dialogue Mass never caught, it is not the custom.
-
It happens in my chapel quite a bit.. even repeating the "Domine Non" just before Communion with the priest.
Honestly, I shush people when it gets to be too much.
-
I think you've touched a neo-trad nerve Marlelar :cowboy:
As I recall, the SSPX has been doing the dialogue in Winona as far back as 2010.
Bp. Fellay has frequently expressed his wish to have license with the Tridentine rite.
More like back to 2000. Where have you been? I'm sort of indifferent to this issue. Sometimes I like singing the responses at High Mass, but I've seen plenty of people respond in a way that is annoying so I get why people want no response too.
-
It happens in my chapel quite a bit.. even repeating the "Domine Non" just before Communion with the priest.
Honestly, I shush people when it gets to be too much.
.
If your priest could simply make an announcement from the pulpit that it's inappropriate for the congregation to speak the responses of the acolytes then people would stop doing it.
.
CMRI chapels have a smattering of people repeating the acolyte responses but the priest never asks them not to. Most likely it's because Pope Pius XII never issued any prohibition against the dialog Mass.
.
-
The punishment of Vatican II is that each priest has become his own pope. The revolution continues today, each priest thinks he has the answer to the falling away of the faith, each priest "winging it" to his tune. There is no respect for the longstanding customs of the country. "Customs" today are whatever Father X changed last week or three years ago.
The dialogue mass was invented in the late 1920's, and it never caught in English speaking countries. It is not a custom in English speaking countries and it never was. In English speaking countries any and all trad priest who impose the Dialogue Mass are just innovators who make themselves popes over tradition, no different than any Novus Ordo priest in the 1960's. The Dialogue Mass was a short stepping stone to the Novus Ordo in vernacular.
-
I would bridge the gap by utilizing the dialogue mass if it meant the disappearance(immediate or future) of the novus ordo. It is for me so to say a gymnastic move that I would employ for survival. It is not one of the things that bothers me enough.
-
That means nothing. Different countries have different customs, and we do not know how old you are. You may have been a child in the 1960's when everything changed. You may have bee going to mass in a liberal country like France.
In English speaking countries, the Dialogue Mass never caught, it is not the custom.
The United States is an English speaking country, or so it is supposed to be.
:laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1:
-
If you are in Asia or the Philippines (a central 'Resistance' MCSPX mission area), you would only have the so called "Dialogue" Mass whether in the Indult, SSPX, Resistance, or Sedevacantist chapels. Yes. There are countries (possibly Spanish speaking or former colonies) wherein the faithful's 'participation' during Mass is customary.
-
If you are in Asia or the Philippines (a central 'Resistance' MCSPX mission area), you would only have the so called "Dialogue" Mass whether in the Indult, SSPX, Resistance, or Sedevacantist chapels. Yes. There are countries (possibly Spanish speaking or former colonies) wherein the faithful's 'participation' during Mass is customary.
The laity participation in a mass does not mean it is a dialogue mass. A dialogue mass has its own postures for the laity. As I understand it, they stand for the Preface and Sanctus and other parts where the laity normally kneel. It is a "new and improved" Low Mass. If you are in a low mass (two candles on the altar) and the laity answer the priest in all the same parts as the altar server, that may be a dialogue mass. It is hard to know today since priest have been winging it for 50 years+ and the laity just follow father.
-
Quite so.
For those in the US: There is a Catholic world outside of the country. Where the Mass, per Pius XII includes vocal responses from the pews. In fact, it is the vast majority of masses worldwide which are "dialogue masses". It is what it is. This is not a moot point.
Unless of course, you wish to also siphon P.P. Pius XII encyclicals and do the R&R "pick and choose teaching".
The customs of other countries is unknown to all Catholics, not just Americans. Every culture is different, it is only our duty to know what our traditions are. We do know that the Dialogue Mass was invented in the 1920's. We also know that the Dialogue Mass is not the custom in English countries, that it never caught on. It has nothing to do with Pius XII encyclicals, it has to do with the customs of the countries. You can't change the customs of the countries. That is exactly what the Vatican II revolution was about, each priest changing all the customs. One person likes to respond and another thinks his daughter could be an altar server and his wife in the choir....... before you know it you have the situation we are in today. It is not about likes, it is about maintaining the customs of our fathers.
"All change except away from evil is the most dangerous of all things"- Plato
-
Quite right. In fact, it was quite the contrary:
"Therefore, they are to be praised who, with the idea of getting the Christian people to take part more easily and more fruitfully in the Mass, strive to make them familiar with the "Roman Missal," so that the faithful, united with the priest, may pray together in the very words and sentiments of the Church. They also are to be commended who strive to make the liturgy even in an external way a sacred act in which all who are present may share. This can be done in more than one way, when, for instance, the whole congregation, in accordance with the rules of the liturgy, either answer the priest in an orderly and fitting manner, or sing hymns suitable to the different parts of the Mass, or do both, or finally in high Masses when they answer the prayers of the minister of Jesus Christ and also sing the liturgical chant." - Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, #105, 1947
Whoever wrote this docuмent clearly laid out the language which was to be used at Vatican II. It was a precursor to the conciliar notion of a priestly people of God. What this ends up being is the people concelebrating the Mass with the priest. Give it a few generations and the external actions will take precedence over the more important internal and spiritual joining of the faithful TO the priest's action, not the feeling of acting WITH him as the protestants have now come to believe, And here is the wording that adverts directly to that notion: " They also are to be commended who strive to make the liturgy even in an external way a sacred act in which all who are present may share. "
On the whole a departure from the long and ancient Traditions of the Church, and so much for these neo-Traditional groups defending and preserving Tradition.
-
Everyone is missing the point:
The question to ask is "HOW did the dialogue Mass succeed in spreading through Belgium, France, Germany and the low countries way back in the 19-teens?"
In the SSPX seminary, we were taught that the modernist liturgical reformers came from these countries, and networked to proliferate their anti-liturgical ideas via liberal bishops, seeking "experimental" permissions which would later become the norm.
There was no such thing as the dialogue Mass before this time anywhere in the universal Church (unless through condemned archaeologism, you want to skip 1500 years of liturgical development, and arrive back in the primitive Church).
It does not matter what this or that custom is in this or that other country:
The dialogue is a modernist innovation (I should say "dialogue Masses," since there are several from which a priest can choose from, just like the Novus Ordo), and it gained predominance in Europe (then elsewhere) via the machinations and connivance of modernist "reformers."
Can anything born from treachery and deception acquire "legitimacy?"
I could say much more on the subject, but keep this in mind: In those places which now make use of it as the norm, it did not exist prior to 1920.
Invariably, someone will say, "But Archbishop Lefebvre did not have any problem with it, so why should I?"
To which I respond, "By the time Archbishop Lefebvre was ordained (1929), he had already witnessed the spectacle of Pius XI saying the dialogue Mass on several occasions, and none in the Church at that time (except for the modernist reformers, of course) knew where they would take the false liturgical principles contained in the dialogue Mass(es). He is not to be blamed.
What I did find striking, however, is how we could be taught in Liturgy I class all about this illicit history, and then on Saturday be forced to babble a dialogue Mass.
Matthew (who was in my same class in the seminary) can vouch that one time I asked Fr. Iscara (who taught Liturgy I) during class:
"What do you say to those who observe that all these same anti-liturgical principles of the dialogue Mass are contained in the Novus Ordo, and that the former was used as a bridge to prepare the terrain for the latter?"
His response?
"You need to go talk to the bishop."
Obviously, there was a French/Swiss mandate to import these illicit French customs into the seminaries (and the schools throughout the world as well), regardless of their origin, and the incongruity and awkwardness of comparing/contrasting what we were being taught in the classroom, with what was transpiring in the chapel on Saturdays, was uncomfortable to say the least!
Meanwhile, a stealthy "don't ask/don't tell" approach to exporting the dialogue Mass (even into the more traditional English-speaking countries) is taking place:
I was in an SSPX chapel for 15 years before I knew they were saying the dialogue Mass at the local SSPX academy here (which was one of the main reasons I decided against enrolling my children there this year):
A friend writes me that in his New Zealand SSPX school, the dialogue Mass was snuck in without informing any of the parents, and I should be very surprised if he was merely uninformed (or worse yet, a liar).
The methods of spreading it are the same today as they were 100 years ago in the time of Dom Lambert Beauduin!
Minds are being prepared to accept the dialogue Mass as "normal."
And if you don't fight it, it WILL become the new "normal."
I'm not going to get into any forum debates about the matter, but for any who are interested in a more thorough explanation of the illicit origin, and uncatholic liturgical principles contained within the dialogue Masses, check in on Sodalitium Pianum, where I will be writing on the matter soon.
Meanwhile, you can start reading this series: http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f073_Dialogue_1.htm
Semper Idem,
Sean Johnson
-
“Let us change the routine and monotonous assistance at acts of worship into an active and intelligent participation; let us teach the faithful to pray and confess these truths in a body."
(Lambert Beauduin, Liturgy the Life of the Church, translation by Virgil Michel, Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1914, p. 11)
See this entire enlightening installment on the Dialogue Mass (#4), here: http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f076_Dialogue_4.htm
-
Meanwhile, a stealthy "don't ask/don't tell" approach to exporting the dialogue Mass (even into the more traditional English-speaking countries) is taking place:
I was in an SSPX chapel for 15 years before I knew they were saying the dialogue Mass at the local SSPX academy here (which was one of the main reasons I decided against enrolling my children there this year):
A friend writes me that in his New Zealand SSPX school, the dialogue Mass was snuck in without informing any of the parents, and I should be very surprised if he was merely uninformed (or worse yet, a liar).
The methods of spreading it are the same today as they were 100 years ago in the time of Dom Lambert Beauduin!.
They are doing the same in all the SSPX schools, teaching the young what they know will be rejected by the parents. Nothing changes, it is 1960's all over again. Like I said, the Vatican II revolution is about priests "winging it", mini-popes thinking they have the answers, changing everything to their tune.
All that will come of it will be that the young will leave the Church. They will lose any respect they had for priests and for good reason. The priests disrespected the traditions, the customs of the millions of priests that made the local Church, and they end up being disrespected for it. It is only natural.
-
...But by and large the "dialogue" masses are very orderly...
No one except the priest and acolytes are at the altar. No laity is reading aloud anything the priest should. No altar girls. No standing, as some here say, during the Sanctus and Our Lord's prayer. In fact, at the Sanctus, everyone kneels and stay kneeled until the recommencement of Mass after post communion prayers of the priest.
So no I disagree wholeheartedly that the "Dialogue" mass is the NO in disguise.
Each priest is winging it. Yours has not had the people stand at the Preface and the Sanctus and other parts of the Low Mass (the Dialogue Mass replaces the Low Mass) for now.
Besides, we do not know what country you are talking about, whether you are talking about a High Mass or a Low Mass dialogue? People need to understand that we are talking about English speaking countries and they need to learn what a Dialogue Mass really is, before they post here.
-
Everyone is missing the point:
The question to ask is "HOW did the dialogue Mass succeed in spreading through Belgium, France, Germany and the low countries way back in the 19-teens?"
In the SSPX seminary, we were taught that the modernist liturgical reformers came from these countries, and networked to proliferate their anti-liturgical ideas via liberal bishops, seeking "experimental" permissions which would later become the norm.
There was no such thing as the dialogue Mass before this time anywhere in the universal Church (unless through condemned archaeologism, you want to skip 1500 years of liturgical development, and arrive back in the primitive Church).
It does not matter what this or that custom is in this or that other country:
The dialogue is a modernist innovation (I should say "dialogue Masses," since there are several from which a priest can choose from, just like the Novus Ordo), and it gained predominance in Europe (then elsewhere) via the machinations and connivance of modernist "reformers."
Can anything born from treachery and deception acquire "legitimacy?"
I could say much more on the subject, but keep this in mind: In those places which now make use of it as the norm, it did not exist prior to 1920.
Invariably, someone will say, "But Archbishop Lefebvre did not have any problem with it, so why should I?"
To which I respond, "By the time Archbishop Lefebvre was ordained (1929), he had already witnessed the spectacle of Pius XI saying the dialogue Mass on several occasions, and none in the Church at that time (except for the modernist reformers, of course) knew where they would take the false liturgical principles contained in the dialogue Mass(es). He is not to be blamed.
What I did find striking, however, is how we could be taught in Liturgy I class all about this illicit history, and then on Saturday be forced to babble a dialogue Mass.
Matthew (who was in my same class in the seminary) can vouch that one time I asked Fr. Iscara (who taught Liturgy I) during class:
"What do you say to those who observe that all these same anti-liturgical principles of the dialogue Mass are contained in the Novus Ordo, and that the former was used as a bridge to prepare the terrain for the latter?"
His response?
"You need to go talk to the bishop."
Obviously, there was a French/Swiss mandate to import these illicit French customs into the seminaries (and the schools throughout the world as well), regardless of their origin, and the incongruity and awkwardness of comparing/contrasting what we were being taught in the classroom, with what was transpiring in the chapel on Saturdays, was uncomfortable to say the least!
Meanwhile, a stealthy "don't ask/don't tell" approach to exporting the dialogue Mass (even into the more traditional English-speaking countries) is taking place:
I was in an SSPX chapel for 15 years before I knew they were saying the dialogue Mass at the local SSPX academy here (which was one of the main reasons I decided against enrolling my children there this year):
A friend writes me that in his New Zealand SSPX school, the dialogue Mass was snuck in without informing any of the parents, and I should be very surprised if he was merely uninformed (or worse yet, a liar).
The methods of spreading it are the same today as they were 100 years ago in the time of Dom Lambert Beauduin!
Minds are being prepared to accept the dialogue Mass as "normal."
And if you don't fight it, it WILL become the new "normal."
I'm not going to get into any forum debates about the matter, but for any who are interested in a more thorough explanation of the illicit origin, and uncatholic liturgical principles contained within the dialogue Masses, check in on Sodalitium Pianum, where I will be writing on the matter soon.
Meanwhile, you can start reading this series: http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f073_Dialogue_1.htm
Semper Idem,
Sean Johnson
Do my eyes deceive me?
Is this Sean Johnson condescending to us mere plebs on Cathinfo?
As usual Sean, while having many interesting things to say, and being 90% right doesn't manage to cross the finishing line.
The question is not How the dialogue Mass came into being, but WHY is it wrong. It is a normal question.
The answer is that the hierarchical nature of the Mass dictates that some parts are unfitting for the faithful to be participating in. Whatever about the "et cuм spiritu tuo", the other parts of the Mass are between the servers (or Deacons/sub deacons) and the celebrant. There is an intimate dialogue between these latter two and the faithful just don't belong there.
The dialogue Mass makes everything "equal" and totally distorts this beautiful hierarchy all to make the faithful "more invovled". It is then that the history to which Sean refers comes in.
We are not sedevacantists and admit therefore that a Pope can be Pope and still do bad things to the Church. Such is the case with Pius XII, who did bad things in this case.
-
Why do we have to make everything so complicated.
The priest is ordained to offer Sacrifice........we are not
I believe Pius X wanted the people to know what the priest was saying when.... NOT to mimic him.
(I've heard women softly saying the words of Consecration..) The missal doesn't indicate when to shut up.
Liberals at the time hijacked the use of missals to get people involved to later usher them into the new mess...
make them feel important by participating.
For over 1900 years the faithful attended Mass to adore, give thanks, make reparation and ask for favours and
this method produced MANY GREAT SAINTS.
When the people get involved, with time it goes down the slippery slope letting them feel they have the right to increase their importance; first readers, then women readers, altar girls, married deacons, women priestesses.
Trads are not immune to being led down the garden path and the dialogue Mass is a perfect vehicle.
-
If you want to know about the Dialogue Mass you'd have to go to France which is where it was a big hit. One might call the Dialogue Mass a "custom" in France before the Novus Ordo, if you consider something done after WWII till the Novus Ordo a custom or tradition, which it is not. If the Dialogue Mass is a custom in France, the Novus Ordo is 2x a custom, since it has lasted now 50 years and the Dialogue Mass only lasted maybe 25 years. IN FRANCE
I am in the USA, and here and all other English speaking countries, the Dialogue Mass went nowhere. The custom in the USA is the Low Mass and has been since the beginning of the USA and in the Catholic Church since the late 700's.
-
Then what are you referring (and the OP) to here in the States?
I'll post some shortcuts to videos at precise times so you can see what I'm referring to as the "dialogue" Mass in Spanish speaking countries.
https://youtu.be/Id2UrT2ivqE?t=15m57s (https://youtu.be/Id2UrT2ivqE?t=15m57s)
https://youtu.be/gQ4U_86uPGo?t=2m14s (https://youtu.be/gQ4U_86uPGo?t=2m14s)
The "customs" of say Colombia should be of no concern to the people in the USA, just as the customs of the USA should be of no concern to people in Colombia. Each individual country in South America has different cultures and practices, these difference are reflected in the mass over the centuries.
The OP is complaining about some kind of vocal dialogue by the laity in her chapel in the USA. Since the Dialogue Mass never caught in English speaking countries, Americans would not know a Dialogue Mass from a mass where some of the laity respond by their own previous experience in the Novus Ordo. The only important point is THE FACT that the Dialogue Mass is a novelty for English speaking countries and any trad priest who tries to introduce it to the USA is no traditionalist, but an innovator and revolutionary who thinks he knows better than all the millions of priests that preceded him since the first Catholics landed in the USA.
Below are all my postings on this thread in italics, they repeat the same theme, these priests that want to change the Low Mass to a Dialogue Mass are just mini-popes winging it to their tune. They are no traditionalist.
The Dialogue mass is a substitute mass for the Low Mass, on top of the difference in the laity answering out loud, it has different postures than the Low Mass. The Dialogue Mass is not the custom in English speaking countries. It was practiced/is in France as I understand it. I'm told that in France, in the Dialogue Mass the laity stand at the Preface and the Sanctus. I do not know the customs of France since I am in the USA.
That means nothing. Different countries have different customs, and we do not know how old you are. You may have been a child in the 1960's when everything changed. You may have bee going to mass in a liberal country like France.
In English speaking countries, the Dialogue Mass never caught, it is not the custom.
The punishment of Vatican II is that each priest has become his own pope. The revolution continues today, each priest thinks he has the answer to the falling away of the faith, each priest "winging it" to his tune. There is no respect for the longstanding customs of the country. "Customs" today are whatever Father X changed last week or three years ago.
The dialogue mass was invented in the late 1920's, and it never caught in English speaking countries. It is not a custom in English speaking countries and it never was. In English speaking countries any and all trad priest who impose the Dialogue Mass are just innovators who make themselves popes over tradition, no different than any Novus Ordo priest in the 1960's. The Dialogue Mass was a short stepping stone to the Novus Ordo in vernacular.
If you want to know about the Dialogue Mass you'd have to go to France which is where it was a big hit. One might call the Dialogue Mass a "custom" in France before the Novus Ordo, if you consider something done after WWII till the Novus Ordo a custom or tradition, which it is not. If the Dialogue Mass is a custom in France, the Novus Ordo is 2x a custom, since it has lasted now 50 years and the Dialogue Mass only lasted maybe 25 years. IN FRANCE
I am in the USA, and here and all other English speaking countries, the Dialogue Mass went nowhere. The custom in the USA is the Low Mass and has been since the beginning of the USA and in the Catholic Church since the late 700's.