Author Topic: SSPX Pushing the Dialogue Masses (Again) (Read 2984 times)

Chris Z · « **Reply #15 on:** September 09, 2019, 09:46:18 PM »

I'm new to the notion of the dialogue Mass. At first mention, it's not comfortable to me, nor is it my custom. To be thorough, where can I read up on its history? I would like to know my customs and level of comfort are founded on the true culture of the Faith, and not protestant, anglican, english isms.

cz

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #16 on:** September 09, 2019, 09:54:48 PM »

Quote from: Chris Z on September 09, 2019, 09:46:18 PM

I'm new to the notion of the dialogue Mass. At first mention, it's not comfortable to me, nor is it my custom. To be thorough, where can I read up on its history? I would like to know my customs and level of comfort are founded on the true culture of the Faith, and not protestant, anglican, english isms.

cz

Here's a 5 minute presentation:

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #17 on:** September 09, 2019, 09:59:43 PM »

Here's a book-length study, broken up into 75+ installments (this being the first):

https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f073_Dialogue_1.htm

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #18 on:** September 10, 2019, 07:04:35 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 09, 2019, 06:26:38 PM

More than this, it was not the custom anywhere in the world 100 years ago.

That is correct, it was a novelty invented in the 1920's. If the French really had been living the Faith, they would have kept their customs and rejected the novelty, and it would not even exist today.

What I said applies to every country including France:

The Dialogue Mass ~~is not and~~ never was the custom of ~~English speaking countries~~ France. This is all that ~~an American~~ a Frenchman has to say. We are required to know our own customs, so that we can discern change. A change like the Dialogue Mass can be a priest winging it, inventing his own thing, or a priest from another country doing it as it is done in his country, or a mix of both. We are not required to know what is done in every other country. If we changed the customs for every priest that comes to this country it would be chaos. ~~Americans~~ Frenchmen do did not need to know anything about the Dialogue Mass one way or the other.

The Dialogue Mass ~~is not and~~ never was the custom of ~~English speaking countries~~ France . This is all that ~~an American~~ a Frenchmen has to say.

confederate catholic · « **Reply #19 on:** September 10, 2019, 08:45:28 AM »

1- A Latin-English missal is not a bad thing no matter how it came about
2- A low mass with everyone speaking servers parts and common prayers is an abomination
3- You have to suck up foreign customs when you're stuck with a frog priestly congregation

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #20 on:** September 10, 2019, 08:57:44 AM »

Quote from: confederate catholic on September 10, 2019, 08:45:28 AM

1- A Latin-English missal is not a bad thing no matter how it came about
2- A low mass with everyone speaking servers parts and common prayers is an abomination
3- You have to suck up foreign customs when you're stuck with a frog priestly congregation

Why vernacular translations of Mass were prohibited (eg., in hand missals).

After you are finished reading the reasons, consider what is implied in the modernists disregarding (without permission, initially) this prohibition (eg., in the translation of hand missals into the vernacular).

Note also that Adoremus is itself a BXVI-type “reform of the reform” outfit, and for that reason rejoices in some of the modernist rationale in overthrowing some of the traditional liturgical principles (eg., Luther’s request for the priest to say the Mass in a loud voice, as the SSPX has been doing for the last several years, etc):

Forbidden Translations?
A Brief History of How the Mass Came to Be Rendered in the Vernacular
By JEREMY J. PRIESTJanuary 12, 2019
https://adoremus.org/2019/01/12/forbidden-translations-a-brief-history-of-how-the-mass-came-to-be-rendered-in-the-vernacular/

“It’s the ‘Cadillac’ of all hand missals,” my friend told me, as we rode the bus in the early hours of a cold Sunday morning in Milwaukee. This was my first foray into the “Latin Mass,” and I wasn’t sure what to expect. Yet, I had a sense of the beauty of the Latin and I was glad to have the trusty Father Lasance New Roman Missal to help me understand what lay behind the veil of the melodious Latin chant I would hear. Ever since that Sunday, I’ve always had a love for hand missals—helping to enter more deeply into the Mass, prayerfully meditating on the words and uniting myself to Christ’s sacrifice as Christ makes the Church manifest at each Mass.

All this is why these words from Dom Prosper Guéranger’s opening volume of The Liturgical Year puzzled me: “In order to conform with the wishes of the Holy See, we do not give, in any of the volumes of our Liturgical Year, the literal translation of the Ordinary and Canon of the Mass; and have in its place endeavored to give, to such of the laity as do not understand Latin, the means of uniting, in the closest possible manner, with everything that the priest says and does at the altar.”[1]

What on earth was this about? Wasn’t it a good thing to have translations of the Mass texts in the hands of the laity so they can unite with “everything that the priest says and does at the altar”? How did it come about that the Holy See restricted literal translations of the Ordinary and the Canon of the Mass, as Abbot Guéranger indicates? And why today is there not only an English translation provided in the missal for the Mass of 1962 (the Extraordinary Form) but the Mass in the ordinary form is almost exclusively celebrated around the world in the vernacular? For a solution to these puzzles, it is important to piece together some Church history.

Vernacular History
It was in the face of the Protestant Reformation that the council fathers at Trent did not think the liturgy itself “should be celebrated in the vernacular indiscriminately” (DH 1749). Indeed, in the canons that followed the above statement in the decrees, the fathers of Trent went on to anathematize those Protestant Reformers who condemned the rubric of praying “part of the canon and the words of consecration…in a low voice” (DH 1759).

Luther himself was certainly in view here: “Would to God that [the priest] would shout [the words of institution] loudly so that all could hear them clearly, and, moreover, in the German language.”[2] For Luther, the words of institution, or Verba Solemni, are essentially proclamatory and should therefore “be heard by everyone in the attending congregation, so he calls for these words to be sung.”[3]

Following upon Luther, the seventeenth-century Jansenist movement asserted that just “as the Bible ought to be intelligible to all, so too should the liturgy. The Jansenists wished to supplement careful instruction with at least a partial translation” [4] and called for the use of “vernacular missals at Mass.”[5]

It is significant to note here that while the fathers at Trent did not think it opportune to celebrate the liturgy “in the vernacular indiscriminately” (DH 1749), they did not utterly condemn the practice in principle. Rather, Trent recognized that so many of the Protestant Reformers asserted the illegitimate nature of celebrating the Sacraments in Latin.

Speaking from Within
In the context of Trent and the centuries that followed, the insistence on the vernacular was most prominently tied to sentiments that were either anti-Papal or which denied Catholic teaching on the Sacraments and the Mass in particular. But in 1660, it was a wholly Catholic undertaking that made the first attempt within the Church to publish a vernacular form of the Mass. The Director of the Sorbonne, Joseph Voisin, “published a five-volume translation of the Missel romain, the text in Latin and French, with notes and commentary in French alone.”[6]

Though authorized by the vicars-general of Paris, the work was immediately condemned by the “the Assembly of the Clergy, the Sorbonne, and the Royal Council.”[7] Indeed, Pope Alexander VII “joined in with an astonishing brief of 12 January 1661, not only censuring the ‘son of perdition’ who had made the translation, but also ‘rejecting, condemning and interdicting all translations that may be made of the book of the mass.’”[8]

Another attempt to vernacularize the Mass came with the rise of Jansenism, a Catholic theological movement that soon became tainted with a neo-Protestant outlook, including a Calvinist view of man’s inherent depravity and an undue emphasis on predestination. Although Jansenism is most closely associated with its French proponents, the movement found its full flowering in the Italian region of Tuscany and, “chiefly owing to the anti-Papal policy of the Grand Duke Leopold, Jansenism became so strong [in this region] that the local Synod of Pistoia (1786) promulgated one of the most comprehensive statements of Jansenist positions that exist,”[9] advocating among other things for “a vernacular liturgy, and the government of the Church by synods and national councils.”[10] Nevertheless, even where this pseudo-Protestant or anti-Catholic sentiment was lacking, opportunities for the use of the vernacular were slowly adopted.

A Clear Mission

At the first Diocesan Synod of Baltimore held in November 1791, Bishop John Carroll (d.1815), allowed some use of English within liturgical celebrations: the Gospel was to be read in the vernacular on Sundays and feast days, followed by a sermon in English, and vernacular hymns and prayers were recommended.

Some opportunities for the use of the vernacular in relation to the liturgy opened up in mission lands. In 1615 the mission to China brought forth the permission of Pope Paul V “to celebrate mass in Chinese.”[11] Indeed, in “1631, full vernacular privileges were granted to missionaries in Georgia for the celebration of Mass in either Georgian or Armenian. On the other side of the Atlantic in the region around modern-day Montreal, Jesuit missionaries received permission from the Holy See for use of the Iroquois language in the liturgy. At the first Diocesan Synod of Baltimore held in November 1791, Bishop John Carroll (d.1815), allowed some use of English within liturgical celebrations: the Gospel was to be read in the vernacular on Sundays and feast days, followed by a sermon in English, and vernacular hymns and prayers were recommended, as well. In 1822, Bishop John England of Charleston, South Carolina, edited the first American edition of the Roman Missal in English.”[12]

Thus, Trent’s recognition that the “Mass contains much instruction for the faithful” and her concern that “the children beg for food but no one gives to them” (DH 1749), gained greater weight in mission lands, even as use of the vernacular in Europe remained contested.

But even in Europe, the Church was warming to the idea of the vernacular in liturgy. Particularly effective were the arguments of Archbishop Colbert of Rouen, “who taught in a pastoral that the ancient mode of celebrating Mass in the language of the people was the fittest means to prepare the minds of the congregation for participation in the sacrifice.”[13]

Colbert’s arguments were defended by Pope Benedict XIV, who “in 1757 authorized vernacular translations” of the Bible, “provided they were approved at Rome and contained explanations by orthodox scholars.”[14] However, with the advent of the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia (1786) and the French Revolution (1789), a more cautious approach to the vernacular in relation to the liturgy came to the fore. Indeed, as “late as 1851 and again in 1857, the Holy See refused to allow liturgical translations in the vernacular, even as a tool for the laity in greater appreciation of the Mass.

Rite of Passage
All of that changed exactly twenty years later when, in 1877, the same Pope Pius IX (1846–78) who forbade vernacular translations, completely reversed his decision, allowing any bishop to authorize a translation and the use of vernacular missals by the laity.[15]

Dom Prosper Guéranger (1805-1875) wrote in his opening volume of The Liturgical Year (1841): “In order to conform with the wishes of the Holy See, we do not give, in any of the volumes of our Liturgical Year, the literal translation of the Ordinary and Canon of the Mass.”

Pope Leo XIII followed this by “silently [omitting] the ban on translation of the mass into the vernacular” with the 1897 “edition of the Index of Prohibited Books.”[16] In this way, Leo XIII allowed hand missals to be published “on the ordinary imprimatur basis according to the judgment of each bishop.”[17] It is at this point that we can see a slow movement toward the proliferation of hand missals containing a translation of the Mass into the vernacular, including the Canon and Dominical words of the Mass.

As many in the Liturgical Movement pushed toward the use of the vernacular in relation to the liturgy, some insisted on not merely the use of vernacular missals, but “use of the vernacular” even “in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice” (Mediator Dei, 59). However, since the situation confronted by Trent had changed and “since no Catholic would now deny a sacred rite celebrated in Latin to be legitimate and efficacious,”[18] a way was opened for the Second Vatican Council to decree that “since the use of the mother tongue [i.e., the vernacular], whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36).
Several years later—on the eve of the move to the vernacular in the Novus Ordo—Pope Paul VI complemented the sentiments previously quoted from Dom Guéranger (above). Paul said, the understanding “of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more.”[19]

Vernacular Solus?
Having taken a cursory look at how the ban on vernacular translations of the Mass came about—and then evaporated—we are brought back to our original query: whywas there a ban on vernacular translations of the Ordinary and Canon of the Mass? In the face of much post-Reformation catechesis and apologetics with regard to the nature of the Eucharist, why not have vernacular translations of the basic texts of the Mass?

After our current experience of fifty uninterrupted years of vernacular usage, let me speculate that perhaps this reticence to give a literal translation of the Ordinary and the Canon was rooted in the good of both guarding and revealing the mystery. In 1978 and again in 1999, Joseph Ratzinger, “to the annoyance of many liturgists,” argued “that in no sense does the whole Canon always have to be said out loud.”

“Understanding of prayer,” said Pope Paul VI in a November 26, 1969 address, “is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more—particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech.”

In contradistinction to Luther’s assertions above, Ratzinger writes, “It is no accident that in Jerusalem, from a very early time, parts of the Canon were prayed in silence and that in the West the silent Canon—overlaid in part with meditative singing—became the norm. To dismiss all this as the result of misunderstandings is just too easy. It really is not true that reciting the whole Eucharistic Prayer out loud and without interruptions is a prerequisite for the participation of everyone in this central act of the Mass.”[20]

Indeed, Paul VI remarks—in the very same address on the eve of the implementation of the Novus Ordo—“the silences” in the Novus Ordo “will mark various deeper moments in the rite.”[21] Ratzinger concludes this plea for silent participation in the Canon by an appeal to experience that goes beyond words:

“Anyone who has experienced a church united in the silent praying of the Canon will know what a really filled silence is. It is at once a loud and penetrating cry to God and a Spirit-filled act of prayer.

Here everyone does pray the Canon together, albeit in a bond with the special task of the priestly ministry. Here everyone is united, laid hold of by Christ, and led by the Holy Spirit into that common prayer to the Father which is the true sacrifice—the love that reconciles and unites God and the world.”[22]

While I continue to appreciate the gift of that “Cadillac” of hand missals on that cold Sunday morning in Milwaukee all those years ago, I can all the more appreciate the gift and task of language and its limited ability to unite us to the mysteries celebrated in the liturgy. Perhaps what was being fought for in limiting literal translations of the Canon and the words of institution into the vernacular was a deep reverence and awe for the mystery that lies beneath the words. But such a topic is itself perhaps best left in silence to be taken up for another occasion.

[1] Dom Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, Tr. L. Shepherd (Dublin: James Duffy & Sons, 1870), 13.
[2] Martin Luther, “Sermon on the Worthy Reception of the Sacrament, 1521,” in Luther’s Works, Vol. 42: Devotional Writings I, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 42 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 173.
[3] Robin A. Leaver, Luther’s Liturgical Music: Principles and Implications, ed. Paul Rorem, Lutheran Quarterly Books (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007), 180.
[4] John McManners, Church and Society in Eighteenth-Century France: The Religion of the People and the Politics of Religion, ed. Henry Chadwick and Owen Chadwick, vol. 2, Oxford History of the Christian Church (Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press Inc., 1998), 429.
[5] James Hitchcock, History of the Catholic Church: From the Apostolic Age to the Third Millennium (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012), 333.
[6] John McManners, Church and Society in Eighteenth-Century France: The Religion of the People and the Politics of Religion, ed. Henry Chadwick and Owen Chadwick, vol. 2, Oxford History of the Christian Church (Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press Inc., 1998), 45.
[7] John McManners, Church and Society in Eighteenth-Century France: The Religion of the People and the Politics of Religion, ed. Henry Chadwick and Owen Chadwick, vol. 2, Oxford History of the Christian Church (Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press Inc., 1998), 45.
[8] John McManners, Church and Society in Eighteenth-Century France: The Religion of the People and the Politics of Religion, ed. Henry Chadwick and Owen Chadwick, vol. 2, Oxford History of the Christian Church (Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press Inc., 1998), 45.
[9] F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 867.
[10] John McManners, Church and Society in Eighteenth-Century France: The Religion of the People and the Politics of Religion, ed. Henry Chadwick and Owen Chadwick, vol. 2, Oxford History of the Christian Church (Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press Inc., 1998), 665.
[11] Adrian Hastings, The Church in Africa, 1450–1950, ed. Henry Chadwick and Owen Chadwick, Oxford History of the Christian Church (Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press Inc., 1994), 112.
[12] Keith F. Pecklers, Liturgy: The Illustrated History (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press; Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2012), 168.
[13] William E. Addis and Thomas Arnold, A Catholic Dictionary (New York: The Catholic Publication Society Co., 1887), 502.
[14] John McManners, Church and Society in Eighteenth-Century France: The Religion of the People and the Politics of Religion, ed. Henry Chadwick and Owen Chadwick, vol. 2, Oxford History of the Christian Church (Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press Inc., 1998), 200.
[15] Keith F. Pecklers, Liturgy: The Illustrated History (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press; Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2012), 168.
[16] Owen Chadwick, A History of the Popes, 1830–1914, ed. Henry Chadwick and Owen Chadwick, Oxford History of the Christian Church (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 361.
[17] Keith F. Pecklers, Liturgy: The Illustrated History (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press; Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2012), 168.
[18] The Roman Missal: Renewed by Decree of the Most Holy Second Ecuмenical Council of the Vatican, Promulgated by Authority of Pope Paul VI and Revised at the Direction of Pope John Paul II, Third Typical Edition. (Washington D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), 22: GIRM §12.
[19] “Address of Pope Paul VI to a General Assembly, November 26, 1969,” in James Likoudis and Kenneth D. Whitehead, The Pope, the Council, and the Mass: Answers to Questions the “Traditionalists” Have Asked, Revised Edition. (Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road Publishing, 2006), 337–338.
[20] Joseph Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy, trans. John Saward (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000), 215.
[21] “Address of Pope Paul VI to a General Assembly, November 26, 1969,” in James Likoudis and Kenneth D. Whitehead, The Pope, the Council, and the Mass: Answers to Questions the “Traditionalists” Have Asked, Revised Edition. (Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road Publishing, 2006), 338.
[22] Joseph Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy, trans. John Saward (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000), 215–216.

Jeremy J. Priest
Jeremy J. Priest is the Director of the Office of Worship for the Catholic Diocese of Lansing, MI, as well as Content Editor for Adoremus. He holds an STL from the Liturgical Institute of the University of St. Mary of the Lake, Mundelein, IL. He and his wife Genevieve have two children and live in Grand Ledge, MI.

confederate catholic · « **Reply #21 on:** September 10, 2019, 01:33:54 PM »

Being able to follow along on your hand missal is now modernist? I can't understand how denying the faithful the ability to read a translation of Latin text is somehow akin to wanting a vernacular liturgy.

The fact is that the faithful were woefully ignorant of the faith, with Trent the eagerness was to stop Protestant theology from entering the Church. What it effectively did was further divorce the faithful from liturgical life, so much so that Pius X not only lamented the ignorance of the faithful but the disjointing of the Sunday cycle which the reforms obviously did nothing to repair making the problems worse.

To say that the laity have no right to even read a Latin/English hand missal is a bit much

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #22 on:** September 10, 2019, 02:06:23 PM »

Quote from: confederate catholic on September 10, 2019, 01:33:54 PM

Being able to follow along on your hand missal is now modernist? I can't understand how denying the faithful the ability to read a translation of Latin text is somehow akin to wanting a vernacular liturgy.

The fact is that the faithful were woefully ignorant of the faith, with Trent the eagerness was to stop Protestant theology from entering the Church. What it effectively did was further divorce the faithful from liturgical life, so much so that Pius X not only lamented the ignorance of the faithful but the disjointing of the Sunday cycle which the reforms obviously did nothing to repair making the problems worse.

To say that the laity have no right to even read a Latin/English hand missal is a bit much

If you read the article I provided, it shows a persistent trend among subversive liturgists agitating for this innovation, and little by little wearing down the popes, from the time of Luther, onward.

We can see that the concept of “active participation” is Protestant in origin, and absolutely never endorsed by St. Pius X, as some construe (the phrase does not appear in the official version his encyclical).

As for the myth of the woefully ignorant Catholics, deprived by their Church of knowledge, one need only compare the quality of faith between pre-liturgical movement Catholics, and our “enlightened” moderns (who demonstrate more ignorance today that in perhaps any other generation in Church history), despite the vulgarization of the sacramental rites (and manuals).

This historical revisionism was nothing more than a disingenuous pretext for rebels to institute their Lutheran principles.

As for the alleged spiritual benefits of the hand missal, one need only compare the sanctity and saints of the pre-liturgical movement to realize the “benefits” are largely illusory.

The vulgar hand missal May have benefit for second-rate scholars who can’t read Latin, but drawing the reader more deeply into the mysteries of the Mass than private devotions? The evidence by comparison suggests otherwise.

Meg · « **Reply #23 on:** September 10, 2019, 02:20:30 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 10, 2019, 02:06:23 PM

The vulgar hand missal May have benefit for second-rate scholars who can’t read Latin, but drawing the reader more deeply into the mysteries of the Mass than private devotions? The evidence by comparison suggests otherwise.

Did any Pope ever say that it is wrong to use a missal? Did any Church Father or Council say it?

Though I would agree that one can be better drawn into the mysteries by private devotions and uniting one's prayers with the priest at Mass, rather than reading along in the missal in the vernacular. But that's not always easy. The mind does tend to wander at times, for some of us.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #24 on:** September 10, 2019, 03:00:28 PM »

Quote from: Meg on September 10, 2019, 02:20:30 PM

Did any Pope ever say that it is wrong to use a missal? Did any Church Father or Council say it?

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.

Meg · « **Reply #25 on:** September 10, 2019, 03:04:39 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 10, 2019, 03:00:28 PM

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.

Matthew · « **Reply #26 on:** September 10, 2019, 10:50:09 PM »

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.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #27 on:** September 10, 2019, 11:06:17 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on September 10, 2019, 10:50:09 PM

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

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #28 on:** September 10, 2019, 11:13:50 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on September 10, 2019, 10:50:09 PM

John McFarland wrote …. This is what the faithful did in dialogue Masses in the U.S. before the roof caved in.

The faithful in English speaking countries didn't do the Dialogue Mass. The modernists tried to push it, but it never caught on. If it had caught on like in France, this discussion would not be happening, and likely less than 4% of Catholics in the USA would be going to mass, like in France.

claudel · « **Reply #29 on:** September 11, 2019, 01:27:09 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 10, 2019, 11:06:17 PM

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.

Author Topic: SSPX Pushing the Dialogue Masses (Again) (Read 2984 times)

Chris Z

Re: SSPX Pushing the Dialogue Masses (Again)

SeanJohnson

Re: SSPX Pushing the Dialogue Masses (Again)

SeanJohnson

Re: SSPX Pushing the Dialogue Masses (Again)

Last Tradhican

Re: SSPX Pushing the Dialogue Masses (Again)

confederate catholic

Re: SSPX Pushing the Dialogue Masses (Again)

SeanJohnson

Re: SSPX Pushing the Dialogue Masses (Again)

confederate catholic

Re: SSPX Pushing the Dialogue Masses (Again)

SeanJohnson

Re: SSPX Pushing the Dialogue Masses (Again)

Meg

Re: SSPX Pushing the Dialogue Masses (Again)

SeanJohnson

Re: SSPX Pushing the Dialogue Masses (Again)

Meg

Re: SSPX Pushing the Dialogue Masses (Again)

Matthew

Re: SSPX Pushing the Dialogue Masses (Again)

SeanJohnson

Re: SSPX Pushing the Dialogue Masses (Again)

Last Tradhican

Re: SSPX Pushing the Dialogue Masses (Again)

claudel

Re: SSPX Pushing the Dialogue Masses (Again)