Rorate Caeli

Open thread
Liturgical rules for the participation of the faithful in Low Mass

[Aug. 20 Note: we are pushing this up so that those who did not take part in the discussion may do so.]

In our reference post on the Code of Rubrics (Codex Rubricarum), we wished to avoid discussions, since it is indeed a post for reference, i.e., it is intended for those simply looking for online sources on the rubrics and general liturgical rules of the "Extraordinary Form" of the Roman Rite.

This begins a series of open threads on the liturgical rules of the Traditional Latin Mass. Remember that these are the rules in force - so, please, discuss at will, but avoid angry generalizations such as, "Bugnini lied, people died."

The Codex Rubricarum (1960) of the "1962 Roman Missal" states the following regarding the "active participation of the faithful":

"272. The Mass of its very nature requires that all present should participate in it, in the manner proper to each one. 
"The various ways in which the faithful can actively participate in the holy Sacrifice of the Mass should be so arranged that all danger of abuse is removed, and that the principal end of their participation is secured, namely a more complete worship of God and edification of the faithful. 
"The active participation of the faithhful was dealt with in greater detail in the Instruction on Sacred Music and Liturgy, promulgated on 3rd September, 1958."

The referred document, the Instruction De musica sacra et sacra liturgia, approved by Pope Pius XII at the very end of his pontificate, includes these points on the participation of the faithful in Low Mass. Notice that, except for the abolition of the playing of musical instruments during certain silent parts of the Mass and the recommendation to the Priest of n. 34, the other rules are optional, even if some could possibly be understood as recommended.

c. Participation of the faithful in low Mass. [De fidelium participatione in Missis lectis]

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, 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.


Prayers and Hymns

30. The faithful can participate another way at the Eucharistic Sacrifice by saying prayers together or by singing hymns. The prayers and hymns must be chosen appropriately for the respective parts of the Mass, and as indicated in paragraph 14c.

31. 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 cum 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.

33. The faithful may sing hymns during low Mass, if they are appropriate to the various parts of the mass.

34. Where the rubrics prescribe the clara voce, the celebrant must recite the prayers loud enough so that the faithful can properly, and conveniently follow the sacred rites. This must be given special attention in a large church, and before a large congregation.

Please, discuss freely, but respectfully: avoid making irreversible and resolute comments about situations you have never experienced (for instance, it is likely that, if you live in an English-speaking nation, you may have never been to a "Dialogue Mass", and even then consider it "dangerous" to the faith; while, if you live in any other area, the "Dialogue Mass" could be the only kind of Low Mass you know, and the Low Mass in the presence of a congregation, but responded by the server only, might seem unimaginable). Are they practical? Are they followed in your regular Mass? Should they be avoided - partly or completely? Any other opinions?

73 comments:

Jonathan Knox said...

I cannot ever imagine anything like parts 'c' and 'd' of 31. On one level, it would be a cacophonous mess of jumbled Latin words. On a more important level, this seems like a huge blurring of the lines between priest and laity. No thank you.

Anonymous said...

Please bear in mind that this was written before we were assaulted by the novus ordo missae.

Speaking for myself, after being subjected to an untold amount of torture from attending the novus ordo for decades, I have developed an aversion for any type of participation, especially that "Dialog Mass", which I intensely dislike.

In the immortal words of Greta, I now just want to be left alone when I attend Mass in peace and QUIET!

Delphina

Pangur Bán said...

In Ireland in general, as far as I know, the dialogue Mass was extremely common. In fact, until neo-trads stopped it happening, it was common to sing or say the Gloria and Credo (but not the Sanctus, for some reason) with the Priest and even to sing the Pater Noster with him, although he would cut off at 'in tentationem', to such an extent that in EF Masses in new locations it is common for the people to spontaneously start singing the Pater Noster while the choir remains silent. If I could be allowed a sweeping personal comment, the recitation of the servers prayers and the singing of the proper are the single strongest link that most Irish people have for the EF, even if they haven't witnessed it in 50 years.

m_hyland said...

I for one have never understood the opposition to the dialogue mass that I have encountered in most traditional Catholic communities. I have heard on good authority that celebrating a so-called "quiet Mass" where the servers and priest are the only ones talking, and then almost inaudibly, is not a matter of liturgical law, but rather a matter of local Church custom. I have attended a TLM in dialogue form for nearly a decade and I see a great value in participation. That being said, I also appreciate Novus Ordo Masses that are celebrated BY THE RUBRICS, and I love the Novus Ordo in Latin with Gregorian Chant; however, I prefer the Traditional Latin Mass.

But, I digress... I have personally experienced, in others, the lack of understanding of the TLM and what is going on during the Mass due to a couple of different factors. One is the lightning speed at which some priests tend to pray the Mass parts when it is not a dialogue Mass. Another is the fact that people can't hear what is going on, thus they do not easily learn the structure of the Mass or come to learn the Latin. I learned the TLM from attending a dialogue Mass and I would not have appreciated it nearly as much if I had been to a non-dialogue Mass. Either that or it would have taken a lot longer for me to understand the structure of the Mass or to memorize the responses. For me, the repetition of the responses for months and years has led me to understand Latin better, as well as to help me to understand the structure and language of the Novus Ordo (Thank God for the New Translation of the Missal!).

It takes time to orient onesself to the structure of the TLM when attending for the first few times, and when you have to constantly strain to understand the prayers, and hunt for where you are in the Latin Mass misslalettes, it seems to me that this can take away from soaking up the beauty of the language of the Mass as well as being able to concentrate on the beauty and mystery of the Traditional Latin liturgy. Being lost at Mass is no fun, and I know people who have had this experience at TLMs that were "quiet Masses".

In my opinion, the dialogue Mass has great value, especially for those who are attending for the first time, as well as those who have only grown up attending the Novus Ordo. For the record, I am 25years old, and I grew up attending "Catholic-lite" for most of my life. I know many young Catholics like myself who have come to love good liturgy, whether it be the Novus Ordo or the TLM. These young adults appreciate Latin, Gregorian Chant, and following the rubrics.

Because some people seemingly tend to cling to one form of liturgy or another, I hope those Catholics in preceding generations realize that a new evangelization of the Church, and a change in culture, will not take place just because of one form of the Mass or another (the OF and EF each have their own beauty)... it will take place because of faithfullness to the teachings of the Church in the clergy, living out our faith in our family lives and in the community, and by worship with good liturgy, regardless of which form of the Mass one attends. Give orthodoxy in both forms of the Mass a chance. The winds of change have already shifted! Deo gratias!

shane said...

Nos 30-34 are not practiced where I normally attend Low Mass. Like Delphina I'm slightly skeptical about 'active participation' and think it became something of an idol for many in the Liturgical Movement --- with devastating results. I would much rather be left in peace!

The dialogue Low Mass was not common in Irish parishes before Vatican II though it probably would have become so had it not been for the liturgical reforms (see then Bishop Conway's speech to the eighth Irish Liturgical Congress in 1961, --- reprinted in 'The Furrow' [September, 1961] --- where he gives it cautious encouragement. See also Louis McRedmond's review in the 'Irish Independent' [September 7th, 1963]). Fr Coyle informs me that it was used everyday in Dalgan Park when he entered there in 1961 and was a new experience for him.

Cruise the Groove. said...

Is the Sanctus Candle part of the rubrics for the 1962 Missal low Mass?
I ask because, we had a visiting Benedictine Monk at our Parish and he used a Sanctus Candle at his low Mass.
Also,at low Mass, he had the altar boys bring him the water and wine cruets to do something with [I could not see] before the Prayers at the foot of altar.
Does anyone know what this rubric is?

Jack said...

\\31. 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.\\

If the Church proposes something as "the most perfect form" should we not all strive towards this as we are able, regardless of personal feelings?

Parts c and d may not be practical in the average parish, but surely it would be possible in a seminary, college church, religious house, or even a very well instructed body of faithful.

Most holy Theotokos, save us.

Cruise the Groove. said...

My apologgies...it was a Dominican priest.

Anonymous said...

Here in the U.S., in the Independent parishes that I have attended, there is no participation whatsoever in the Low Mass. In the FSSP ones, it is limited, for the most part, to 'Et cum spiritu tuo' and the triple 'Domine non sum dignus.'

In Rio de Janeiro, however, the Low Mass was a Missa Cantata. It took me a bit to understand what was happening but their Latin was really good. I have heard from family members that the Traditional Mass celebrated in Brasilia (the capital of Brazil) by the IBP is also a Missa Cantata.

I have read a lot of criticism in certain circles about the Missa Cantata but, as some have point out, it may be due to local customs. The 3rd Confiteor is not included in the 62 Missal but, based on my personal experience, it is also said here in the U.S. (FSSP, SSPX, Independent).

New Catholic said...

Last anon, I think what you meant was that there is little 'exterior' participation of the faithful, but there is certainly intense active participation.

Best regards,

NC

Anonymous said...

New Catholic:

Yes, I was just following up on most comments about exterior participation. It is difficult after all to discuss the interior disposition of others, right? Ha.

Anonymous said...

@Jack

I believe the answer to that was given earlier, at 29:

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....

Notice how not only capability, but also individual spiritual needs are considered. Notice also that another method of participation may be "more suitable" depending on the circumstances - including spiritual needs. It's not simply about whether we have put in the work to able to make the repsonses in a dignified manner, but also about what is most beneficial for our souls at any given time.

"Most perfect" is being used in a technical and general sense. It's not meant to imply that it's always the best way in every case.

It may very well occur that on a given day, at a given hour, even a person whose Latin diction is flawless, and who knows the entire mass by heart, may have spiritual needs which are better addressed by silently praying a rosary or some other form of meditation, rather than making the responses. Is this not, then, truly the best way for that person at that moment in time?

Of course, we should do our best to learn the parts of the mass proper to us, and strive to be able to pronounce them rightly. Nevertheless, there is a danger that if disproportionate emphasis is placed on dialogue, individuals will come to be judged on their outward participation (as I know by experience that they often are in the N.O. world), and people will be chastized for taking the option of silent prayer, even though they were doing what was best for them. There is the danger also of indecorum, such as what we have seen arise in connection with the charasmatic movement (a prime example of the results of unguided or misguided "active participation"). Both of these tendencies can be controlled for by good pastors, but it has to be done most carefully.

Dan said...

I'm not sure many people, and that includes some of those in the Vatican who wrote these rules in the late 1950s, understand the value of silent adoration. I have always said, half in jest of course, that the only thing more beautiful than a sung High Mass is a silent Low Mass. And of course all that was meant by that was that sometimes a profound silence in front of Our Lord is beneficial to the soul and to the spiritual life. As for the issue of playing the organ during Low Mass I am of the opinion that it is neither necessary nor edifying. And it is often a severe distraction, particularly if it is played badly, played constantly and uses music more appropriate to a funeral parlor than a liturgy.

It is quite understandable that those who have been brought up on the Novus Ordo would find no fault with a dialogue Mass though, again, it is in my opinion neither necessary nor edifying, despite what some in Rome have written. And it is pretty fairly certain that the so-called "dialogue" Mass made its debut around 1915 when gnomes like Beaudoin were already dreaming of the Novus Ordo and began their tampering with the ancient rite. I believe he and his cohorts were responsible for the dialogue Mass, although I could be mistaken about exactly how much he had to do with it.

And shouldn't we avoid undervaluing the role of the altar boys? I would rather hear the charming, near-silent voices of these boys muttering the Latin phrases than some theatrical oaf in the pews shouting "ET COOM SPIRI CHOO-CHOO OHHH!" (yes, I have heard this). Allowing those young boys a degree of participation is the seed from which new priests will grow.

It has been my very good fortune to have attended ancient rite Masses in England, France, Germany, Italy, Scotland, Canada and the US and with few exceptions (most exceptions are to be found here in the US) they have been quite beautiful.

Great singing, great choirs are good. But so is silence.

And let us not forget Hilaire Belloc's amusing remark that "any priest who spends more than 20 minutes saying a low Mass is a modernist!" As with all Bellocian jokes, however, there is an element of hard truth in there that can be pondered.

Papabile said...

I took latin for fourteen years, and am very comfortable for liturgical latin. (I could probably maintain a conversation in it.) But, I remain generally opposed to the "pushing" of a dialogue Mass.

I attend both the EF and the OF regularly, while I wish I could attend the EF exclusively, it's somewhat of a challenge for me.

But the real reason I wish for silence, is it is MUCH easier to catechize my five children. When we attend an OF Mass, it's almost like they lose all ability to concentrate. That's not the case with the EF Mass. They focus, and I can explain what is occurring to them. It becomes MUCH harder to do so when it is a dialogue Mass.

What is even more frustrating, is I believe many who demand the dialogue Mass are not even trying to learn what they are saying.

(Does this hurt, or make their prayers ineffective? No, but it runs counter to the whole philosophy behind the promulgation of De musica sacra.)

The other thing that annoys me is that a dialogue Mass often seems to be pushed even when the congregation does not seem to be interested.

Anonymous said...

After many and irreverant and noisy Novus Ordo, I am annoyed and disturbed with any form of a "dialogue" Mass. If it is a Missa Cantata, chanting a few responses with the choir is fine for me.

As an altar boy at our parish Low Mass, people try to actively participate by responding along with us servers for certain parts, and that makes it difficult for me (especially when they add an extra Kyrie eleison or two.) For me, it is as though the Novus Ordo habits are carrying over to the TLM. Too Many people want to "enter into dialogue" these days!

shane said...

Surely custom is the best guide for implementing this instruction? Find out the prevailing practices in the local area before Vatican II and just follow those. I have no problem with Dialogue Masses where they have a history but it is a nonsense (and in a certain sense untraditional) to introduce them in countries where they had not been popular before the Council. Otherwise traditionalist Catholicism becomes every bit as 'rupturist' as (neo-)conservative Catholicism.

Jonvilas said...

My question is simple: is this 1958 instruction still in force? I mean, after the rubrics of 1960s, according to which all matter with EF should be based (as it was also explained in Universae Ecclesiae). Otherwise, all this discussion is hollow.

New Catholic said...

Jonvilas, did you read the post? Read it again - the rubrical reference is the very first one. The instruction is in force precisely because of the 1960 rubrical mandate, except for those points that the rubrics themselves may eventually have altered.

Anonymous said...

A timely post since the Low Mass I attended on Monday for the Feast of the Assumption suffered from a lone man shouting out responses in a community where the Low Mass is generally silent.

bedwere said...

I can speak Latin fluently (http://www.hieronymus.us.com) and I always say the responses at Low Mass, very softly where Dialog Mass is not the custom, and in unison with the other faithful where it is. Common sense, tolerance, charity.

Old Sacristan said...

Yes, Cruise the Groove, what you are describing are typical aspects of the Dominican Rite. You can find lots and lots of information on the Dominican Rite here: http://dominican-liturgy.blogspot.com/

You can also download Dominican music books and liturgical texts. The site also has lots of pictures and videos of Dominican Rite Masses celebrated by Dominican priests on the West Coast.

Anonymous said...

"For me, it is as though the Novus Ordo habits are carrying over to the TLM."

That is absolutely true. I have noticed that myself.

Perhaps it is not so much the novus ordo habits as it is, what I like to call, the novus ordo mentality.

Delphina

Anonymous said...

The TLM I regularly attend is always dialogued and I wish, very strongly, that it was not. People tend to respond at different speeds and pause at different points and the longer responses and prayers tend to become quite jumbled. People seem to make no attempt to stay together. In the most charitable view, perhaps some are simply convinced that their pace is correct and others are going too fast or too slow. There's a less charitable view, which I leave to your imagination.

The priest at this chapel has requested servers to respond loudly and slowly, I think to provide a dominant voice that can act as a reference for the faithful, but this has only made matters worse.

One of the servers, who serves nearly every mass, has taken the lead on this but his responses are so loud, so slow, and his Latin so stilted that they are at best a distraction and at worst ... well let's just say that they rob the Mass of much of its beauty. On top of that, despite the request for the servers to respond slowly, the priest himself speaks quite quickly and the contrast between the two cadences is jarring.

None of this would be an issue if the Mass were not dialogued. I often find myself staring at the floor in front of me wishing for some blessed silence.

Peter said...

The origin of LOW Mass is in the private masses of monk-priests and was not meant for the laity. And since the laity did not have hand missals to help them or could not read, only the server responded.

I personally would love to respond vocally (participation with HEART and TONGUE) to the priest...

In my opinion, even low mass should be at least chanted and not simply recited (as if it were the monk's private prayer at his monastery) by both priest and people.

Anonymous said...

Here's how I think it should be. No I think it should be this way. I like this or that. No I don't like this or that.

The "innovators" have certainly done their job. We sound like a bunch of protestants which I think, ultimately, was the goal.

Jason

New Catholic said...

Jason, what matters is the way the Church intends and the way the Priest determines things. But discussing preferences is fine - rest assured that it did NOT begin in 1517...

M. A. said...

It is a common mentality in the NO that the "success" of a Mass is proportionate to the level of vociferous and bodily commotion in the pews.

A local NO priest, after attending his first TLM, griped that the congregation was just sitting there, doing nothing but looking. He said it in a tone of ridicule. To me and the others who regularly attend the TLM, it was heaven. But people like him cannot understand.

Our Blessed Mother uttered not a word, and who can say that She, our co-redemptrix, was not participating?

There was a time when I tried using the missal, but I found myself distracted by attempts to brush up on my Latin. I put the missal away for some years, and only recently have I tried using it again. However, I find myself putting it down at the Sanctus.

Our spiritual life does change. One method of participating might have to make way for another at different times of our life. The older I get, the more I appreciate quiet. My own singing and responding would break the restful, interior silence I enjoy during Mass. I love the chants of the schola, the priest's intonations. I love hearing the 3rd confiteor being chanted by the deacon. I love the barely audible murmur of the altar boy's responses. I love it all.

But, please spare me the congregational caccaphony of the NO!

beng said...

Questions:

1. "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, AAS 39 [1947] 560-561).

So, it's really true that we could pray the Rosary during the entire masses? I always thought that St. Pius X slipped when he allowed the faithful to pray the Rosary during mass.

What other devotion is appropriate and what is not?


2. So... we are allowed to recite what the priest pray? And it's part of "active participation?"

That's weird... it is/was somewhat an abused when Paul VI's mass have the dialog during doxology (in some part of the world).

Should we, next time in Extraordinary Form of Mass, recite with the priest the doxology (even the "This is my body" part)?

Reluctant Pessimist said...

Mr. Knox: There is a parish in Yonkers, NY, where the situation you think you would deplore is the rule for the mass's celebration. You won't be surprised to learn that the cacophony and role blurring are as bad as or worse than what you fear.

John L said...

'If the Church proposes something as "the most perfect form" should we not all strive towards this as we are able, regardless of personal feelings?'

An initial point; an instruction on this level cannot be described as 'what the Church proposes'. It is not a declaration of an ecumenical council, and its contents can be criticised or rejected if they conflict with more authoritative Church pronouncements, or if they are manifestly false or unworkable.

One part of this instruction that should be rejected is the statement that the people can join the priest in saying the Our Father. St. Gregory the Great, who introduced that prayer into the mass, taught that it is only to be said by the priest, because it constitutes part of the canon of the mass. His teaching trumps an instruction of this kind, and the fact that the instruction contradicts it make it suspect.

The most important thing in evaluating most of the claims of this instruction is the extent to which they can be confirmed in the tradition of the Church. What, for example, is the status of the 'dialogue mass'? Was it even widespread before the 20th century? If it was unknown before then, it should be rejected. If there is a real, solid tradition of its being practised in the past (not one that exists merely in the historical theorising of progressive liturgists), then it should be an option. Of course, current experience with it should be taken into account, but that is not the main criterion.

Anonymous said...

No. 29 is notable for its concern for the individual attending Mass.
cm

Jack said...

\\One part of this instruction that should be rejected is the statement that the people can join the priest in saying the Our Father. St. Gregory the Great, who introduced that prayer into the mass, taught that it is only to be said by the priest, because it constitutes part of the canon of the mass. His teaching trumps an instruction of this kind, and the fact that the instruction contradicts it make it suspect. \\

Aside from the fact that the congregation has always joined in the singing of the Lord's Prayer in Eastern Liturgies, what one pope forbids another can allow.

LeonG said...

We had a very respectful dialogue Low Mass at my childhood parish sometimes. However, I do believe that pre- and post-conciliar perceptions about this form contrast since there has been a systematic misunderstanding about what is meant by "participation" at Mass. Padre Pio was a guide for me - interiorising with a developing sense of presence at the Calvary event accompanying The Blessed Virgin and St John. In fact, he said a Missal was not necessary for this. The actual style for participation and its significations are now no longer clear after 50 years with the vernacular rite. This has had implications for The Holy Mass in its traditional rite.

Jordanes551 said...

St. Gregory the Great, who introduced that prayer into the mass,

That seems unlikely, since we know it was commonly prayed during Eucharistic liturgies throughout the Church long before St. Gregory's day.

taught that it is only to be said by the priest,

But in the traditional Latin Mass, it is not said only by the priest, but by the priest and the server. Is it your contention that the Church does not have the authority to allow altar servers to say "sed libera nos a malo"?

because it constitutes part of the canon of the mass.

The Pater Noster is not traditionally regarded as a part of the Roman Canon.

His teaching trumps an instruction of this kind, and the fact that the instruction contradicts it make it suspect.

I would like to see evidence that he taught this. I'd also like to know where the Church teaches that a statement on the liturgy from an ancient pope trumps an authoritative instruction on the liturgy approved by the pope.

Jordanes551 said...

I cannot ever imagine anything like parts 'c' and 'd' of 31. On one level, it would be a cacophonous mess of jumbled Latin words.

Hardly any parish could do that, true, because we have been taught not to know Latin and not to know how to chant. But that doesn't mean parishes should never do it.

On a more important level, this seems like a huge blurring of the lines between priest and laity. No thank you.

Your objection makes no sense. The Church has LOOOONG allowed scholas or choirs that include laymen and/or laywomen to chant the Introit, Gloria, Gradual, Alleluia, Credo, Offertory, Agnus Dei, and Communion. Do you contend that a Solemn High Mass blurs the lines between priest and laity?

Ben said...

It would seem that our coming into conflict which of the various degrees of dialogue to implement could be obviated if we did away with (insofar as possible) the atraditional and unpastoral innovation of the low Mass. The true model for all Masses is the Solemn Mass, even the Solemn Pontifical Mass, and to this rite we should look for guidance. Low Mass and Low Mass with Singing (ie, Missa Cantata) are but impoverished (literally, of rites and ceremonial) concessions to modern man. Let us promote Solemn Mass and Office!

Jonathan Knox said...

Hardly any parish could do that, true, because we have been taught not to know Latin and not to know how to chant. But that doesn't mean parishes should never do it.

I'm all for the restoration of Latin as a living language, spoken fluently by anyone who desires to speak it. That being said, at my parish we have enough trouble getting through the Leonine Prayers in English without stumbling over each other. But the Creed? It's easier to sing together than say together.

The Church has LOOOONG allowed scholas or choirs that include laymen and/or laywomen to chant the Introit, Gloria, Gradual, Alleluia, Credo, Offertory, Agnus Dei, and Communion. Do you contend that a Solemn High Mass blurs the lines between priest and laity?

No, and allow me to answer why it does not. Although the schola/choir sings those parts of the Mass, it is also required (did SP get rid of this requirement?) that the priest say these prayers at the altar. He alone has a specific role to offer the Mass to God on our behalf. If we were to join in on his own recitation of the prayers, there would indeed be a blurring of the roles of priest and laymen.

Gratias said...

For those interested in the liturgy: UnaVoceVentura.org will organize its 2011 conference on "Applying the fruits of the extraordinary rite to family life" on Saturday, September 10, 2011 at Saint Thomas Aquinas College in Santa Paula, California.

EF Mass will be at 9:00am in the marvelous chapel of the college, and the conference ends at 3 pm. It will be coordinated by Father James Fryar, FSSP, fom Sarasota, FL, and distinguished philosopher Dr. Thomas Kaiser, "tutor" (Professor, really) at St. Thomas Aquinas College. One session will be on "the role of sensory experience in sacramental life".

The Ojai Valley and Santa Paula are in a very beautiful region of California, so one may combine a good discussion on the TLM rules and a very pleasant week end. Hope some of you can make it.

Gratias

Gratias said...

My recollection from a time and land far, far away is that the Confiteor was repeated my all, including striking of the breast at the mea culpas. I would be all for chanting the Pater Noster, although this is not done at our blessed Diocesan EF Mass.

We have had 40 years of Novus Ordo. Vatican II was an unnecessary tragedy given that Pious XII the Great had already encouraged lots of participatio activa, as we learned above. Vatican II evidently was a tragedy, but it did happen. Catholics are now accustomed to say the Paternoster and the Creed outloud. This was allowed by Pope Pious XII the Great and would help recruit new EF mass members. Our problem as traditionalists is that we can only grow as the Novus Ordus decreases. For now it is a zero-sum game because Protestants do not wish to join us. The Novus Ordo ostracized the Virgin Mary and the Rosary to attract Protestants but 40 years of this disgrace did not help them see the error of solo scriptura. So the Church's future lies in the hands of ordinary and traditional Catholics both. It would be logical to adapt the rubrics of Pious XII for more participation. We are the remnant of the Faith. Our main duty is to keep the Catholic Faith alive.

Flexibility is in order. The Norbertines in Huntington Beach, Orange County, California, offer a beautiful EF Mass in which the faithful sing along in Latin from a songbook distributed right before Mass. It is a Holy experience. This Diocesan Parish is called Saint Mary-by-the-Sea and offers Every-Sunday sung mass. Times are a changing. Each one of us counts in this effort to save the Catholic Church from its own self-destruction madness, and our Souls.

Steve said...

"For me, it is as though the Novus Ordo habits are carrying over to the TLM."

The reality is that these "habits" preceeded the Novus Ordo, and were championed by Catholics that were formed in the Ancient Use.

Anonymous said...

Mr Knox, I was under the impression that the following was the case:

1) that when
- the schola chants the minor propers,
- the subdeacon chants the Epistle,
- the deacon chants the Gospel,
- the people chants the ordinary (Kyrie, Gloria, &c.),
each is fulfilling their proper liturgical function during the Solemn Mass, and not merely "doubling up" as an optional add-on over the celebrant's reading of the same;

2) that when the celebrant quietly reads for himself all of the above, it is HE who is doubling up, and not vice versa, ultimately as a result of a mistaken recontextualisation of the Low Mass as the prototypical form of the Mass, as opposed to, ultimately, the Solemn Pontifical Mass/Hierarchical Divine Liturgy, which has been the prototypical form of the Eucharistic Liturgy in both Christian East and West from time immemorial.

Am I mistaken, then?

YRC said...

I know that the SSPX in the US have a dialogue mass once a week at Winona seminary. I never really understood why.

Lucius49 said...

I have had the dialog Mass in my parish from day one, that is, when the motu proprio came into effect. I remember participating in it before the Council but it was not often. I think there is great value in it and it is not a mess of jumbled Latin words as has been said. The people are pretty good especially with the Ordinary, Gloria, Confiteor,Suscipiat etc. People have both a book for the Ordinary and are given the Proper for every Latin Mass Sunday and weekday to encourage such participation. The idea that there is not "quiet" (which is not simply the absence of audible sound in the liturgy) when the people are praying with the priest is not true. The prayers are offered in quite a recollected manner which is a form of "quiet" that's a gift from God (interior silence)

HSE said...

We attended dialogue Masses in the home of a retired priest with many other faithful post V2. Although I was young at the time, it was my understanding that the priest (after rejecting the NO mind-set) wanted to dispel any concerns by the people that incorrect words were being used at his Mass. This allowed the faithful to hear the words clearly.

After implementing the NO, the faithful were no longer trusting of priests and rightly skeptical! I believe this helped to allay many valid fears.

Ryan Ellis said...

In the Diocese of Arlington (Virginia, USA), we are blessed to have many Traditional Latin Masses both on Sunday and during the week.

The Low Masses range from a full dialogue Mass to an absolutely-silent Low Mass.

Since both are permitted, and each has advantages and disadvantages, I'm personally glad to have the range of experiences.

Thank you, holy priests of the best diocese in America.

Romanitas Press said...

I published a two articles on the issue of the Dialog Mass in The Remnant which can be read here: http://romanitaspress.com/articles/dialog_mass.htm.

They are rather comprehensive and address many misconceptions commonly circulating not only about the Dialog Mass, but the liturgy in general.

Anonymous said...

In regards to St. Gregory, the Pater, and the canon, from my understanding he moved the Pater to its post-consecration place in the canon, but he didn't introduce it completely. Here's what he says in a letter which also explains other customs (see the link at the end for the whole letter):

But the Lord's prayer (orationem Dominicam) we say immediately after the prayer (mox post precem) for this reason, that it was the custom of the apostles to consecrate the host of oblation to (ad) that same prayer only. And it seemed to me very unsuitable that we should say over the oblation a prayer which a scholastic had composed, and should not say the very prayer which our Redeemer composed over His body and blood . But also the Lord's Prayer among the Greeks is said by all the people, but with us by the priest alone.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm

John L said...

Gregory the Great, book IX, letter 12:

'To John, Bishop of Syracuse.

Gregory to John, etc.

One coming from Sicily has told me that some friends of his, whether Greeks or Latins I know not, as though moved by zeal for the holy Roman Church, murmur about my arrangements [i.e. of divine service], saying, How can he be arranging so as to keep the Constantinopolitan Church in check, when in all respects he follows her usage? And, when I said to him, What usages of hers do we follow? He replied; you have caused Alleluia to be said at mass out of the season of Pentecost ; you have made appointment for the sub-deacons to proceed disrobed , and for Kyrie Eleison to be said, and for the Lord's Prayer to be said immediately after the canon. To him I replied, that in none of these things have we followed another Church. ... But the Lord's prayer (orationem Dominicam) we say immediately after the prayer (mox post precem) for this reason, that it was the custom of the apostles to consecrate the host of oblation to (ad) that same prayer only. And it seemed to me very unsuitable that we should say over the oblation a prayer which a scholastic had composed, and should not say the very prayer which our Redeemer composed over His body and blood . But also the Lord's Prayer among the Greeks is said by all the people, but with us by the priest alone.'

The reference to the Lord's Prayer being used to consecrate the host makes it clear that it is part of the canon, and as such proper to the priest alone, as St. Gregory says.

'I'd also like to know where the Church teaches that a statement on the liturgy from an ancient pope trumps an authoritative instruction on the liturgy approved by the pope.'

One of the foundations of Church teaching is sacred tradition. St. Gregory the Great is a Father of the Church, and the main codifier of the Latin liturgy. His central teachings on the liturgy are part of tradition, and later popes have the job of enforcing this teaching, not of rejecting or altering it.

Jordanes551 said...

Thanks Anonymous and John L. It is, then, just as I expected: St. Gregory the Great did not introduce the Pater Noster into the Mass, only moved it to a different part of the Mass; nor did he teach that that it is only to be said by the priest -- all he said is that although it is said by everyone in the Eastern Churches, in the West only the priest says it -- in other words, his words are descriptive, not prescriptive.

One of the foundations of Church teaching is sacred tradition. St. Gregory the Great is a Father of the Church, and the main codifier of the Latin liturgy. His central teachings on the liturgy are part of tradition, and later popes have the job of enforcing this teaching, not of rejecting or altering it.

But there is Sacred Tradition and there is tradition. Not everything that St. Gregory the Great said about the Mass or did to the liturgy is a "teaching" or something that can never be modified. Liturgical tradition isn't something set in stone (which is not to say it is something that may be modified at will Bugnini-style).

Although the schola/choir sings those parts of the Mass, it is also required (did SP get rid of this requirement?) that the priest say these prayers at the altar. He alone has a specific role to offer the Mass to God on our behalf. If we were to join in on his own recitation of the prayers, there would indeed be a blurring of the roles of priest and laymen.

But if the laity sing or say those parts of the Mass that the Church says are proper to them (and those parts include the Gloria, Credo, etc.), that isn't a blurring of the roles of priest and layman. Even when the laity join in singing those parts, it is always the priest who commences the chant, leading the congregation into the song.

authoressaurus said...

"...they meditate devoutly on the mysteries of Jesus Christ, or perform other devotional exercises..."

Beng, this is an example of the superior definition of roles (priestly function as distinct from lay), as well as the commonly held ability to multitask in prayer.

The latter is demonstrated by the fact that the average person can easily comprehend that the priest is acting on his behalf, and that his assent only is required (not difficult to give while adding suitable alternatives to prayer - making for an even richer experience!). This is a example of the flexibility on the part of the liturgical experience in the Traditional rite, which the Novus Ordo simply does not extend to the faithful, either because it thinks that the faithful can't handle that varied an expression of prayer, or because it manifestly does not want them to handle it.

authoressaurus said...

Incidently, I have always found it amusing that an excellent justification for reinstituting the 3rd Confiteor is that, in the liturgical view of the modern liturgist, it belongs to an entirely different liturgy. The first two are proper to the "Mass of the Catachumens," and the 3rd, which also acts as a safeguard for the communion of those who arrive at mass late and miss the first two, is proper to the "Mass of the Faithful," two distinct liturgical "rites" according to the modern view. So why SHOULDN'T the second liturgy retain its own confiteor? It is far from guaranteed that everyone either attends or "participates actively" in the first one. :-)

shane said...

I read the Remnant article Romanitas Press refers to and was disappointed by the approving reference to the ill-informed assertions of Thomas Day (the "chairman of the department of music at Salve Regina College in Rhode Island"...but who knows nothing about the modern liturgical and musical history of the Church in Ireland) in his poorly-researched book 'Why Catholics Can't Sing' as explaining the pre-Vatican II 'Low Mass mentality'. Day is usually the only 'authority' (he isn't) ever cited on this topic, which is a great pity (we need critical analysis not more clichés and caricatures).

Ken said...

I am with the late Evelyn Waugh, who called the Dialogue / Sing-along Mass (pre-novus ordo) a "bitter trial."

Let the servers respond and let the choir sing. Otherwise there is no reason for men and boys to do either in cassock and surplice.

pclaudel said...

Shane: You seriously misrepresent Thomas Day's book. He was writing, not about Ireland or the Irish Church, but the Church in the United States. What you dismissively term his assertions about Irish liturgical history are very minor matters indeed, since, even were your dismissal accurate (it is not, certainly not wholly), its relevance to Irish Americans of the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s and their religious practice--and a fortiori their far-reaching influence on every aspect of American Catholicism--is so limited as to be of dubious utility.

Sadly, I am old enough to have vivid recall of preconciliar liturgies in Spellman's New York. Everything Day wrote about them and, not coincidentally, about the mind-set that lay behind them is completely congruent with my own experience and that of many other men and women of my acquaintance--all of whom, I emphasize, are in their late sixties or their seventies.

Though Day's book is not scholarly in structure, intent, language, or tone, it is thoroughly and sympathetically researched and does provide a detailed picture of the state of American liturgical affairs in the two decades preceding the conciliar debacle. Indeed, a better and apter complaint about the book might well come from one who bought it in the expectation that the matter between its covers would be as soufflé-light as its title. It ain't.

Day's work and public statements clearly demonstrate that he is no Traditionalist. He is, on the other hand, no enemy of Tradition. Indeed, I consider it a practical impossibility for anyone who loves and understands the Church's trove of sacred and liturgical music--a millennium's worth--as much as he does to be such an enemy.

Peter said...

With respect to the Confiteor: it is in fact possible, with the reformed rubrics of 1962, to have a Mass with NO CONFITEOR whatsoever. The Confiteor before communion - seen as an "unnecessary duplication" - of course is suppressed. Moreover, in certain circumstances (like the Rogation days, when there is a procession before Mass) the prayers at the foot of the altar are entirely omitted and the priest goes directly to the altar to read the Introit. In such a case there is no Confiteor ... and the "extraordinary form" starts to look a little more ordinary.

John L said...

We are talking about the Latin rite here, not the Oriental ones, and it is to this rite that St. Gregory the Great's teachings apply. He is not simply observing what happens in the Latin rite; he is giving the reason for the practice of the priest alone saying the Lord's Prayer. The fact that the current place of the Lord's Prayer in the mass was determined by St. Gregory the Great means that his explanation of what is happening when it is being said is the authoritative one. This explanation is not a minor aside, but a teaching on an important feature of the mass by a Pope and doctor of the Church, who was responsible for giving the Roman rite its definitive form. It is not something that a Vatican dicastery has the authority to revise, even if the dicastery has the approval of a pope. In any case, the document in question does not revise St. Gregory's teaching, because it does not state that the Lord's Prayer is not to be considered part of the canon. It simply licenses a practice that is incompatible with St. Gregory's teaching, while leaving that teaching in place.

Anonymous said...

Romanitas Press, thank you for the articles---very helpful for those of us still learning.

Jordanes551 said...

We are talking about the Latin rite here, not the Oriental ones, and it is to this rite that St. Gregory the Great's teachings apply.

But St. Gregory's words that you quoted refer both to the Latin rite and to Eastern rites.

You erroneously claimed that St. Gregory the Great introduced the Lord's Prayer into the Mass, but we have seen that St. Gregory said it was a part of the Mass from the time of the apostles. You also erroneously claimed that St. Gregory said it is only to be said by the priest because it constitutes part of the canon of the Mass. But we have seen that he did not say it is a part of the canon of the Mass, but rather have seen that he moved it from the canon to a place after the canon. In addition, we have seen that he did not say it is only to be said by the priest -- rather, he said that in the West it is said only by the priest but in the East by all the people -- and from the context it is obvious that he said this to underscore that his liturgical reform did not, contrary to the claims of critics, mimick the liturgical rites of Constantinople. Now, if he said only the priest should be permitted to say the Pater Noster, then he would have called on the Eastern Catholics to conform with the Western tradition. But he did not. Perhaps you meant to say that St. Gregory taught that *in the West* only the priest is to say the Lord's Prayer during Mass, but that isn't what you said.

He is not simply observing what happens in the Latin rite; he is giving the reason for the practice of the priest alone saying the Lord's Prayer.

In his words that you and Anonymous have quoted, he doesn't give any reason at all for the Western tradition of the priest "alone" saying the Pater Noster. He merely observes that in the East everyone says the Lord's Prayer but in the West the priest alone says it. He does give his reasons for his moving the Lord's Prayer to a position after the consecration of the Oblation, but he doesn't explain the reason for the Western custom of having the priest alone pray the Our Father.

The fact that the current place of the Lord's Prayer in the mass was determined by St. Gregory the Great means that his explanation of what is happening when it is being said is the authoritative one.

What is his explanation of what is happening when the Lord's Prayer is said in Mass? He explains his reason for moving the Lord's Prayer to a place immediately after the Anaphora: it is so that the prayer composed by Our Lord would be prayed over the Oblation of the Host (Victim), even as it was prayed by the apostles, rather than being prayed before the Oblation was consecrated.

"But the Lord's prayer (orationem Dominicam) we say immediately after the prayer (mox post precem) for this reason, that it was the custom of the apostles to consecrate the host of oblation to (ad) that same prayer only. And it seemed to me very unsuitable that we should say over the oblation a prayer which a scholastic had composed, and should not say the very prayer which our Redeemer composed over His body and blood."

It is not something that a Vatican dicastery has the authority to revise, even if the dicastery has the approval of a pope.

It IS something, however, that a pope can revise . . . and of course one of the ways he enacts such revisions is through his dicasteries.

In any case, the document in question does not revise St. Gregory's teaching, because it does not state that the Lord's Prayer is not to be considered part of the canon.

But St. Gregory does not state that the Lord's Prayer is part of the canon. He distinguishes between the prayer (that which we know as the Roman Canon), which he says was composed by a "scholastic," and the Lord's Prayer, which was composed by the Redeemer Himself.

Picard said...

In Germany not only the FSSP and other regulised groups have the Missa dialogata but also the FSSPX - and they promote it!!

(True traditionalism does not mean to conserve all old things per se - and perhaps old things that were themselfe not so good developments.)

M. A. said...

The NO mentality as expressed by Fr. Bill Conway of the Joliet Diocese:

"While I respect the decision of the Holy Father to permit the extraordinary rite of the Tridentine Mass (please note ‘extraordinary’), my criticism of this form is that by the very manner of its celebration it renders the role of the laity to being little more than onlooker. In fact, it was precisely because of this that the Council Fathers in Sacrosanctum Concilium mandated the reform of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Mass: ‘In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else (#14).'"

We shouldn't allow the Fr. Conway's to inveigle us into thinking like them. Do we really care that they think we are mute spectators?

I wonder what he would say about our Blessed Lady at the foot of the cross?

Picard said...

And to add: in many places in Germany part "c" (and of course "a" and "b") of no. 31 is done - and it is NOT a cacophonie (like J. Knox or others imagined!)!

Picard said...

The 3times-"Domine, non sum dignus" is said by the whole congreation in ALL places in Germany, independent of FSSP, FSSPX or whatever priest says the TLM.

It is said either in Latin or in the vernacular.

and, btw, Jordanes argumentation is convincing. Thanks for this disussion.

Jonathan Knox said...

17 August, 2011 07:55 Anonymous,

Yes, in the Solemn Mass the deacon and subdeacon have their specific roles, and in the Mass of the Catechumens that is the chanting of the Gospel and Epistle. The schola, however, is itself a 'substitute' for the clergy who originally sang at High Masses, just as altar boys are substitutes for acolytes, etc.

As for #2, you may be correct there. Will have to do more reading on that.

Anonymous said...

I will present the critique of Fr. Augustine Thompson OP of the congregational reciting of the whole Pater:
"I do not like the practice of the congregation reciting the Pater with the priest. Two reasons: first, it seems it was added by Gregory the Great so that the PRIEST reaffirmed human words (the Canon) with divine words (The Lord’s Prayer). Musically it is a book end matching the Preface. And both have a congregational response (the Sanctus and the Libera nos a male).

As it is now done at some EF Masses, it makes hash (was it does in the OF) of the rubrical gestures. If the Pater is sung by all, the priest should properly fold his hands during it, not leave them extended. The only time the orans position is used by the priest is when he is praying by himself for the congregation."

Lillian said...

Active participation is not about speaking or responding out loud, it is truly lifting on'e heart and mind to Our Lord.

My understanding is that it is the pastor's decision regarding how much vocal participation should be allowed based upon two factors. First, his parish's ability to respond in Latin. Secondly, the level of prayer that his parishioners have achieved. He should have a good grasp on this based upon the confession of his penitents and the spiritual direction he gives. Someone in the second, third, and possibly the forth level of prayer would have a very, very, difficult time with true "active" participation due to the distractions they would encounter in a dialog Mass. A priest who is working on his interior life understands this well.

Therefore, out of charity for his parishioners, (except in rare instances,) I do not believe the low Mass should be a dialog.

Lautensack said...

I am rather sceptical of 'dialogue masses' both for liturgical and for practical reasons.

The proper form of a public Mass in the Roman Rite is High Mass, whereas Low Mass is in its origin the private Mass of a priest-monk.

In many places, High Mass is rarely if ever possible, but since the early 20th century it is possible to have a Missa Cantata with most of the ceremonies of a High Mass, and I believe that this form should be promoted as a Sunday Mass (and this should be possible in most places, since the propers can also be sung to Psalm tones).

In a High / Sung Mass there is a clear division between texts that are sung by the choir/congregation (e.g. most Et cum spiritu tuos, and the Ordinary and Proper chants), and texts that are recited by the celebrant and the servers with Low Voice (e.g. Prayer at the Foot of the Altar, Orate Fratres).

If one wants a mass with outward participation of the laity, and if a sung Mass is not possible, the faithful should in my opinion only join into the parts they would sing at Sung Masses. Otherwise, there is a risk that the central parts of Mass become 'sandwiched' between the two long and loud dialogue blocks of the Prayer at the Foot of the Altar and the Leonine Prayers.

I also experienced the Dialogue Masses as rather divisive: some people become annoyed if they cannot pray quietly, other people become annoyed if no-one joins them with the responses, and others become confused. I also would like to appeal to the 'spririt of tolerance' mentioned here beforehand and suggest to remain either quiet during Low Mass or to give the answers with low voice, in order not to disturb others. For more outward participation, go to a Missa Cantata (what is my preferred option).

The wider picture is naturally rather confusing. With the 'Extraordinary Form' defined as 'as it was law in 1962' we have now as a permanent liturgy a transitional form that had only be in force for two years. As a result, some innovations were introduced in some places, but not in others (e.g. the the Pater may be said by the people in Low Mass, but not in Missa Cantata, or that the Third Confiteor is only obligatory in Pontifical Masses or that Palm Sunday has no Last Gospel), and the result is necessarily quite illogical. One can hope that the competent authorities will look into the situation quickly.

New Catholic said...

I have not made any comment on this thread, but I must add, regarding the last one, that I rather like the tiny idiosyncrasies, variations, and customs of all kinds - the rite is ROMAN, after all, not Scandinavian (with all due respect!).

Father Shelton said...

Lautensack hopes "that the competent authorities will look into the situation quickly". That would be a first for the competent authorities! At every Mass I have ever offered with a congregation they say or sing all the parts they are allowed to do. I did see an '80's document from PCED saying the congregation can even sing the whole Pater, so if that's really in effect everywhere, then that's the one thing my congregation doesn't sing.

Lautensack said...

New Catholic, could you please explain me what you meant with 'Scandinavian'? This is certainly not where I come from. What I criticized were not local uses (which I very much approve of) but rather inconsistencies caused by partial reforms in the 1930s and 1950s - and I doubt if it makes sense to keep them forever.

I would actually guess (but I am not a canon lawyer) that the insistence on 'everything as in 1962' in Summorum Pontificum means that any changes of the then 'Indult Mass' made by the Ecclesia Dei Commission before the publication of this Motu proprio are no longer applicable (and this seems also to be the opinion taken in Fortescue/Reid, if I remember correctly).

New Catholic said...

Lautensack, I was kidding... It was simply meant in the sense that these tiny, but legitimate variations (let us remember, regarding this specific 1958 document expressly mentioned by the Codex, 272, that it lays down a very wide spectrum of possibilities of participation of the faithful in Low Mass), as well as the several local customs, are part of the beauty, and, yes, of the Romanitas, of the Rite. The Roman Rite is legalistic and sober, quite true, but also customary, varied, and sunny, like the City itself. That was all that was meant.

Peter said...

"True traditionalism does not mean to conserve all old things per se."

That is certainly true and so it should not mean conserving the liturgical experiments of the 1940s-mid-60s and labeling it "the traditional rite". Those committed to restoring the traditional liturgy really should take an honest look at the rather serious changes made in 1955-1962.

Since the Roman Rite is "customary, varied, and sunny," as New Catholic says, perhaps we should not insist too much on absolute conformity to 1962 but rather allow those groups who wish to do so use more traditional, older usages like the old Octaves and the old Holy Week.

As to the Dialogue Mass, it is clearly permitted. For the sake of peace in a congregation, however, those attending Mass should simply follow the directives set down by the priest or chaplain - although one should never force someone to make responses.

New Catholic said...

Peter, the preceding orders (or, for that matter, the 1963/4-1969 variations) are not under consideration here. Perhaps in a future open thread...

---

On the matter of the "Dialogue Mass", as in other similar situations, that must be the rule: the Priest is in charge.

Patrick said...

What is the trouble with "dialogue Masses"? At High Mass, the congregation sings (or should sing) the Kyriale. At low Mass, the singing is replaced by the congregation reciting some prayers of the Ordinary. It is hard to see what is wrong about this.