Suscipe Domine Traditional Catholic Forum

The Church Courtyard => Traditional Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: Stefano on January 09, 2019, 09:43:44 AM

Title: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: Stefano on January 09, 2019, 09:43:44 AM
Hello everyone,

In all of the Dioceses around me (Ontario, Canada), any parish that does offer the Tridentine Mass employs the "dialogue" form, where the congregation will say the altar server (and even somtimes Priest) parts. I know this is a notable abuse of the Liturgy, and I find it to be exceptionally irreverent and annoying. Is this commonplace at parishes that celebrate both the Mass of All Time and the Novus Ordo?

I attend a non-Diocesan apostolate for my Sunday and Holy Day obligations (as it is about 130km from me), and feel hindered from attending other Masses closer to me because of the abovementioned. Should I petition the priests with my concern?
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: Daniel on January 09, 2019, 10:43:04 AM
Are you sure it's an abuse? I'm no expert, but I don't think the rubrics forbid the congregation from audibly saying the response. (Though the congregation should never say the priest's part.)

Also, while the practice is a novelty, I think it has more to do with geography than it has to do with whether or not the parish is NO. If I recall correctly, I think the practice began somewhere in France some time before Vatican II and then it spread to other areas. Which is why in our day it's commonplace in some parishes and unheard of in other parishes.

I personally would not bring it up with the priest.
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: nmoerbeek on January 09, 2019, 10:48:40 AM
Hello everyone,

In all of the Dioceses around me (Ontario, Canada), any parish that does offer the Tridentine Mass employs the "dialogue" form, where the congregation will say the altar server (and even somtimes Priest) parts. I know this is a notable abuse of the Liturgy, and I find it to be exceptionally irreverent and annoying. Is this commonplace at parishes that celebrate both the Mass of All Time and the Novus Ordo?

I attend a non-Diocesan apostolate for my Sunday and Holy Day obligations (as it is about 130km from me), and feel hindered from attending other Masses closer to me because of the abovementioned. Should I petition the priests with my concern?


In my experience the dialogue Mass does not just happen. What I mean by that is that at some point a Priest came in, and actively pushed, catechized and pushed from the pulpit (often for an extended period of time) before people started to make the Responses.

Once people start making the responses you will not get them to stop unless, once again, a priest comes in, actively pushes against from the pulpit to stop. 

If you consider the "Dialogue Mass" an abuse (and I know people who do) while you are not alone in your opinion, it is just that, an opinion there is nothing authoritative that you can bring to a priest to say "This must stop now in the name of Holy Mother the Church!" .  The Dialogue Mass is an allowed form of celebrating a Low Mass, there is a lot of literature on the topic should you be inclined to see how my opinion was formed on this matter, http://www.romanitaspress.com/on-the-dialogue-mass, I think you will find these articles which are linked to on this page are scholarly.


Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: The Harlequin King on January 09, 2019, 11:04:58 AM
I know this is a notable abuse of the Liturgy, and I find it to be exceptionally irreverent and annoying.

Whether it's annoying or not is subjective, but it's not an abuse. The norms for dialogue low Mass were laid out by the Sacred Congregation for Rites (the pre-conciliar counterpart to the modern CDW) in 1958 in De musica sacra: https://adoremus.org/1958/09/03/instruction-on-sacred-music/

Quote
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.


Now, I'm not a legal positivist, so I'm not asserting that "legislation of the moment" is always the final answer. (I'm not a fan of most of the post-1955 Holy Week revisions, for example.) That said, verbal responses to Mass have been the norm longer than they haven't. There are medieval penitential manuals that prescribe penances for those who confessed to failing to respond at Mass.
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: Stefano on January 09, 2019, 11:45:39 AM
Thank you so much for your replies, and for all the information.

Having spoken to priests from different non-diocesan parishes, I was completely under the impression that the dialogue mass was illcit. This was reinforced by only hearing it in diocesan churches that also celebrate the Novis Ordo, where the congregations are notably irreverent (talking before and during Mass, for instance). Contrastingly, any time I have attended a Low Mass with the FSSP, SSPX or ICRSS, it has been the beautiful contemplative silence that I have now learned is merely my preference.

I appreciate deeply the fraternal correction from all of you.
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: The Harlequin King on January 09, 2019, 12:07:33 PM
Thank you so much for your replies, and for all the information.

Having spoken to priests from different non-diocesan parishes, I was completely under the impression that the dialogue mass was illcit. This was reinforced by only hearing it in diocesan churches that also celebrate the Novis Ordo, where the congregations are notably irreverent (talking before and during Mass, for instance). Contrastingly, any time I have attended a Low Mass with the FSSP, SSPX or ICRSS, it has been the beautiful contemplative silence that I have now learned is merely my preference.

I appreciate deeply the fraternal correction from all of you.

You're welcome. At most, it can be said that dialogue low Mass may not be the preference of most priests in those societies. On the other hand, there are some who do promote it. And in my experience, most FSSP priests do promote some level of congregational singing at sung/solemn Mass. The Campion Missal/Hymnal published by Corpus Christi Watershed, with the endorsement of the FSSP, is evidence of that (it contains the full Kyriale for singing the Ordinary of the Mass in Gregorian chant).

It's also to be expected that people who make the effort to travel out to parishes run by the FSSP et al. are, on average, more likely to want a restrained, contemplative experience of the liturgy. A lot of them are weary of the noisiness of the Novus Ordo and want a completely-opposite experience. Nevertheless, the dialogue low Mass is a licit option.

I think the most sensible option for a dialogue low Mass is level c) as outlined by the document I quoted before. The Propers were always meant to be sung by a choir alone, so it doesn't make sense for the whole congregation to recit them. But the Kyrie, Gloria, etc. are certainly fitting, since the congregation might also sing them in a sung/solemn Mass.
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: Maximilian on January 09, 2019, 01:50:54 PM

In my experience the dialogue Mass does not just happen. What I mean by that is that at some point a Priest came in, and actively pushed, catechized and pushed from the pulpit (often for an extended period of time) before people started to make the Responses.

Good observation.


Once people start making the responses you will not get them to stop unless, once again, a priest comes in, actively pushes against from the pulpit to stop. 

This is probably a very accurate prediction.


If you consider the "Dialogue Mass" an abuse (and I know people who do) while you are not alone in your opinion, it is just that, an opinion there is nothing authoritative that you can bring to a priest to say "This must stop now in the name of Holy Mother the Church!" . 

This is the same argument used against all aspects of traditional Catholicism, "it's just your opinion."

The reality is that the "Dialog Mass" is not traditional. It simply was never done during all the long centuries of the Catholic Church. Then it was introduced during the lead-up to Vatican II when all the innovations were being tested out.
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: Maximilian on January 09, 2019, 01:54:13 PM

The norms for dialogue low Mass were laid out by the Sacred Congregation for Rites (the pre-conciliar counterpart to the modern CDW) in 1958 in De musica sacra: https://adoremus.org/1958/09/03/instruction-on-sacred-music/

Here is the crux of the matter: 1958.

If you want to avoid this abuse, find a traditional venue where they don't use the 1962 innovations.

I was very happy the other day to see the posts from several participants here on SD who report that many groups are returning to the pre-1955 liturgy, including some groups "in union with Rome."
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: The Harlequin King on January 09, 2019, 02:15:08 PM
This is the same argument used against all aspects of traditional Catholicism, "it's just your opinion."

The reality is that the "Dialog Mass" is not traditional. It simply was never done during all the long centuries of the Catholic Church. Then it was introduced during the lead-up to Vatican II when all the innovations were being tested out.

I don't think low Masses should be celebrated at all on Sundays and major feasts, but for the time being, they, and the dialogue form of low Mass, are licit. That was the main issue.

There were really quite a few variations of low Mass in the period from 1500-1900. The German Mass with paraphrase hymns, the French organ Mass, and so on.

In the same comment I left earlier, I stated that congregational responses at Mass have been done longer than they haven't. The Penitential of Burchard is one clear example. Now, yes, in medieval times, the Mass was more commonly sung than recited. But the principle of making verbal responses at Mass are well-established in the medieval Church.

Likewise, most of the Eastern rites have congregational responses (sung) for the Divine Liturgy.
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: Lynne on January 09, 2019, 02:26:02 PM
I've only been to SSPX Masses here in the US but I've heard that the "Dialogue" Mass is common at SSPX Masses in France. I dislike it because it does seem to me just another way to get people "participating" as if silently contemplating the Mass is not participating. As Max said, it was a novelty before the Novelty of Novelties, the N.O. Mass.
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: The Harlequin King on January 09, 2019, 03:04:45 PM
I've only been to SSPX Masses here in the US but I've heard that the "Dialogue" Mass is common at SSPX Masses in France. I dislike it because it does seem to me just another way to get people "participating" as if silently contemplating the Mass is not participating. As Max said, it was a novelty before the Novelty of Novelties, the N.O. Mass.

I already said that the medieval Penitential of Burchard assigned penance for failing to make the responses at Mass (bread and water, I forget how many days).

The 1499 Ordo of John Burchard (different than the Burchard mentioned before), papal master of ceremonies, also assumes that the congregation responds at Mass. This Ordo was the prototype for the Tridentine Missal of 1570.

The Eastern rites likewise have a continuous tradition of congregational responses in the Divine Liturgy.
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: Daniel on January 09, 2019, 03:19:56 PM
And in my experience, most FSSP priests do promote some level of congregational singing at sung/solemn Mass. The Campion Missal/Hymnal published by Corpus Christi Watershed, with the endorsement of the FSSP, is evidence of that (it contains the full Kyriale for singing the Ordinary of the Mass in Gregorian chant).
How else would it be done? Either I'm not very observant, or that's just how the high Mass is: the schola sings the priest's part, and the choir (including the congregation) sings the responses.
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: awkwardcustomer on January 09, 2019, 03:36:19 PM
I already said that the medieval Penitential of Burchard assigned penance for failing to make the responses at Mass (bread and water, I forget how many days).

But what exactly were the responses at Mass that the laity were supposed to make?  Were they verbal responses, or responses relating to bodily position such as kneeling or genuflecting?

It just seems strange that the Medieval laity were expected to respond to the sacred ministers when they were on opposite sides of the Rood Screen.

How did it work in practice?

Quote
The 1499 Ordo of John Burchard (different than the Burchard mentioned before), papal master of ceremonies, also assumes that the congregation responds at Mass. This Ordo was the prototype for the Tridentine Missal of 1570.

A Rood Screen separating sanctuary and nave was very much the norm throughout Medieval Europe.  You need to explain how the aim of creating such a separation squares with the laity's involvement in the liturgy of the Solemn Mass.

Post the evidence because without out it, your claims don't compute.
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: Stefano on January 09, 2019, 03:37:30 PM
I dislike it because it does seem to me just another way to get people "participating" as if silently contemplating the Mass is not participating.

This is precisely my qualm.
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: Sempronius on January 09, 2019, 03:58:31 PM
I already said that the medieval Penitential of Burchard assigned penance for failing to make the responses at Mass (bread and water, I forget how many days).

But what exactly were the responses at Mass that the laity were supposed to make?  Were they verbal responses, or responses relating to bodily position such as kneeling or genuflecting?

It just seems strange that the Medieval laity were expected to respond to the sacred ministers when they were on opposite sides of the Rood Screen.

How did it work in practice?

Quote
The 1499 Ordo of John Burchard (different than the Burchard mentioned before), papal master of ceremonies, also assumes that the congregation responds at Mass. This Ordo was the prototype for the Tridentine Missal of 1570.

A Rood Screen separating sanctuary and nave was very much the norm throughout Medieval Europe.  You need to explain how the aim of creating such a separation squares with the laity's involvement in the liturgy of the Solemn Mass.

Post the evidence because without out it, your claims don't compute.

From my little knowledge I would say that rood screen were not the norm. Every diocese had their pecularities, I think St Pius V made the mass more uniformed across Europe.
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: awkwardcustomer on January 09, 2019, 04:10:55 PM
If you consider the "Dialogue Mass" an abuse (and I know people who do) while you are not alone in your opinion, it is just that, an opinion there is nothing authoritative that you can bring to a priest to say "This must stop now in the name of Holy Mother the Church!" .  The Dialogue Mass is an allowed form of celebrating a Low Mass, there is a lot of literature on the topic should you be inclined to see how my opinion was formed on this matter, http://www.romanitaspress.com/on-the-dialogue-mass, I think you will find these articles which are linked to on this page are scholarly.

nmoerbeek, the article you link to is problematic to say the least.  The author, I suspect, is in favour of Dialogue Masses and has cobbled together material that, quite frankly, seems dubious.

For example, he makes this incredible claim -

Quote
It is an indisputable historical fact that from the Early Church until approximately the 17th century the faithful in the West customarily participated at sung Masses by alternating with the clerical schola and responding to the sacred ministers.

I've asked the Harlequin King this question, but how does this square with what we know about the liturgy in the Middle Ages?  In any Medieval Church or Cathedral in the West, a Solemn Mass would have been offered from behind the Rood Screen.  This was an extremely hierarchical society and the church architecture of the period reflected this.  The separation of the sacred and the profane was a continual preoccupation of those who planned and built sacred buildings throughout the Medieval period.

The author also makes this claim.

Quote
When first introduced, the Low Mass was intended for use by a priest without the public’s attendance; hence its official term Missa Privatis

This may have been true when the Low Mass was first introduced, but according to Eamon Duffy in 'The Stripping of the Altars', the Low Mass was a huge part of Medieval life.

That's why there were so many side altars in Medieval churches and cathedrals.  Haven't you noticed? 

The Solemn Mass would have been said from behind the Rood Screen on Sundays and Holy Days.  But the Low Mass was offered at the side altars almost continuously for the rest of the time.  What's more, many side altars were paid for and maintained by Guilds and wealthy individuals, the idea being to offer an almost constant stream of Masses, especially for the Holy Souls, a particular feature of Medieval life being concern for those in Purgatory.

The author who has helped form your opinion also refers to the 'Low Mass Mentality', a derogatory term which instantly betrays bias.  And then he claims that the Low Mass somehow owes its predominace to the Protestant Reformation!!

Appalling, and not true. 

The Dialogue Mass is a product of the Liturgical Movement which was the spearhead of the reforms that came with Vatican II.  When Pope Pius X made his stand against the Modernists with 'Pascendi' in 1907 and other actions, the Modernists simply side-stepped into the Liturgical Movement and planned their destruction from there.

The Liturgical Movement was the Tojan Horse of the Modernist attack on the Church.  They would despise the Low Mass, wouldn't they?
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: awkwardcustomer on January 09, 2019, 04:16:52 PM
From my little knowledge I would say that rood screen were not the norm. Every diocese had their pecularities, I think St Pius V made the mass more uniformed across Europe.

And from my more than little knowledge, I would say that Rood Screens absolutely were the norm throughout the Medieval period.

And there were no pews.

Pews are Protestant.
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: The Harlequin King on January 09, 2019, 04:18:27 PM
And in my experience, most FSSP priests do promote some level of congregational singing at sung/solemn Mass. The Campion Missal/Hymnal published by Corpus Christi Watershed, with the endorsement of the FSSP, is evidence of that (it contains the full Kyriale for singing the Ordinary of the Mass in Gregorian chant).
How else would it be done? Either I'm not very observant, or that's just how the high Mass is: the schola sings the priest's part, and the choir (including the congregation) sings the responses.

In some places, the choir alone sings even the short responses ("et cum spiritu tuo" and so on).
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: The Harlequin King on January 09, 2019, 04:25:49 PM
But what exactly were the responses at Mass that the laity were supposed to make?  Were they verbal responses, or responses relating to bodily position such as kneeling or genuflecting?

It just seems strange that the Medieval laity were expected to respond to the sacred ministers when they were on opposite sides of the Rood Screen.

How did it work in practice?

Quote
The 1499 Ordo of John Burchard (different than the Burchard mentioned before), papal master of ceremonies, also assumes that the congregation responds at Mass. This Ordo was the prototype for the Tridentine Missal of 1570.

A Rood Screen separating sanctuary and nave was very much the norm throughout Medieval Europe.  You need to explain how the aim of creating such a separation squares with the laity's involvement in the liturgy of the Solemn Mass.

Post the evidence because without out it, your claims don't compute.

A rood screen doesn't create much of a sound barrier. I've sung many Masses in churches with rood screens with no problem. Consider that many Eastern churches have a full iconostasis (complete visual separation) and the congregation still responds to the priest just fine.

The problem only comes up in major medieval cathedral or abbey churches with fully enclosed quires where the walls are rather thick. But even in this case, it's not insurmountable. I've attended Evensong at Westminster Abbey (which has an enclosed quire) and was able to hear everything, even without amplification.

I can see about finding textual citations later, but if nothing else, the medieval liturgy is my area of specialty. I also manage my own men's plainchant schola. I spend quite a bit of time thinking about all these things.
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: awkwardcustomer on January 09, 2019, 05:35:39 PM
A rood screen doesn't create much of a sound barrier. I've sung many Masses in churches with rood screens with no problem. Consider that many Eastern churches have a full iconostasis (complete visual separation) and the congregation still responds to the priest just fine.

The problem only comes up in major medieval cathedral or abbey churches with fully enclosed quires where the walls are rather thick. But even in this case, it's not insurmountable. I've attended Evensong at Westminster Abbey (which has an enclosed quire) and was able to hear everything, even without amplification.

I can see about finding textual citations later, but if nothing else, the medieval liturgy is my area of specialty. I also manage my own men's plainchant schola. I spend quite a bit of time thinking about all these things.

I agree, a Rood Screen isn't a sound barrier.  But it was never intended to be.

The Rood Screen is a boundary, a demarcation line, between the ultimate sacred space which is the Sanctuary, and the less sacred space of the nave.  The concept of a hierarchy of spaces is fundamental to Medieval church architecture and liturgical space. The typical great west door signified the transition from the world to the sacred space of the church or cathedral. Each stage was marked by powerful imagery in order to drive home the effect of moving from one space to another.

I have attended a Ukranian Catholic Mass were everyone sat in the dreadful pews and the whole thing seemed as dull as your average Protestant bible and hymn service.  And I have attended a Russian Orthodox church with a full iconostasis and where there were no pews.  This was probably the most liberating liturgical experience I have ever had.

Without pews and with a full iconostatis, you can venerate an icon if you choose, or prostrate yourself on the floor, or simply pray, or go to the wall where the benches are in the side aisles and have a rest. There is no one-size-fits-all solution here. No being cramped up in a pew with strangers breathing down your neck, forced to be immobile, forced to be a recipient of the liturgy. That's how it would have been in the Middle Ages throughout Europe on Sundays and Holy Days.  Otherwise, the Low Mass said at side altars almost constantly was a hugely significant feature of Medieval life.

Please posts the texts you refer to. You have made a significant claim, and I would be genuinely interested in it's source.
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: The Harlequin King on January 09, 2019, 08:01:26 PM
I agree, a Rood Screen isn't a sound barrier.  But it was never intended to be.

The Rood Screen is a boundary, a demarcation line, between the ultimate sacred space which is the Sanctuary, and the less sacred space of the nave.  The concept of a hierarchy of spaces is fundamental to Medieval church architecture and liturgical space. The typical great west door signified the transition from the world to the sacred space of the church or cathedral. Each stage was marked by powerful imagery in order to drive home the effect of moving from one space to another.

I have attended a Ukranian Catholic Mass were everyone sat in the dreadful pews and the whole thing seemed as dull as your average Protestant bible and hymn service.  And I have attended a Russian Orthodox church with a full iconostasis and where there were no pews.  This was probably the most liberating liturgical experience I have ever had.

Without pews and with a full iconostatis, you can venerate an icon if you choose, or prostrate yourself on the floor, or simply pray, or go to the wall where the benches are in the side aisles and have a rest. There is no one-size-fits-all solution here. No being cramped up in a pew with strangers breathing down your neck, forced to be immobile, forced to be a recipient of the liturgy. That's how it would have been in the Middle Ages throughout Europe on Sundays and Holy Days.  Otherwise, the Low Mass said at side altars almost constantly was a hugely significant feature of Medieval life.

Please posts the texts you refer to. You have made a significant claim, and I would be genuinely interested in it's source.

I arrived home and my paperback copy of "Medieval Handbooks of Penance" is MIA. I'll have to dig around for it.

In the meantime, know that I generally agree with you about the liberating effect of a pew-less church space. If I had a million bucks to build a private chapel in my house, you'd better believe it wouldn't have pews cluttering things up. And certainly, toward the later Middle Ages, low Masses became a staple of popular piety at the side altars. This was, of course, never intended to replace the Mass of Sunday and major feasts.
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: moneil on January 09, 2019, 10:43:30 PM
I’ve nearly completed reading “The Mass, A Study of the Roman Liturgy” by Father Adrian Fortescue, published in 1912, which has some pertinence to this topic.

Chapter Six: “To The End of the Catechumen’s Mass” contains:

Quote
In the middle ages it (referring to the Nicene Creed) was commonly sung, not by the choir, but buy all the people; wherefore there was only one chat for it known to everyone.  This chant (in the fourth tone) is noted in the Vatican Gradual as the authentic one, though three others are allowed.  The excellent custom that all the people should sing at least the creed has lasted in parts of France and Germany is is now being revived.  Another mediaeval practice was that while the choir sang the creed the people sang “Kyrie eleison”.

Chapter Eight: “The Canon” contains:

The ‘dicentes’ with which all (referring to the Preface) end refers to us, except in this last form in which it means the angels.  The people or choir continue the sentence: ‘Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus’.”

Quote
2. Sanctus
This is, of course, merely the continuation of the preface.  It would be quite logical if the celebrant sang it straight on himself.  But the dramatic touch of letting the people fill in the choral chant of the angels, in which (as the preface says) we also wish to join, is an obvious idea, a very early one and quite universal.  Clement of Rome, after quoting the text Isaiah 6:3 says (or implies) that we sing these words together.


Father Fortescue's work contains many other examples of the faithful's participation in the Liturgy.
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: The Harlequin King on January 09, 2019, 11:43:53 PM
Good citation, moneil. I forgot to add that the purpose for the old rite requiring the priest-celebrant (not the deacon, not a cantor) to intone the Gloria and the Creed was to signal the entire assembly to join after his example. (I don't say that to exclude the use of choral-only Mass movements--sometimes I have my schola sing some of the more obscure ones from the Kyriale for the sake of variety--but to suggest that the congregation should know the words to the Gloria and Creed by heart.) And certainly, as Father Adrian wrote, Credo I was the only composition of the Creed in the Roman Rite for several centuries for that reason, and why the Liber Usualis recommends its use above the others.

Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: Non Nobis on January 10, 2019, 01:21:46 AM
My SSPX chapel (< 50 people with visiting priest) used to frown on the dialogue Mass, but as people and priest have changed over the years it is becoming more common - that is, SOME people are responding and others are still silent.  At the very least I think everyone ought to be consistent.  I should ask the priest if he (or the SSPX in general) has a preference.
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: awkwardcustomer on January 10, 2019, 07:49:43 AM
I’ve nearly completed reading “The Mass, A Study of the Roman Liturgy” by Father Adrian Fortescue, published in 1912, which has some pertinence to this topic.

Chapter Six: “To The End of the Catechumen’s Mass” contains:

Quote
In the middle ages it (referring to the Nicene Creed) was commonly sung, not by the choir, but buy all the people; wherefore there was only one chat for it known to everyone.  This chant (in the fourth tone) is noted in the Vatican Gradual as the authentic one, though three others are allowed.  The excellent custom that all the people should sing at least the creed has lasted in parts of France and Germany is is now being revived.  Another mediaeval practice was that while the choir sang the creed the people sang “Kyrie eleison”.

Chapter Eight: “The Canon” contains:

The ‘dicentes’ with which all (referring to the Preface) end refers to us, except in this last form in which it means the angels.  The people or choir continue the sentence: ‘Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus’.”

Quote
2. Sanctus
This is, of course, merely the continuation of the preface.  It would be quite logical if the celebrant sang it straight on himself.  But the dramatic touch of letting the people fill in the choral chant of the angels, in which (as the preface says) we also wish to join, is an obvious idea, a very early one and quite universal.  Clement of Rome, after quoting the text Isaiah 6:3 says (or implies) that we sing these words together.


Father Fortescue's work contains many other examples of the faithful's participation in the Liturgy.

So, in the Middle Ages the faithful sang the Creed at a Solemn Mass on Sundays and Holy Days.  Or they sang the Kyrie Eleison while the choir sang the Creed.  But it's quite a leap to claim this as an example of 'the faithful's participation in the Liturgy'. 

This weasel phrase was adopted by the liturgical reformers not to benefit the laity but to undermine the priesthood and dissolve the boundaries between the sacred and the profane.  The typical modernist liturgical space seeks to dissolve all boundaries, as does the modernist NO liturgy.  When liturgical reformers talk about 'the faithful's participation in the liturgy' they have in mind liturgical spaces and forms that would have seemed utterly alien in the Middle Ages.

The liturgical reformers of the 20th century have a habit of pointing to examples from different ages (especially the early Church) and traditions (especially the Eastern Rites) and using them to justify their innovations in the west today.  But they are taking these examples, such as the Medieval laity chanting the Creed, out of context and with little acknowledgment of the liturgical forms and sensibilities of those different ages and traditions.

Somehow, the laity chanting the Creed during a Medieval Solemn Mass means that the Dialogue Mass has always been a tradition of the Church!!

That's how the trick works. 
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: Stefano on January 10, 2019, 08:21:35 AM
Some excellent posts from the members here! I am learning quite a lot; thank you everyone!

Are there any Roman Catholic Churches without pews still in existence? I was previously unaware that pews were a protestant inclusion.
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: Maximilian on January 10, 2019, 12:27:36 PM
This is the same argument used against all aspects of traditional Catholicism, "it's just your opinion."

The reality is that the "Dialog Mass" is not traditional. It simply was never done during all the long centuries of the Catholic Church. Then it was introduced during the lead-up to Vatican II when all the innovations were being tested out.

I don't think low Masses should be celebrated at all on Sundays and major feasts,

Yes, good point, I agree.


but for the time being, they, and the dialogue form of low Mass, are licit. That was the main issue.

Licit according to post-1958 rubrics.


There were really quite a few variations of low Mass in the period from 1500-1900. The German Mass with paraphrase hymns, the French organ Mass, and so on.

Yes, this is true. But none of those are the "Dialog Mass."


In the same comment I left earlier, I stated that congregational responses at Mass have been done longer than they haven't. The Penitential of Burchard is one clear example. Now, yes, in medieval times, the Mass was more commonly sung than recited. But the principle of making verbal responses at Mass are well-established in the medieval Church.

Once again, I agree that you can search through the Medieval record and find many interesting examples. None of them, however, are the "Dialog Mass."
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: mikemac on January 10, 2019, 12:49:58 PM
This SSPX page was linked to the page that nmoerbeek posted.

The whole page should be read.
http://sspx.org/en/attendance-and-participation-mass

Quote
Attendance and participation at Mass

A comprehensive explanation of the authentic and traditional understanding of "active participation", and why and how it is important for Catholics to actually participate while attending Mass.
...
This in no way suppresses the “silent recollection of prayer.” It is a quality of private prayer, but also of liturgical prayer, during the times when the priest himself prays silently. To unite oneself to the chant of the Church, to respond to the chant or to the words of the priest, to manifest one’s attention and union by words and deeds, or to unite oneself to the silence of the priest are so many ways of praying, and all are liturgical. But to knowingly and willingly disdain to respond to the priest and unite oneself to the common prayers, positions, and chant, etc., is to shut oneself up in a personal religion (akin to a Protestant mentality) that is no longer “liturgy.”
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: mikemac on January 10, 2019, 01:05:39 PM
The link that The Harlequin King posted makes it very clear too.
https://adoremus.org/1958/09/03/instruction-on-sacred-music/

Quote
De musica sacra et sacra liturgia –
Instruction on Sacred Music and Sacred Liturgy

Published by the Sacred Congregation for Rites – September 3, 1958

Introduction

In our time the Supreme Pontiffs have issued three important documents on the subject of sacred music: the Motu proprio Inter sollicitudines of Saint Pius X, Nov. 22, 1903; the Apostolic constitution Divini cultus of Pius XI of happy memory, Dec. 20, 1928; and the encyclical Musicæ sacræ disciplina of the happily reigning Supreme Pontiff Pius XII, Dec. 25, 1955. Other papal documents have also been issued, along with decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites in regard to sacred music.

Scroll down to read the following.

Quote
Chapter III-6. Duty to cultivate sacred music and sacred liturgy.

1. Principal liturgical functions in which sacred music is used.

A. Mass.

a. General principles regarding the participation of the faithful (no. 22-23).

b. Participation of the faithful in sung Mass (no. 24-27).

c. Participation of the faithful in low Mass (no. 28-34).

d. Conventual Mass, or the Mass in choir (no. 35-37).

For instance - sung Mass.

Quote
b. Participation of the faithful in sung Mass.

24. The more noble form of the Eucharistic celebration is the solemn Mass because in it the solemnities of ceremonies, ministers, and sacred music all combine to express the magnificence of the divine mysteries, and to impress upon the minds of the faithful the devotion with which they should contemplate them. Therefore, we must strive that the faithful have the respect due to this form of worship by properly participating in it in the ways described below.

25. In solemn Mass there are three degrees of the participation of the faithful:

a) First, the congregation can sing the liturgical responses. These are: Amen; Et cum spiritu tuo; Gloria tibi, Domine; Habemus ad Dominum; Dignum et justum est; Sed libera nos a malo; Deo gratias. Every effort must be made that the faithful of the entire world learn to sing these responses.

b) Secondly, the congregation can sing the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass: Kyrie, eleison; Gloria in excelsis Deo; Credo; Sanctus-Benedictus; Agnus Dei. Every effort must be made that the faithful learn to sing these parts, particularly according to the simpler Gregorian melodies. But if they are unable to sing all these parts, there is no reason why they cannot sing the easier ones: Kyrie, eleison; Sanctus-Benedictus; Agnus Dei; the choir, then, can sing the Gloria, and Credo.

Recommended Chants

In connection with this, the following Gregorian melodies, because of their simplicity, should be learned by the faithful throughout the world: the Kyrie, eleison; Sanctus-Benedictus; Agnus Dei of Mass XVI from the Roman Gradual; the Gloria in excelsis Deo, and Ite, missa est-Deo gratias of Mass XV; and either Credo I or Credo III. In this way it will be possible to achieve that most highly desirable goal of having the Christian faithful throughout the world manifest their common faith by active participation in the holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and by common and joyful song (Musicæ sacræ disciplina: AAS 48 [1956] 16).

c) Thirdly, if those present are well trained in Gregorian chant, they can sing the parts of the Proper of the Mass. This form of participation should be carried out particularly in religious congregations and seminaries.

26. High Mass, too, has its special place, even though it lacks the sacred ministers, and the full magnificence of the ceremonies of solemn Mass, for it is nonetheless enriched with the beauty of chant, and sacred music.

It is desirable that on Sundays, and feast days the parish or principal Mass be a sung Mass.

What has been said above in paragraph 25 about the participation of the faithful in Solemn High Mass also applies to the High Mass.

27. Also note the following points with regard to the sung Mass:
...

Low Mass

Quote
At Low Mass

c. 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, 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.

Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: awkwardcustomer on January 10, 2019, 01:33:03 PM
Are there any Roman Catholic Churches without pews still in existence?

If only there were.

I've never been able to find out why and when the Church introduced pews and abandoned the Rood Screen.

It's worth attending an Eastern Orthodox Mass in a Church without pews and with a full iconostasis, just to get an idea of how the liturgy would have been experienced by Catholics throughout the Medieval period.
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: awkwardcustomer on January 10, 2019, 01:49:24 PM
In the meantime, know that I generally agree with you about the liberating effect of a pew-less church space. If I had a million bucks to build a private chapel in my house, you'd better believe it wouldn't have pews cluttering things up.

Don't you think it's ironic that the modern liturgical reformers claim to be liberating the laity and yet everyone is stuck in a pew, or plastic bucket chair, and is obliged to stand, sit or kneel when everyone else does, join in the chants when everyone else does, pray when everyone else does.  The modern laity really has no freedom at all in such a collectivised liturgy.

Whereas in the pew-less church space, where strong boundaries between the scared and the profane are maintained, the laity are free to 'participate' in the liturgy at their own pace and in their own way.

Is there any way you could experiment with this type of liturgical space, by improvising its basic characteristics.  Could this be the beginning of new liturgical movement? Would a pew-less church space require a Rood Screen?  I think it would.
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: Stefano on January 10, 2019, 01:51:19 PM
Are there any Roman Catholic Churches without pews still in existence?

If only there were.

I've never been able to find out why and when the Church introduced pews and abandoned the Rood Screen.

It's worth attending an Eastern Orthodox Mass in a Church without pews and with a full iconostasis, just to get an idea of how the liturgy would have been experienced by Catholics throughout the Medieval period.

Humourously enough, because of your comments in this thread I was doing a bit of research to find Orthodox or Eastern Rite parishes in proximity of my workplace and home for that reason...Sadly most of them seem to have pews. I guess theprotestant infection has really made a mark up here.
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: Stefano on January 10, 2019, 04:38:23 PM
Is there any way you could experiment with this type of liturgical space, by improvising its basic characteristics.  Could this be the beginning of new liturgical movement? Would a pew-less church space require a Rood Screen?  I think it would.

I would most certainly want to be part of this! Realistically though, it would only come to fruition if I won the lottery and personally paid for the renovation of a parish myself.

St. Getrude the Great in Ohio appears to have at least a partial semblance of a rood screen. I cannot imagine attending mass there though.
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: The Harlequin King on January 11, 2019, 11:19:46 AM
Humourously enough, because of your comments in this thread I was doing a bit of research to find Orthodox or Eastern Rite parishes in proximity of my workplace and home for that reason...Sadly most of them seem to have pews. I guess theprotestant infection has really made a mark up here.

Keep in mind that many Orthodox churches in the US were formerly Protestant church buildings that got re-purposed. It's not common for an Orthodox (or Eastern Catholic) community to be big enough and rich enough to commission its own building outright.
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: The Harlequin King on January 11, 2019, 11:26:16 AM
Don't you think it's ironic that the modern liturgical reformers claim to be liberating the laity and yet everyone is stuck in a pew, or plastic bucket chair, and is obliged to stand, sit or kneel when everyone else does, join in the chants when everyone else does, pray when everyone else does.  The modern laity really has no freedom at all in such a collectivised liturgy.

Whereas in the pew-less church space, where strong boundaries between the scared and the profane are maintained, the laity are free to 'participate' in the liturgy at their own pace and in their own way.

Is there any way you could experiment with this type of liturgical space, by improvising its basic characteristics.  Could this be the beginning of new liturgical movement? Would a pew-less church space require a Rood Screen?  I think it would.

Yes, I don't like the rigid insistence on everyone doing the same thing all the time. This is why, with the issue of dialogue Masses, I don't care if people choose not to verbally respond. (Even if I'm just in the congregation myself, I don't necessarily always do every time.) But I don't think it's right to complain about others who do, or give them dirty glances, or whatever.

Traddies get needlessly worked up over other related issues, like whether or not everyone follows all the kneeling/standing directions given in the red Ecclesia Dei booklets (some of which are just made up by the compilers of that book, anyway, and don't even correspond with the official postures for being in-choir).
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 12:14:43 PM
Since the introduction of the notion of active participation of the laity in the first decades of the 20th century, we were bound to have congregational responses and standardized postures.

It was inevitable, hence the authorization given to the dialogue mass. But since the dialogue mass is still in Latin, and most people just mumble the responses away, the next logical step would be the use of the vernacular and, to that effect, a few indults were given even before Vatican II to German and Croatian dioceses, if memory serves me correctly.

While I don't object to the dialogue mass itself in principle, I personally prefer the mass where the congregation has the freedom to follow the mass on their own and pray some devotions if needs be. I've attended such a mass in Germany once in a SSPX chapel and the silence is much more profound.

As for the pews, although some of you lament them as a Protestant innovation, I welcome them. Not all innovations are bad. To attend a long mass standing or simply kneeling on the floor is uncomfortable. You could sit on the floor, of course, but the pews give an orderly scheme to it. And it's just more comfortable. I don't believe the mass has to be a physical penance in and of itself.
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: Sempronius on January 11, 2019, 12:40:17 PM
And the invention of the microphone has influenced aswell. I personally like the idea of dialogue mass. And I would like to get rid of the pews, then the toddlers can walk around without distracting
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: Stefano on January 11, 2019, 01:03:18 PM
Humourously enough, because of your comments in this thread I was doing a bit of research to find Orthodox or Eastern Rite parishes in proximity of my workplace and home for that reason...Sadly most of them seem to have pews. I guess theprotestant infection has really made a mark up here.

Keep in mind that many Orthodox churches in the US were formerly Protestant church buildings that got re-purposed. It's not common for an Orthodox (or Eastern Catholic) community to be big enough and rich enough to commission its own building outright.

I suppose it would be the same up in the hinterland here, so that makes sense. I actually was able to find a few Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox churches here in Ontario without pews, both of these being huge communities in certain cities.
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: The Harlequin King on January 11, 2019, 01:09:42 PM
I found the citation from the Penitential of Burchard that I was thinking of earlier and attached it here. See item 145.
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: QuaeriteDominum on January 11, 2019, 01:14:08 PM
Quote from: Harlequin King
I don't think low Masses should be celebrated at all on Sundays and major feasts.
This is not always practical. In Syracuse, we have 4 Masses on Sunday beginning at 6:30AM. Only one of them is a Sung Mass. It would be nearly impossible for them to all be Sung Masses.

Quote from: Wikipedia
In 1922, the Holy See gave approval to the practice whereby "at least in religious houses and institutions for youth, all people assisting at the Mass make the responses at the same time with the acolytes", a practice that it declared praiseworthy in view of the evident desire expressed in papal documents "to instil into the souls of the faithful a truly Christian and collective spirit, and prepare them for active participation.

Again at Blessed Virgin Mary in Syracuse, in the spirit of the above citation, the daily Mass for high school boys is a dialogue Mass. All of the students respond with the altar servers to the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, the Suscipiat, Domine Non Sum Dignus, etc.  They are all expected to learn to serve Mass at the Altar from 3rd grade onward and this helps them prepare at least the memorization of the Latin responses. It is also intended to help foster the consideration of a priestly vocation (since 2014, four priests have been ordained from this chapel and there are currently 7 young men from the school/parish in the Seminary). However, the Dialogue Mass is not used at any other Low Mass.

And a brief comment on rubrics - remember that they are technically the instructions (in red) in the Missale Romanum used by the priest at the altar. The rubrics contain no instruction for anyone else - not people, not servers, not even the sacred ministers at a Solemn High Mass, nor do they tell the faithful when to sing, respond, sit, stand, kneel, nor when the Acolyte rings the bells. The rubrics are instructions for the priest on how to offer the Holy Sacrifice. Everything else is not rubrical but rather custom, as directed by the local Ordinary with guidance from the Holy See.
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: Stefano on January 11, 2019, 01:14:40 PM
But since the dialogue mass is still in Latin, and most people just mumble the responses

I my experience this is not the case. There will be a few trying to really make the mass about themselves and yell out the priests part with varying degrees of correct Latin prouciation. Hearing the boomers pipe up saying "DOMEEN-EH NON SUM DIG-NOOS" along with the priest.
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 01:18:10 PM
But since the dialogue mass is still in Latin, and most people just mumble the responses

I my experience this is not the case. There will be a few trying to really make the mass about themselves and yell out the priests part with varying degrees of correct Latin prouciation. Hearing the boomers pipe up saying "DOMEEN-EH NON SUM DIG-NOOS" along with the priest.

Yes, there are those.

But the majority just mumbles it away, with varying degrees of proficiency.
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 01:18:33 PM
As for the pews, although some of you lament them as a Protestant innovation, I welcome them. Not all innovations are bad. To attend a long mass standing or simply kneeling on the floor is uncomfortable. You could sit on the floor, of course, but the pews give an orderly scheme to it. And it's just more comfortable. I don't believe the mass has to be a physical penance in and of itself.

'The weak can go to the wall'.

In a pew-less Medieval church there were benches along the side walls for those who needed to sit.  Hence the above expression.

Besides, the Protestants didn't introduce pews for the comfort of the laity.  They introduced pews because the new Protestant services consisted of little more than readings, sermons and hymns and the laity had to be able to sit still and listen.

The Russian Orthodox Sunday Mass I attended was in a former Anglican Church.  The pews had simply been removed and an iconostasis installed.  And yes, there were benches along the walls in the side aisles.
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: The Harlequin King on January 11, 2019, 01:28:05 PM
This is not always practical. In Syracuse, we have 4 Masses on Sunday beginning at 6:30AM. Only one of them is a Sung Mass. It would be nearly impossible for them to all be Sung Masses.

One does what they must. Of course, as a schola director, I would not want to be tasked with cantoring 4 Masses on a Sunday. But I also believe a parish shouldn't offer more Sunday Masses than are needed for all the faithful to attend them. If that really requires 4 Masses, so be it (and great that they have so many people!). But if the number of Masses is more for convenience, I think we need to wean away from that mentality. Of course, a typical medieval village church only had one Sunday Mass, preceded by the public Matins and Lauds. The Eastern churches still do this, and not only because of low numbers. They adhere to a "fasting altar" rule (only one Divine Liturgy per altar per day).
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: QuaeriteDominum on January 11, 2019, 01:38:56 PM
In our case, until we complete a new facility, we can only accommodate 150 at one Mass and we have close to 500 parishioners. Attendance at most Masses is fairly even. The latest Mass is the sparsest and is usually attended by those who may work overnight (nurses and doctors primarily) and travelers.
Title: Re: Dialogue at Diocesan Mass
Post by: Sempronius on January 11, 2019, 02:00:33 PM
In our case, until we complete a new facility, we can only accommodate 150 at one Mass and we have close to 500 parishioners. Attendance at most Masses is fairly even. The latest Mass is the sparsest and is usually attended by those who may work overnight (nurses and doctors primarily) and travelers.

Thats a problem with modern religion: many people come but not enough to build a new church.