Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5

Author Topic: Loud "Active Participation - How They Emptied the Churches of Men  (Read 5345 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stanley N

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1208
  • Reputation: +530/-484
  • Gender: Male
Re: Loud "Active Participation - How They Emptied the Churches of Men
« Reply #30 on: December 07, 2020, 08:56:28 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on November 27, 2020, 10:59:21 AM
    When one understands WHY such practices were introduced, and the theological and liturgical errors they were meant to introduce, yes, they are a big problem.
    Sean, you're playing hide the ball. You don't explain these alleged theological and liturgical errors, let alone demonstrate the "dialogue" mass has them.

    The primary end (goal) of the liturgy is to worship God, but the liturgy also serves to educate and edify the faithful. The DM is a means to serve the secondary end of the liturgy. Now, it may be that some in the liturgical movement at the time overemphasized the secondary end of the liturgy, but that doesn't mean the DM is, in itself, wrong.

    As an analogy, marriage has two ends. The primary end of marriage - children - does not exclude the secondary end - mutual support of the spouses. If in marriage classes a priest adds a module about mutual support, that module doesn't become a "problem" even if the priest added it due to wrong notions about the priority of the ends of marriage.

    A more balanced view of DM would be to recognize that it is one means to serve a secondary end of the liturgy, and the most your arguments show is that perhaps DM shouldn't happen at every low mass. Which is, I think, consistent with using DM at school masses, or the once-a-week custom at Winona, as well as Matthew's post here.

    Quote
    So you can’t just dismiss aversion to the dialogue Mass as personal preference for quiet, or shrug shoulders and say, “What's the big deal?”
    Your unbalanced view of DM does suggest something is going on. It could be personal preference, or something else.

    Speaking of unbalanced views:

    Quote from: Last Tradhican on December 06, 2020, 11:22:29 AM
    https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f192_Dialogue_99.htm

    The article is telling traditional Catholics that the laity responding aloud during the mass (whether just singing the Kyrie or the Credo, or just responding "et cuм spiritu tuo") is a novelty of the 20th century, and not a custom of the Roman Rite.
    (Byrne may not have said exactly that on that page, but she writes stuff like that in other pages on the TIA site.)

    So singing is a novelty and not a custom of the Roman rite?

    If the popes wanted the people to be quiet and not sing, you should be able to find where the popes said that.
    Logged

    Offline claudel

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1776
    • Reputation: +1335/-419
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Loud "Active Participation - How They Emptied the Churches of Men
    « Reply #31 on: December 07, 2020, 02:23:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stanley N on December 07, 2020, 08:56:28 AM

    … You don't explain these alleged theological and liturgical errors, let alone demonstrate the "dialogue" mass has them. …

    As an aside, I addressed a similar question of yours on another thread, "The Dialogue Mass: Who offers it? Who doesn't?" Whatever one thinks about the presence or absence of errors in the dialogue mode, I am quite sure that the changes in theology therein were not lost on the form's proponents—even if one regards their motives as innocent—nor should they be overlooked by us or indeed by anyone with a deep-seated interest in the meaning of the Mass he attends.

    Here's a link to that comment.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12674
    • Reputation: +8067/-2497
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Loud "Active Participation - How They Emptied the Churches of Men
    « Reply #32 on: December 07, 2020, 02:34:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    A more balanced view of DM would be to recognize that it is one means to serve a secondary end of the liturgy, and the most your arguments show is that perhaps DM shouldn't happen at every low mass.

    Stanley, There's no such thing as a "balanced view".  It's either legal or not.  All post-1962 changes are illegal.  No such mass is traditional, because it wasn't authorized by St Pius V's Quo Primum, nor any of the licit revisions of Quo Primum, from 1571 til 1962.  Neither does it have any historical basis.  The Dialogue Mass is therefore post-1962 and a novelty.  It is illicit because ALL of the post-1962 liturgical changes ignored Quo Primum and by doing so, they authored a new way of saying mass.  Anything illicit is sinful, and Quo Primum specifically says that any additions, changes, etc to its missal are a grave sin of disobedience to the papacy.
    Logged

    Offline claudel

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1776
    • Reputation: +1335/-419
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Loud "Active Participation - How They Emptied the Churches of Men
    « Reply #33 on: December 07, 2020, 03:40:17 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 07, 2020, 02:34:51 PM

    … There's no such thing as a "balanced view". It's either legal or not. All post-1962 changes are illegal. … The Dialogue Mass is therefore post-1962 and a novelty.

    The legality of the Dialogue Mass is not in question, even by your standards. It antedated the Council by more than thirty years and sat largely idle for roughly twenty years before it began to grow like a fungus. It is an unwelcome visitor that managed to get its foot in the door, and before long, it was in the room and pushing everything else out the door.

    Not everything undesirable, deplorable, or even downright wicked is ipso facto illicit.

    Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 07, 2020, 02:34:51 PM

    … It is illicit because ALL of the post-1962 liturgical changes ignored Quo Primum and by doing so, they authored a new way of saying mass. Anything illicit is sinful, and Quo Primum specifically says that any additions, changes, etc to its missal are a grave sin of disobedience to the papacy.

    You are a Quo Primum absolutist. You are not the only one, of course, but in common with the rest, you are quite content to sweep the power of the Keys under the carpet if doing so serves your purpose.

    It is not pleasant to contemplate that bad popes can use their authority to do terrible things and undo good and virtuous things, but it is a fact that a Catholic needs to face.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12674
    • Reputation: +8067/-2497
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Loud "Active Participation - How They Emptied the Churches of Men
    « Reply #34 on: December 07, 2020, 04:14:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    The legality of the Dialogue Mass is not in question, even by your standards. It antedated the Council by more than thirty years and sat largely idle for roughly twenty years before it began to grow like a fungus.

    Hold on.  Just because it was being used in the 30s-40s (i.e. roughly 30 yrs before V2), does not mean it was legal.  It is historical fact that liturgical innovations were happening from the 30s onward.  Where is the proof that Rome approved such?  Or the Bishop?  If it wasn't approved, then it's illicit and sinful.
    .
    Even IF (a big if) such a dialogue mass were "approved" (i.e. a local indult, because such a mass certainly wasn't widespread), then it was for only certain areas.  But once 1962 rolled around and +JohnXXIII issued his revisions to the missal, and the Dialogue Mass wasn't part of this revision, then the case is closed on it.  It's no longer allowed.  Period.
    .
    You can call this logic "absolutionist" all you want, but that's how law works.  Those who continue to use this innovation/novelty aren't Traditional because they are adding things to the 1962 missal.
    Logged

    Offline claudel

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1776
    • Reputation: +1335/-419
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Loud "Active Participation - How They Emptied the Churches of Men
    « Reply #35 on: December 07, 2020, 04:37:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 07, 2020, 04:14:17 PM

    Hold on. Just because it was being used in the 30s-40s (i.e. roughly 30 yrs before V2), does not mean it was legal. It is historical fact that liturgical innovations were happening from the 30s onward. Where is the proof that Rome approved such?Or the Bishop? If it wasn't approved, then it's illicit and sinful.

    Not for the first time, you confuse the liceity of the form—at the latest, stemming from Pius XI—with the legitimacy of its spread from the cloister to the local diocese to virtually the entire Latin Rite Church. Legitimacy ranges somewhere between (a) dubious and (b) certainly unfounded. Liceity involves no dubiety whatsoever.

    Everything else reads like a legalistic smokescreen that implies the presence of a conviction that the problem will go away if we all say it's illegal. That tactic never worked with Obamacare, and it won't work with the Dialogue Mass, even among Trads. The sole thing that might work with the latter is reasoned discussion focusing on the undesirability of the practice from rubrical, theological, and salvational perspectives. Figure out how to persuade a Trad who likes the Dialogue Mass that it is less pleasing to God—with specific attention to the distinction He ordained between those in and out of Orders—and you will have a convert to your view.
    Logged

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3330/-1939
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Loud "Active Participation - How They Emptied the Churches of Men
    « Reply #36 on: December 07, 2020, 05:48:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: claudel on December 07, 2020, 04:37:21 PM
    Figure out how to persuade a Trad who likes the Dialogue Mass that it is less pleasing to God—with specific attention to the distinction He ordained between those in and out of Orders—and you will have a convert to your view.
    Is there a trad man on CI that likes the dialogue mass? I asked before and no one responded as to liking it and why. ElAusente said he does not like it nor attend it, and Stanley N said nothing. I see no one defending it, but Stanley N. 

    The Dialogue Mass: Who offers it? Who doesn't? - page 3 - The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com)

    Quote

    I can understand the laity (sheep)  just going along, that is why we are where we are today, but my question is directed to those who promote the mass like the ElAusente and anyone else who promotes it and fights for it. Why do they want to respond aloud like the altar server and the priest? In the case of a priest, why do they want the congregation to respond aloud like altar servers?
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12674
    • Reputation: +8067/-2497
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Loud "Active Participation - How They Emptied the Churches of Men
    « Reply #37 on: December 07, 2020, 06:08:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    Not for the first time, you confuse the liceity of the form—at the latest, stemming from Pius XI—with the legitimacy of its spread from the cloister to the local diocese to virtually the entire Latin Rite Church. Legitimacy ranges somewhere between (a) dubious and (b) certainly unfounded. Liceity involves no dubiety whatsoever.
    Please cite a proof that 'liceity' is different from 'legitimacy'.  My research says they mean the same thing.  
    .
    Your argument 1) didn't address the 1962 missal issue, which clearly does NOT allow the Dialogue Mass.  2) didn't address the lack of Tradition/history, 3) didn't address the fact that this practice is a novelty, and which history shows the time period in question (1930s - 60s) was FULL of novelties, most all of which were illegal and immoral, 4) which novelties were EXACTLY the reason that JohnXXIII issued the 1962 missal to begin with - to stop the attack on the liturgy and the beginning of the loss of uniform prayer.
    .

    Quote
    Everything else reads like a legalistic smokescreen that implies the presence of a conviction that the problem will go away if we all say it's illegal. That tactic never worked with Obamacare, and it won't work with the Dialogue Mass, even among Trads. The sole thing that might work with the latter is reasoned discussion focusing on the undesirability of the practice from rubrical, theological, and salvational perspectives. Figure out how to persuade a Trad who likes the Dialogue Mass that it is less pleasing to God—with specific attention to the distinction He ordained between those in and out of Orders—and you will have a convert to your view.

    I was not addressing how to end the DM, but only answering the question of, "Is it allowed, morally or legally?"  I say it is not allowed legally, therefore not allowed morally.  Thus, I (and others) can use this information to enlighten those who care, and to fight those who are persisting in the spread of an immoral liturgical act.
    .
    It is sufficient to spread the Truth and let others decide, of their own free will, how to respond.  Trying to figure out how to stop the problem is an exercise in futility.  None of us has any Church authority and even if we did, short of being the pope himself, we cannot stop a global liturgical crisis.
    Logged

    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1208
    • Reputation: +530/-484
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Loud "Active Participation - How They Emptied the Churches of Men
    « Reply #38 on: December 07, 2020, 06:20:31 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 07, 2020, 06:08:19 PM
    Your argument 1) didn't address the 1962 missal issue, which clearly does NOT allow the Dialogue Mass.

    How or where does it not allow it?
    Logged

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3330/-1939
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Loud "Active Participation - How They Emptied the Churches of Men
    « Reply #39 on: December 07, 2020, 07:26:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stanley N on December 07, 2020, 06:20:31 PM
    How or where does it not allow it?
    Stanley N,
    can you answer the question for me?
    Quote

    my question is directed to those men who promote the mass ... Why do they want to respond aloud like the altar server and the priest?
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12674
    • Reputation: +8067/-2497
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Loud "Active Participation - How They Emptied the Churches of Men
    « Reply #40 on: December 07, 2020, 07:41:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    How or where does it not allow it?

    The burden of proof is on those who favor the DM to prove it's not a novelty.  To prove it's Traditional and orthodox.  The generation of WW1 did not grow up using it.  All the generations before them, back to Quo Primum's inception - 1570s, did not use it.  Where is the history of the DM?
    .
    The 1962 missal is essentially the exact same missal as Quo Primum's missal, which is essentially the same missal put forth by Pope St Gregory the Great in the 500s (when Christians could come out of the catecombs and openly worship).  Where is the history to support the DM, except starting in the 1930s?  If it wasn't used "everywhere, always, by all" pre-1930, then it's a novelty!
    Logged

    Offline claudel

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1776
    • Reputation: +1335/-419
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Loud "Active Participation - How They Emptied the Churches of Men
    « Reply #41 on: December 07, 2020, 07:44:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Last Tradhican on December 07, 2020, 05:48:45 PM

    Is there a trad man on CI that likes the dialogue mass?

    As Sean noted earlier, Matthew is on record as being at least sympathetic to it.* And as far as an opinion's weightiness chez CathInfo is concerned, Matthew x 1 = Typical commenter x 2,500.
    ________________
    *Disclaimer: the word choice regarding this characterization is mine, not Sean's. Any mistake or misstatement is my error, not his.
    Logged

    Offline claudel

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1776
    • Reputation: +1335/-419
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Loud "Active Participation - How They Emptied the Churches of Men
    « Reply #42 on: December 07, 2020, 07:56:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 07, 2020, 06:08:19 PM

    Please cite a proof that 'liceity' is different from 'legitimacy'. My research says they mean the same thing.

    What research is that, pray tell? If you don't understand already that liceity refers to the moral or doctrinal dimension of a practice and legitimacy refers to the regularity of its authorization, proclamation, or use, you certainly won't believe me when I tell you. You have a long-standing proclivity for preferring self-generated error to instruction from an outside source.

    Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 07, 2020, 06:08:19 PM

    I was not addressing how to end the DM, but only answering the question of, "Is it allowed, morally or legally?"

    The sentence above is simply a roundabout way of saying that you would rather flog a dead horse than deal with the problem prudentially and in a spirit of fraternal charity, as is the practice commended in the Gospels and Epistles.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12674
    • Reputation: +8067/-2497
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Loud "Active Participation - How They Emptied the Churches of Men
    « Reply #43 on: December 07, 2020, 08:00:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Sympathetic to it, not liking it, hating it, or indifferent...These are all FEELINGS, which don't matter.  What matters, in liturgical questions, is the law and morality.  1) Is this practice objectively sacrilegious or blasphemous?  I don't think so.  But you have to ask the 2nd question: 2) Is this practice legal?  If it's not, then it's still immoral, even if it's "not as bad as" communion in the hand, or some other novus ordo abomination.  Stealing $20,000 is still gravely wrong, even if it's "not as bad as" stealing $200,000.
    .
    Those who defend the DM don't really understand the theology of the Mass or Quo Primum.
    Logged

    Offline claudel

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1776
    • Reputation: +1335/-419
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Loud "Active Participation - How They Emptied the Churches of Men
    « Reply #44 on: December 07, 2020, 08:03:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 07, 2020, 08:00:10 PM

    Sympathetic to it, not liking it, hating it, or indifferent...These are all FEELINGS, which don't matter.  What matters, in liturgical questions, is the law and morality.  1) Is this practice objectively sacrilegious or blasphemous?  I don't think so.  But you have to ask the 2nd question: 2) Is this practice legal?  If it's not, then it's still immoral, even if it's "not as bad as" communion in the hand, or some other novus ordo abomination.  Stealing $20,000 is still gravely wrong, even if it's "not as bad as" stealing $200,000.
    .
    Those who defend the DM don't really understand the theology of the Mass or Quo Primum.

    Have you copied the above into a PM and forwarded it to Matthew? You'll let us all know what his reaction is, won't you?
    Logged
    Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
    « previous next »