CathInfo.com

Hi Meg-

Not to use a missal, but to use a vernacular translation, yes.

Some of those condemnations are listed in the article I provided above.

Thanks; I'll read through the article.

John McFarland wrote to me, and wanted me to make a "correction" in this thread.

I agree with Mediator Dei, and I've given my opinion on the Dialogue Mass several times. I don't have time to re-hash the same subjects every year or two. I have a life.


Here is John McFarland's contribution:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apropos of the recent Cathinfo anathemas comments regarding the dialogue Mass, may I suggest that you read the attached excerpt from Fr. Iscara's Q&A in the current Angelus, which makes quite clear that Pius XII was a supporter of the dialogue Mass.

'Can I fully participate at  Mass by praying my rosary or doing my spiritual reading?


'The question has been already magisterially answered by Pius XII in his encyclical Mediator Dei.

'First of all, “the faithful should be aware that to participate in the Eucharistic Sacrifice is their chief duty and supreme dignity, and that not in an inert and negligent fashion, giving way
to distractions and daydreaming, but with such earnestness and concentration that they may be united as closely as possible with the High Priest, and together with Him and through Him let them
make their oblation, and in union with Him let them offer up themselves” (Mediator Dei, §80).


'In consequence, “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” (Mediator Dei, §105) (emphasis added).

'The chief aim of these methods of participation is “to foster and promote the people’s piety and intimate union with Christ and His visible minister and to arouse those internal sentiments and dispositions which should make our hearts become like to that of the High Priest of the New Testament” (Mediator Dei, §106).

'Nonetheless, “many of the faithful are unable to use the Roman Missal even though it is written in the vernacular—nor are all capable of understanding correctly the liturgical rites and formulas. So varied and diverse are men’s talents and characters that it is impossible for all to be moved and attracted to the same extent by community prayers, hymns, and liturgical services. Moreover, the needs and inclinationsof all are not the same, nor are they always constant in the same individual. Who then would say, on account of such a prejudice, that all these Christians cannot participate in the Mass nor
share its fruits? On the contrary, they can adopt some other method which proves easier for certain people, for instance, they can lovingly meditate on the mysteries of Jesus Christ or perform other exercises of piety or recite prayers which, though they differ from the sacred rites, are still essentially in harmony with them” ' (Mediator Dei, §108).

Obviously answering of the priest had to be in Latin.  This is what nuns and altar boys did for centuries before Mediator Dei.  This is what the faithful did in dialogue Masses in the U.S. before the roof caved in.

Wait a minute:

John McFarland is going to defend the dialogue Mass by citing the Pope who suppressed the true Holy Week??

:barf:

Does John McFarland have any papal sources recommending the dialogue Mass prior to Benedict XV (assets scrambling)??

So, no pre-liturgical movement history anywhere in the church.

PS: This series will be quite enlightening regarding the dialogue Mass: https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f073_Dialogue_1.htm

Wait a minute:

John McFarland is going to defend the dialogue Mass by citing the Pope who suppressed the true Holy Week??

Be fair, Sean.

Chez CathInfo, micturating on John McFarland is such a widely practiced participatory sport that I should not be surprised at the announcement of its own World Cup (World Pissoir?) Finals. Even so, in the interest of preventing or at least restricting hooliganism among the sport's participants and fans, I urge that Rule 1 in the proposed handbook specify that would-be micturators be required to accurately state what enormity Mr. McFarland has committed before the line judge or referee gives the bladder-emptying process the go-ahead.

On the basis of this proposed rule, Sean, you should certainly have held your water, for there is no resemblance between the quoted sentence and the content of Mr. McFarland's remarks (which, not so incidentally, clearly begin below the dashed line in Matthew's comment). Those remarks were offered in evidence for one claim only: that Pius XII was "a supporter of the dialogue Mass," whatever assertions to the contrary were made, here or elsewhere, by others. That his claim is adequately evidenced by the citation from Mediator Dei is pretty plain to me—more's the pity, say I.* If a more careful reader can show me that the situation is otherwise, I shall listen with attention.

(An aside: I am sure that if you or anyone else here asks him nicely, John McFarland will be happy to say something forthright that will stimulate jubilee quantities of urine sitewide! A further aside: To use Matthew's apt words, "I've given my opinion on the Dialogue Mass several times." Like Matthew's, my opinion is to be found in the archives. Hint: it's anything but supportive.)

For Mr. McFarland's thoughts on these and other matters, interested readers need only search through CI's laudably full archives. (He wrote quite a lot before he got the boot.) Those readers who are especially fond of circuмlocution should be alerted, however, that they will find that "Come on, now, tell us what you really think" are words no one, friend or foe,** ever uttered in Mr. McFarland's general direction.
_________________________
* All the more reason to recall the wise words of the Congregation of Rites (1922): "Things that in themselves are licit are not always expedient." Still, even from a casual reading of the encyclical's quoted matter, one should see that not participating in a Dialogue Mass and not wishing to participate in a Dialogue Mass are nowhere depreciated or deprecated. This is something to draw comfort from.

** An admission against local interest: Out here in the real world, I have been the former for about 55 years.