SSPX: Yes.You would need to define what a Dialogue mass entails in detail, as Americans do not know what it is. Also I assume you are talking only of the USA. As I understand it, a dialogue mass is a substitute for the low mass, and the congregation makes aloud all the same responses as the altar server. I believe they also stand up during the the Sanctus. There is more to it, but since it has never been the custom in the USA, any priest can invent his own thing and call it a Dialogue Mass. That is why we are only required to know our own customs, and foreign priests were always expected to honor the local custom. My French priests do not do the "dialogue mass" for adults, only for the school children and like I said, they could just be inventing their own thing for all we know. I do not believe the SSPX does a dialogue mass for adults in the USA.
Indult: No.
CMRI: ???
SSPV: ???
Indp.: varies
CMRI does not do the dialog Mass.
When I attended the Sunday Liturgy at the CMRI chapel in Santa Clarita, I remembered the faithful enunciating the responses with the altar boys. This was a sedevacantist chapel.
Fr. Dominic Radecki, CMRI (priest stationed at Queen of Angels
Catholic Church in Newhall or 'Santa Clarita'*) does encourage the
women to respond with the altar boys. He says this is what Pius
XII taught and since he was a valid Pope, he could do no wrong,
basically.
SSPX: Yes.I can speak from experience that the Indult will do it.
Indult: No.
CMRI: ???
SSPV: ???
Indp.: varies
I talked to this one 87 year old independent sede Benedictine priest who actually knew Fr. Feeney and he told me he loves the dialogue mas and also loves the 1955 holy week and thinks it is a shame more priest don't offer the dialogue mass and the 1955 holy week.See the comment below from another thread about aloud active participation. The comment above is a variant example of "Saying that such and such was done 500 years ago in say Jerusalem or Antioch, which is how the modernists introduced every novelty hoisted upon the faithful in the 20th century". We are to follow the customs of the country, which reflects the time honored practices of hundreds of thousands of priests who gave their lives for the faith against the persecutions, tortures, and killings at the hands of the Indians, the Protestants, Masons, and all the enemies of the Catholic Faith that were encountered in the USA for well over 300 years. One does not abandon the customs of the country for the "likes" of a priest. (moreover, here-say in this case). Abandoning our time honored customs is what got us where we are today.
Regarding aloud active participation see the OP of my thread and my answers to others: https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/laity-vocal-reponses-are-a-novelty/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/laity-vocal-reponses-are-a-novelty/)
The bottom line is that we follow the customs of our countries. The USA has a Catholic mass history that goes back 300+ years involving customs from England, Germany, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Poland, France..... I live in the USA and I know my customs as I am sure a Coptic Catholic in Egypt knows his customs. What is done in an Eastern Liturgy is no consequence to me, just as what is done in the USA is of no consequence to a Coptic Catholic in Egypt.
Saying that such and such was done 500 years ago in say Jerusalem or Antioch is how the modernists introduced every novelty hoisted upon the faithful in the 20th century. Learn your own customs and do not fall for the "inventors" of a better way. The customs of a country reflect the character of its people, and being that the USA is a melting pot of many Catholic countries, I have to think that their customs are the most universal.
Aloud active participation is not a custom of the USA.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say loud, active participation was the not custom of the Irish Americans, as the German Americans had their tradition of singing hymns during Mass?Again, the quote above is an example of "Saying that such and such was done 500 years ago in say Jerusalem or Antioch", which is how the modernists introduced every novelty hoisted upon the faithful in the 20th century. Whether the Germans sang hymns or not is something for the Germans to explain to themselves, it has nothing to do with our customs.
Indults (I have been to two of the several in New York City): One yes, one no.
Saying the propers is foreseen by Pius XII's permission of the dialogue Mass.
Please provide docuмentation for this assertion of yours. Also, explain why no one else seems to have drawn the conclusion you do."A final method of participation, and the most perfect form, is for the congregation to make the liturgical responses to the prayers of the priest, thus holding a sort of dialogue with him, and reciting aloud the parts which properly belong to them.
Are you thinking of Father Leonard Villa, Matto? He was formerly pastor of Holy Innocents and is now at a parish in Yonkers, Saint Paul the Apostle.No, I have never been to his Mass which seems unique. I went to St. Agnes a few times over a decade ago, and I remember there being a dialogue Mass (I think as it was so long ago). I don't know the name of the priests who were there. They tell me that St. Agnes no longer has the traditional Mass, but now they have the Novus Ordo in Latin. The rumor is that it is now run by Opus Dei and they hate the traditional Mass. Don't know if that is true, but that is what people are saying. And the other Indult I have been to is Holy Innocents with Fr. Miara as pastor which was not a dialogue Mass. The independent chapel is Our Lady of La Salette in Bayside and they had a dialogue Mass also.
There are actually 3 approved variants of the dialogue/conversation Mass.
We need variety, man!
It set the table for the total destruction of liturgical unity in the Roman rite in what would revolve into the Novus Ordo.
Decent Wiki article:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Mass (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Mass)
There are actually 3 approved variants of the dialogue/conversation Mass.
We need variety, man!
It set the table for the total destruction of liturgical unity in the Roman rite in what would revolve into the Novus Ordo.
Decent Wiki article:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Mass (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Mass)
No, I have never been to his Mass which seems unique. I went to St. Agnes a few times over a decade ago, and I remember there being a dialogue Mass (I think as it was so long ago). I don't know the name of the priests who were there. They tell me that St. Agnes no longer has the traditional Mass, but now they have the Novus Ordo in Latin. The rumor is that it is now run by Opus Dei and they hate the traditional Mass. Don't know if that is true, but that is what people are saying. And the other Indult I have been to is Holy Innocents with Fr. Miara as pastor which was not a dialogue Mass. The independent chapel is Our Lady of La Salette in Bayside and they had a dialogue Mass also.
Or 4 approved varieties:
“The 1958 docuмent Musica sacra divides dialogue Masses into four degrees of outward, vocal expression. In a nutshell,
The congregation makes the shorter responses such as the Amen, Deo gratias, Et cuм spiritu tuo along with the servers.
Same as above but adding all the responses of the servers, including the prayers at the foot of the altar, Second Confiteor where used, etc..
Same as above adding the Ordinary (e.g. Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, etc.) together with the priest and/or choir.
Same as above adding even the Propers (Introit, etc.) with the priest and/or choir.”
https://wdtprs.com/2015/03/ask-father-extraordinary-form-dialogue-masses/ (https://wdtprs.com/2015/03/ask-father-extraordinary-form-dialogue-masses/)
"A final method of participation, and the most perfect form, is for the congregation to make the liturgical responses to the prayers of the priest, thus holding a sort of dialogue with him, and reciting aloud the parts which properly belong to them.
There are four degrees or stages of this participation:
a) First, the congregation may make the easier liturgical responses to the prayers of the priest: Amen; Et cuм spiritu tuo; Deo gratias; Gloria tibi Domine; Laus tibi, Christe; Habemus ad Dominum; Dignum et justum est; Sed libera nos a malo;
b) Secondly, the congregation may also say prayers, which, according to the rubrics, are said by the server, including the Confiteor, and the triple Domine non sum dignus before the faithful receive Holy Communion;
c) Thirdly, the congregation may say aloud with the celebrant parts of the Ordinary of the Mass: Gloria in excelsis Deo; Credo; Sanctus-Benedictus; Agnus Dei;
d) Fourthly, the congregation may also recite with the priest parts of the Proper of the Mass: Introit, Gradual, Offertory, Communion. Only more advanced groups who have been well trained will be able to participate with becoming dignity in this manner.
32. Since the Pater Noster is a fitting, and ancient prayer of preparation for Communion, the entire congregation may recite this prayer in unison with the priest in low Masses; the Amen at the end is to be said by all. This is to be done only in Latin, never in the vernacular."
https://adoremus.org/1958/09/instruction-on-sacred-music/
Again, thank you—and as regards De musica sacra, just so. The fact remains that Father Villa is the only priest I have ever encountered who treats the last option as something other than a Bugniniesque obscenity best left to the celebration of the Novus Ordo party-time excuse for the mass. Wikipedia's implication that congregational yakking during the Proper antedated 1958 is either stupid or dishonest. Neither adjective seems out of place, of course, when Wikipedia is being discussed.I’ve never seen the 4th option done either. It’s like one step short of having the faithful concelebrate.
I never claimed it was congruent with tradition. I merely claimed, as the docuмent shows, that permission was granted for the faithful to say the propers with the priest.
I can’t stand the dialogue Mass in any form, and refuse to attend one.
I have as little use for it as you do, Sean, as I have said here for years. Unfortunately, there have been many occasions when I have attended such a Mass because my only other option was to stay at home. I do not criticize anyone who, in a similar situation, makes the contrary choice, but I myself am uncomfortable with staying at home except as a last resort, especially as I must frequently miss Sunday Mass because of ill health.Agree completely
What parish is doing option 4? At that point, it's the Novus Ordo with window dressing.
Why is Pius X's restoration of Gregorian chant not subject to the same criticism as disregarding the liturgical traditions of local places?El Ausente in Spanish means the absent one. Poche was a Spanish speaker and he is absent from CI because he was thrown off. The style of the writer is the same as Poche.
El Ausente in Spanish means the absent one. Poche was a Spanish speaker and he is absent from CI because he was thrown off. The style of the writer is the same as Poche. … Are you Poche?
Why is Pius X's restoration of Gregorian chant not subject to the same criticism as disregarding the liturgical traditions of local places?
You answered your own question - it was a RESTORATION of past Tradition and he decreed it for the WHOLE church, because we should all be praying as ONE. The whole reason for St Pius V's Quo Primum in 1571 was to make the liturgy uniform (again), and to stop local customs. St Pius X was simply re-restoring things. ...Human nature...things typically devolve into chaos because of lukewarmness and lack of discipline.Actually, Quo primum was not designed to stop local customs. It expressly permits the continuation of local rites of a certain age, and indeed local rites did continue (and still do). In fact as late as the 19th century, in response to Guéranger and others, Pius IX, while admitting that the universal adoption of the Roman rite in France would be good, that it would cause more harm than good. Furthermore, the uniformity of liturgy in the twentieth century would indeed not be a restoration of tradition but decidedly contrary to the centuries of diverse liturgical practice.
Actually, Quo primum was not designed to stop local customs. It expressly permits the continuation of local rites of a certain age, and indeed local rites did continue (and still do).If you want to define centuries-old, Apostolic-origin rites as "local customs", then you're correct. But under the common understanding of "local custom", the Ambrosian, Byzantine (etc) rites were older than 200+ years at the time of 1571, so they were allowed to continue; they aren't local customs but true liturgies. The main reason being they were Apostolic/Church Father origin. All of the various local customs were gone after 1571, as they should've been.
In fact as late as the 19th century, in response to Guéranger and others, Pius IX, while admitting that the universal adoption of the Roman rite in France would be good, that it would cause more harm than good. Furthermore, the uniformity of liturgy in the twentieth century would indeed not be a restoration of tradition but decidedly contrary to the centuries of diverse liturgical practice.
One could defend the Dialogue Mass in the same way, as "a RESTORATION of past Tradition and he decreed it for the WHOLE church." This last part is not true, either. The liturgical reforms of Pius X only applied to the Roman rite and thus not even to the whole of the Latin Church and of course did not affect the various Eastern churches in union with Rome.
The congregation makes the shorter responses such as the Amen, Deo gratias, Et cuм spiritu tuo along with the servers.I am curious to know why a man who avoids the Novus Ordo and calls himself a traditionalist would want/like to respond like the altar server (and priest) in a Low Mass? I know there are some men that go to the Latin Mass because they are attracted its artistic superiority, pretty vestments, "smells and bells" . Is that the reason? Maybe the lovers of the dialogue mass can tell me what it is that attracts them?
Same as above but adding all the responses of the servers, including the prayers at the foot of the altar, Second Confiteor where used, etc..
Same as above adding the Ordinary (e.g. Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, etc.) together with the priest and/or choir.
Same as above adding even the Propers (Introit, etc.) with the priest and/or choir.”
https://wdtprs.com/2015/03/ask-father-extraordinary-form-dialogue-masses/ (https://wdtprs.com/2015/03/ask-father-extraordinary-form-dialogue-masses/)
I am curious to know why a man who avoids the Novus Ordo and calls himself a traditionalist would want/like to respond like the altar server (and priest) in a Low Mass? I know there are some men that go to the Latin Mass because they are attracted its artistic superiority, pretty vestments, "smells and bells" . Is that the reason? Maybe the lovers of the dialogue mass can tell me what it is that attracts them?
The question is not for women, only for men and I am talking about a Low Mass only for now.
Usually, it is because they are sold a bill of goods, which goes something like this: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?
"Well, there's nothing strictly heretical about the dialogue Mass. And after all, it was approved before Vatican II. [and here comes the knockout punch:] And Archbishop Lefebvre never had a problem with it. So those people who object to the dialogue Mass really don't have a leg to stand on. They just don't like it."
This is the main rationale I hear from priests and laity promoting the dialogue Mass.
Can you spot the errors in it?
You answered your own question - it was a RESTORATION of past Tradition ...
Saying that such and such was done 500 years ago in say Jerusalem or Antioch is how the modernists introduced every novelty hoisted upon the faithful in the 20th century.
But LT saidI understand now why the writer has a strongly negative reputation score.
So what was done in the past is irrelevant if it is no longer the "custom"?
Saying that such and such was done 500 years ago in say Jerusalem or Antioch is how the modernists introduced every novelty hoisted upon the faithful in the 20th century.
LT's point is valid, he just didn't explain the nitty gritty details of how the modernists lied.
You, Pax, recognize that "custom" can include a range of practices, some of which are easily changed and some of which are not.
Can you give examples?For easily changed "customs" I had in mind things like when and how the bells are rung at the Latin mass.
How is it a substantial change to the theology of the mass to say responses with the servers, or to recite something that the people sing at a sing mass?
I said it's borderline, because the priest says the mass, not the faithful.But that's the same either way.
My recollection of the Latin mass is the priest doesn't say the responses the servers say.
And the people sing the creed at a sung mass. Does that take away from the priest?
Did you read my whole response? The servers/choir are filled by the laity ONLY out of necessity. Thus, the laity are (spiritually speaking) filling the role of the church, when they serve/sing. Those laity who are in the pews are simple laity and have NO role in the mass. Liturgically and theologically, they need to be silent.Very good. Perfectly said Pax Vobis.
If you want to define centuries-old, Apostolic-origin rites as "local customs", then you're correct. But under the common understanding of "local custom", the Ambrosian, Byzantine (etc) rites were older than 200+ years at the time of 1571, so they were allowed to continue; they aren't local customs but true liturgies. The main reason being they were Apostolic/Church Father origin. All of the various local customs were gone after 1571, as they should've been.What do you mean by "local customs"? Is the practice of singing the Latin Mass in Greek at the Abbey of St Denis, as docuмented here (https://sicutincensum.wordpress.com/2018/10/05/the-greek-mass-of-st-denys/), a "local custom"?
I assume you're speaking of the Gallican rite, which is centuries and centuries old. You can't compare this rite to the many, many variations which existed in 1571.
The point is, the Dialogue mass is not Traditional, nor Apostolic. The Gallican rite can trace its history back to the early Church. The Dialogue mass is a novelty; you can't "restore" something new.
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?I do not promote nor do I care for the dialogue Mass. When I am present at it, I do not say the responses.
I do not promote nor do I care for the dialogue Mass. When I am present at it, I do not say the responses.What are you doing then, playing the Devil's Advocate?
First, let’s review. In a nutshell here are the degrees permitted.
The parts that could be said or sung by the congregation were of two kinds: the parts to be sung at High Mass (Pontifical, Solemn, Sung), and the parts which are responses of the ministers or the server at Low Mass. The 1958 docuмent Musica sacra divides dialogue Masses into four degrees of outward, vocal expression. In a nutshell,
At Low Massc. Participation of the faithful in low Mass.28. Care must be taken that the faithful assist at low Mass, too, “not as strangers or mute spectators” (Divini cultus, Dec. 20, 1928: AAS 21 [1929] 40), but as exercising that kind of participation demanded by so great, and fruitful a mystery.29. The first way the faithful can participate in the low Mass is for each one, on his own initiative, to pay devout attention to the more important parts of the Mass (interior participation), or by following the approved customs in various localities (exterior participation).Those who use a small missal, suitable to their own understanding, and pray with priest in the very words of the Church, are worthy of special praise. But all are not equally capable of correctly understanding the rites, and liturgical formulas; nor does everyone possess the same spiritual needs; nor do these needs remain constant in the same individual. Therefore, these people may find a more suitable or easier method of participation in the Mass when “they meditate devoutly on the mysteries of Jesus Christ, or perform other devotional exercises, and offer prayers which, though different in form from those of the sacred rites, are in essential harmony with them” (Mediator Dei (https://adoremus.org/MediatorDei.html), AAS 39 [1947] 560-561).In this regard, it must be noted that if any local custom of playing the organ during low Mass might interfere with the participation of the faithful, either by common prayer or song, the custom is to be abolished. This applies not only to the organ, but also to the harmonium or any other musical instrument which is played without interruption. Therefore, in such Masses, there should be no instrumental music at the following times:a. After the priest reaches the altar until the Offertory;b. From the first versicles before the Preface until the Sanctus inclusive;c. From the Consecration until the Pater Noster, where the custom obtains;d. From the Pater Noster to the Agnus Dei inclusive; at the Confiteor before the Communion of the faithful ; while the Postcommunion prayer is being said, and during the Blessing at the end of the Mass.
What do you mean by "local customs"?
What are you doing then, playing the Devil's Advocate?I did two things. First, I provided docuмentary evidence that saying the propers was permitted by Pius XII. Second, I wished to further explore the question of innovation vs. restoration. The dialogue Mass is rightly seen as an innovation, although to some extent based in a historical precedent. However, Pius X's breviary was just as innovative as later changes, but it is generally not questioned, although this is ceasing to be the case. The reform of music under Pius X could also be argued against in the same way that the dialogue Mass is argued against, i.e. an imposition from above quashing local customs and liturgical development and an exercise in liturgical archaeologism.
First, I provided docuмentary evidence that saying the propers was permitted by Pius XII.So if Pius XII allowed this permission, it was only localized, because not everyone did it this way. But that's irrelevant, because when John XXIII issued the 1962 missal, the dialogue mass wasn't part of the revised Latin Mass. If the Pius XII indult continued, then it's simply a local custom, but it's definitely not part of the liturgy, proper.
Second, I wished to further explore the question of innovation vs. restoration. The dialogue Mass is rightly seen as an innovation, although to some extent based in a historical precedent.An indult is not a precedent. It's a temporary allowance.
However, Pius X's breviary was just as innovative as later changes, but it is generally not questioned, although this is ceasing to be the case. The reform of music under Pius X could also be argued against in the same way that the dialogue Mass is argued against, i.e. an imposition from above quashing local customs and liturgical development and an exercise in liturgical archaeologism.
So if Pius XII allowed this permission, it was only localized, because not everyone did it this way. But that's irrelevant, because when John XXIII issued the 1962 missal, the dialogue mass wasn't part of the revised Latin Mass. If the Pius XII indult continued, then it's simply a local custom, but it's definitely not part of the liturgy, proper.I don't think it's an indult, and I don't see how John XXIII's rubrical changes would rescind a prior instruction from the SCR. Furthermore, St Pius X's changes were not for the whole Latin church. The Benedictines did not revise their psalter at the time, and the Dominican books were reformed at a later date. The Carthusians hadn't changed their liturgical books for centuries until 1981. I don't believe the use of Lyons was changed either by Pius X nor the Mozarabic nor the rite of Braga.
.
Or...maybe it was brought back (without the indult) during the period of experimentation between 62 and 69, when much was changed.
.
An indult is not a precedent. It's a temporary allowance.
.
The difference is that Pope St Pius X's changes were for the whole latin church; it wasn't an indult or localized. And his argument for doing so was to reform for modern living but also to return to the former purpose of the breviary - i.e. to say all the psalms in a particular daily/weekly cycle.
.
The dialogue mass is not historical (in any aspect) and it was never applied to the whole latin church. So it's innovative on both levels.
I did two things. First, I provided docuмentary evidence that saying the propers was permitted by Pius XII. Second, I wished to further explore the question of innovation vs. restoration. The dialogue Mass is rightly seen as an innovation, although to some extent based in a historical precedent. However, Pius X's breviary was just as innovative as later changes, but it is generally not questioned, although this is ceasing to be the case. The reform of music under Pius X could also be argued against in the same way that the dialogue Mass is argued against, i.e. an imposition from above quashing local customs and liturgical development and an exercise in liturgical archaeologism.
I don't think it's an indult,It would have to be, because it isn't part of the 1952 or 1955 missals, which were the missals for the entire Latin Church until Pius XII's death.
and I don't see how John XXIII's rubrical changes would rescind a prior instruction from the SCR.John XXIII didn't just issue rubric changes. He issued an entire revised missal, one which is a legal child of Pope St Pius V's Quo Primum, which it was revising.
Furthermore, St Pius X's changes were not for the whole Latin church. The Benedictines did not revise their psalter at the time, and the Dominican books were reformed at a later date. The Carthusians hadn't changed their liturgical books for centuries until 1981. I don't believe the use of Lyons was changed either by Pius X nor the Mozarabic nor the rite of Braga.
The reform of music under Pius X could also be argued against in the same way that the dialogue Mass is argued against, i.e. an imposition from above quashing local customs and liturgical development and an exercise in liturgical archaeologism.
Secondary to Sean's point is that the reform of music was a return to Gregorian chant, which was not "archaeological" in any degree, but promoted by Pope St Gregory the Great himself, and which chant endured for centuries after the 500s. Gregorian chant is Traditional, (and is further a continuation of Old Testament Jєωιѕн chant), by any test imaginable.It was archeological becuse they went back to manuscripts and had to determine what was "authentic" chant and what was not.
It would have to be, because it isn't part of the 1952 or 1955 missals, which were the missals for the entire Latin Church until Pius XII's death.So all of the decisions from the SCR are indults because they're not included in the missals?
.
John XXIII didn't just issue rubric changes. He issued an entire revised missal, one which is a legal child of Pope St Pius V's Quo Primum, which it was revising.
.
You're not looking at this change in the context of the history of the roman breviary. When Pope St Pius V issued Quo Primum, he codified not only the missal but also the breviary. His changes were for the whole latin church, the only exceptions being those 200+ yrs old at the time (which would include all the orders you mentioned above).
.
There were multiple minor revisions since St Pius V's 1571, the most recent (for the roman breviary) was Pope Leo XIII. In St Pius X's docuмent, Divino Afflatu, he said his new breviary was to be used by all those who currently used the roman breviary. Again, this didn't apply to the religious houses you mentioned, because they were originally exempted in 1571, and they don't use the roman breviary, but the benedictine breviary, or domincan, etc. So, yes, you are technically correct that Pius X's changes were not for the "whole latin church", but only those which used the roman breviary, which is 99% of religious.
How is it a substantial change to the theology of the mass [for the congregation] to say responses with the servers, or to recite something that the people sing at a sung mass?
My recollection of the Latin mass is the priest doesn't say the responses the servers say.
And the people sing the creed at a sung mass. Does that take away from the priest?
It was archeological because they went back to manuscripts and had to determine what was "authentic" chant and what was not.
So all of the decisions from the SCR are indults because they're not included in the missals?What is SCR?
Would you classify Pius X's reform of the Divine Office as not ultra vires, then?
Ok, they did research. The use of "archeological" is a misnomer because it implies that the authentic chant was hidden and unused. The proper explanation is they researched to see which chant was Traditional vs quasi-Traditional vs new, because Chant was in high use from the 500s through the Middle Ages, so there was normal, human creativity and development involved. At the time, such novelty was allowed, if it was in the spirit of antiquity/Tradition (i.e. a new take on an old tune) but St Pius V put a stop to creativity/novelty with Quo Primum in 1571.SCR = Sacred Congregation of Rites.
What is SCR?
.
Of course not. He didn't change anything essential. He made a revision to Pope Leo XIII's breviary.
So all of the decisions from the SCR are indults because they're not included in the missals?
What is essential to the breviary if not the entire order of the psalms?
Which SCR decisions contradict the 1955/1962 missal, and when were they decided?The claim was that the instruction De musica sacra (1958) was an "indult" and therefore not applicable to the 1962 missal.
.
The breviary is not an essential truth of the faith, but a tangential aspect of the liturgy. Pope St Pius X basically changed the order of psalms due to time constraints on the modern lifestyle; he didn't delete or add any.
The claim was that the instruction De musica sacra (1958) was an "indult" and therefore not applicable to the 1962 missal.
As to Pius X's divine office, he did more than re-arrange the psalms. Whereas the traditional Roman Office recited entire psalms except in the case of Prime, I believe, Pius X replaced entire psalms with fragments of psalms. In fact, his revisions made previous breviaries unusable. In the traditional Roman Office, the little hours of Terce, Sext, None, and Compline were the same psalms every day. In Pius X's Office there are different psalms (or fragments of psalms) for each of those hours for each day of the week. Antiphons were also needlessly changed.The breviary is not as essential for the Church as is the Mass or Scripture. We must give the pope (especially a saint...Pope Pius X) the benefit of the doubt, that he had his administration do adequate research to make changes necessary and consistent with Tradition. We can all question him as much as we want, but the fact remains that the breviary is a secondary aspect of the Faith; it's not primarily related to doctrine/theology.
Pius X also infamously removed psalms 148–50 from being recited at the end of Lauds every day, a practice which is believed to have gone back to Our Lord's time.
I believe, Pius X replaced entire psalms with fragments of psalms. In fact, his revisions made previous breviaries unusable.Yeah, he specifically forbid any previous breviaries from being used. Secondly, the whole purpose of his changes were to speed up the daily reading requirement, due to increased time demands on clerics. So, yes, the fragments of psalms were the whole point.
In the traditional Roman Office, the little hours of Terce, Sext, None, and Compline were the same psalms every day. In Pius X's Office there are different psalms (or fragments of psalms) for each of those hours for each day of the week. Antiphons were also needlessly changed.You are needlessly criticizing Pope St Pius X's changes, without understanding his motives. That's wrong.
Pius X also infamously removed psalms 148–50 from being recited at the end of Lauds every day, a practice which is believed to have gone back to Our Lord's time.The breviary isn't essential to the Faith. Criticizing a saint over trivial matters is wrong.
The breviary is not as essential for the Church as is the Mass or Scripture. We must give the pope (especially a saint...Pope Pius X) the benefit of the doubt, that he had his administration do adequate research to make changes necessary and consistent with Tradition. We can all question him as much as we want, but the fact remains that the breviary is a secondary aspect of the Faith; it's not primarily related to doctrine/theology.Comparing the effect upon the faithful of the Pius X changes in the breviary vs the invention of the dialogue mass, is like confusing a lightning bug with lightning.
No, the 1962 missal would override/delete the 58 instruction. Pope John XXIII specifically said that the 1957 Holy Week liturgy was included in his 1962 missal. He did not mention the 1958 music, so it's no longer applicable.Why would it override the instruction? Otherwise, what’s the point of the SCR making decrees if the next missal wipes them out?
.
The breviary is not as essential for the Church as is the Mass or Scripture. We must give the pope (especially a saint...Pope Pius X) the benefit of the doubt, that he had his administration do adequate research to make changes necessary and consistent with Tradition. We can all question him as much as we want, but the fact remains that the breviary is a secondary aspect of the Faith; it's not primarily related to doctrine/theology.
Why would it override the instruction? Otherwise, what’s the point of the SCR making decrees if the next missal wipes them out?Normally a next missal would be like 400 years later, but after 1954 there was practically a next missal like every year.
Normally a next missal would be like 400 years later, but after 1954 there was practically a next missal like every year.Pope Pius V issued a typical edition in 1570. Pope Clement VIII issued the next typical edition in 1604. Urban VIII issued the next typical edition in 1634. Leo XIII issued the next typical edition in 1884. Pope Benedict XV issued the next typical edition in 1920. John XXIII issued the next typical edition in 1962.
Why would it override the instruction? Otherwise, what’s the point of the SCR making decrees if the next missal wipes them out?
Furthermore, the decrees of the SCR were not incorporated in new typical editions but still retained their force.Example?
It would be utterly impractical to put the entirety of decrees in new editions. Rules on the amount of beeswax that must be in candles, for example, were not added to the next typical edition.
The official liturgical books are actually quite sparse in details. This is why the SCR exists: to answer rubrical questions because the liturgical books don’t say. Even the SCR doesn’t address every question, which is why you have to consult authors like O’Connell and Fortescue to know how to correctly celebrate liturgical things. Such authors, by the way, constantly refer to decisions of the SCR issued before the most recent typical edition. The first edition of Fortescue is available online, and he addresses this very question.
Because the pope has the final say. The SCR serves the pope, who has the final say. The SCR only has authority because the pope GIVES it authority. If the pope issues a new missal which overrides the SCR, then that's his decision.
.
Example?
If the SCR was busy with the details of the % of beeswax, then that's not essential to a missal, whose purpose is how to say mass. The SCR sounds like it was concerned with non-essential aspects of the liturgy, whereas a Pope is concerned with more high-level decisions.
The official liturgical books are actually quite sparse in details. This is why the SCR exists: to answer rubrical questions because the liturgical books don’t say. Even the SCR doesn’t address every question, which is why you have to consult authors like O’Connell and Fortescue to know how to correctly celebrate liturgical things. Such authors, by the way, constantly refer to decisions of the SCR issued before the most recent typical edition. The first edition of Fortescue is available online, and he addresses this very question.
Concerning the question of De musica sacra, does it seem probable that the dialogue Mass was introduced in 1958 with the intention of arriving at the NOM, only for the same liturgical innovators to put together a missal aimed at that same purpose but suppressing the previous instruction? Does history support the conclusion that the dialogue Mass was suppressed from 1962 to 1964 when the instruction Inter oecuмenici was issued? But Inter oecuмenici doesn’t give permission for the dialogue Mass either but rather assumes it
The first edition (https://archive.org/details/ceremoniesofroma00fort/page/6/mode/2up) of Fortescue's The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described was published in 1918. When he was writing the last typical edition of the Missale Romanum was issued in 1884. If by that act Leo XIII voided all the previous decrees of the SCR, then Fortescue should not refer to decress published before 1884 as authoritative, yet he does constantly. On page 3 alone he refers to four decrees from the SCR, all before Leo XIII's typical edition.
In his preface Fortescue tells how he sought to write a work to replace Dale's translation of Baldeschi, the standard liturgical guide in English at the time. One of the reasons he gives for wanting to replace Baldeschi is that it was published in 1839 "and there have been many decisions of the Congregation of Rites, since 1839" (xiii). He does not mention the new typical edition at all as a reason.
Bringing this into the 20th century, can you give an example of a liturgical act which is from the SCR, but not contained in the 1962 missal?Better yet I can give you an example of a liturgical act in neither: how to serve Mass.
Better yet I can give you an example of a liturgical act in neither: how to serve Mass.
Servers aren't required for the liturgical act of offering Mass.I was wrong about that anyway. I didn't realize the Ritus servandus was in the Missal. Regardless, the percentage of beeswax question is not contained in the missal. I don't have a 1962 Fortescue with me, so I can't see what the SCR references are, but I do specifically recall the beeswax SCR decree being cited.
Servers aren't required for the liturgical act of offering Mass.Citing Matters Liturgical, The Collectoo Rerum Liturgicarum of Rev. Joseph Wuest, C.SS.R. Translated by Rev. Thomas W. Mullaney, C.SS.R. Re-arranged and Enlarged by Rev. William T. Barry, C.SS.R., S.S.L. Eighth Edition, 1956:
186. The Server at Mass. A priest is forbidden to celebrate Mass without a server to minister to him and to respond (c. 813, 1.) This law was reaffirmed on Nov. 20, 1947 in the Mediator Dei of Pius XII and on Oct. 1, 1949 by the Congregation of the Sacraments.c. 813, 1 is a reference to a canon, and to Paragraph 186 a.
…
d) If no man or boy is available, a woman may for a just cause be allowed to make the responses, provided that she does this from a distance and that she does not come to the altar under any circuмstances …
…
e) If no one is available to serve, it is permitted to celebrate without a server in the following instances only: if a host must be consecrated in order to administer Viaticuм; if those present would otherwise be unable to satisfy the precept of hearing Mass; if the absence of a server is due to something like an epidemic …
Pope Pius V issued a typical edition in 1570. Pope Clement VIII issued the next typical edition in 1604. Urban VIII issued the next typical edition in 1634. Leo XIII issued the next typical edition in 1884. Pope Benedict XV issued the next typical edition in 1920. John XXIII issued the next typical edition in 1962.1570, 1604, 1634, 1884, 1920, 1962
Furthermore, the decrees of the SCR were not incorporated in new typical editions but still retained their force. It would be utterly impractical to put the entirety of decrees in new editions. Rules on the amount of beeswax that must be in candles, for example, were not added to the next typical edition.
1570, 1604, 1634, 1884, 1920, 1962The 1570 missal issued by Pius V was substantially the 1474 missal, which was the first printed. We know for a fact that a 1494 printed copy was used to prepare the 1570 missal. The 1604 missal's most noteworthy change was the Gregorian calendar, but it included other changes such as saying the Kyrie at low Mass at the center of the altar and saying "Haec quotiescuмque feceritis, etc." while genuflecting instead of during the elevation. Feasts suppressed by Pius V were restored such as the Presentation of Our Lady, St Joachim, St Anne, St Anthony of Padua. The other editions through 1884 would have included new feasts, new saints, changes to ranks of feast, changes of prefaces, etc. The 1920 missal included the new calendar system of Pius X and some other new texts. Pius XII did not issue a new typical edition, although he did allow the printing of the new Holy Week in missals (they were also printed in a separate book). The 1965 "missal" was not a new typical edition.
What was the age of the 1569 missal?
What were the changes in 1570, 1604, 1634, 1884, 1920?
What about the 1954 missal, that changed the entire Holy Week celebrations, cut them down to like 1/4 and changed the times?
What about the 1965 missal?
I have read in many places that one could walk into a mass in the 8th century with their 1945 Lasance Missal and would be right at home.
The 1570 missal issued by Pius V was substantially the 1474 missal, which was the first printed. We know for a fact that a 1494 printed copy was used to prepare the 1570 missal. The 1604 missal's most noteworthy change was the Gregorian calendar, but it included other changes such as saying the Kyrie at low Mass at the center of the altar and saying "Haec quotiescuмque feceritis, etc." while genuflecting instead of during the elevation. Feasts suppressed by Pius V were restored such as the Presentation of Our Lady, St Joachim, St Anne, St Anthony of Padua. The other editions through 1884 would have included new feasts, new saints, changes to ranks of feast, changes of prefaces, etc. The 1920 missal included the new calendar system of Pius X and some other new texts. Pius XII did not issue a new typical edition, although he did allow the printing of the new Holy Week in missals (they were also printed in a separate book). The 1965 "missal" was not a new typical edition.
Pius XII did not issue a new typical edition, although he did allow the printing of the new Holy Week in missals (they were also printed in a separate book).
Ahem...bullshit.What did I say that was “bullshit?”
The new Holy Week ceremonies of 1951-1956 were initially experimental, and based on archaeological modernist liturgical principles.
What did I say that was “bullshit?”Quoted above
Quoted aboveYou’re saying Pius XII _did_ issue a new typical edition? Or that he didn’t allow the new Holy Week to be printed in missals? Or that there wasn’t a separate book?
You’re saying Pius XII _did_ issue a new typical edition? Or that he didn’t allow the new Holy Week to be printed in missals? Or that there wasn’t a separate book?
I never claimed that! I’m the one who was questioning Pius X’s reforms!
I'm saying that your erection of the issuance of a new typical edition published in the PPP as the barometer of whether or not a change in rubrics represents a new rite is flawed.The new Holy Week was published by the official Vatican press in a separate book under Pius XII. It was included in the 1962 typical edition as well, so I’m not sure what your getting at.
Pius XII issued a new rite of Holy Week, whether or not it appears in the PPP, as it was approved by the SCR.
Obviously, the modernist liturgical reformers who gave us this new rite of Holy Week wanted to camouflage the extent of the liturgical break by keeping it out of the PPP, precisely so that it would not be presented to the world as a new typical edition.
Yet that is exactly what it was.
The new Holy Week was published by the official Vatican press in a separate book under Pius XII. It was included in the 1962 typical edition as well, so I’m not sure what your getting at.Not sure what that has to do with my post.
Yes, this appears to be your strategy:Bump.
Pretend to be opposed to the modernism, yet spend all your time trying to poke holes in the arguments of those calling out the modernism.
What’s wrong with that? If the arguments do not stand up, then they’re not very useful for fighting modernism
I never claimed Pius XII’s Holy Week wasn’t experimental or just all around awful. I never defended it. But its quality or lack thereof is entirely separate from what a typical edition is or the authority of decrees from the Sacred Congregation of Rites
But the dialogue Mass was approved in 1958, not that that makes it traditional...which makes your point...pointless.
I greatly enjoyed that Turkey question, and I am glad to see it has finally been resolvedI was pretty sure it was you (shill). Just needed to make sure.