FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Articles Against Dialogue Mass and "Active Participation"
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Don’t get caught-up in that rubbish.  Congregational singing is a true gem.  The mass is meant to be sung, even by the laity.  This idea of being dead silent during mass is a very cultural thing. Read about some of the issues in the early United States.  The Italian and Polish immigrants would sing, because singing the hymns was the norm for them and the Germans and Irish would be angry because being dead silent was the norm for them.  Silence may have been the norm for centuries (according to TIA), but singing the Liturgy was the norm for millennia.  Quite frankly, much of what TIA writes falls under the heresy of TraditionalISM.  Someone at TIA has some fantasy of what constitutes tradition and then tries to impose this fantasy onto everyone else and then poo-poo anyone who doesn’t fall in line. 

We sing the Byzantine Divine Liturgy and I catch myself and my kids singing the hymns sometimes at home.  It really helps bring the Liturgy home. In the East, the idea of just sitting there and letting the choir and the priest do all the singing is rather foreign.  There is nothing wrong with someone just sitting there quietly, but there also is nothing wrong with the congregation singing the hymns.  If the Liturgy is supposed to be heaven on Earth, then Heaven would be pretty miserable to me if I can’t sing to the Lord.
(07-03-2014, 12:00 PM)AxxeArp Wrote: [ -> ]Don’t get caught-up in that rubbish.   Congregational singing is a true gem.  The mass is meant to be sung, even by the laity.   This idea of being dead silent during mass is a very cultural thing. Read about some of the issues in the early United States.  The Italian and Polish immigrants would sing, because singing the hymns was the norm for them and the Germans and Irish would be angry because being dead silent was the norm for them.   Silence may have been the norm for centuries (according to TIA), but singing the Liturgy was the norm for millennia.   Quite frankly, much of what TIA writes falls under the heresy of TraditionalISM.  Someone at TIA has some fantasy of what constitutes tradition and then tries to impose this fantasy onto everyone else and then poo-poo anyone who doesn’t fall in line.   

We sing the Byzantine Divine Liturgy and I catch myself and my kids singing the hymns sometimes at home.   It really helps bring the Liturgy home. In the East, the idea of just sitting there and letting the choir and the priest do all the singing is rather foreign.  There is nothing wrong with someone just sitting there quietly, but there also is nothing wrong with the congregation singing the hymns.  If the Liturgy is supposed to be heaven on Earth, then Heaven would be pretty miserable to me if I can’t sing to the Lord.

Norm of millenia? This sounds like one instance of that delusion that says that everything eastern is older. In the local council of Laodicea (390 AD) there is a canon (Canon 15) forbidding people that are not authorized to sing: “No others shall sing in the Church, save only the canonical singers, who go up into the ambo and sing from a book.”.
This thing of how to behave in liturgy and music should be considered very carefully – through wrong music or inappropriate participation great damage can be made. I don't really think you can prove that “congregational singing” was the practice for millenia.

And of course, to say that you like to sing is no argument that it should be done in the Mass. You could very well organize other stuff where singing is done, but just like there is a difference between proper sacred music to be used in the Liturgy and religious music, there should be a difference in this also.

And besides, what is the problem of being silent? Shouldn't you pray then, or you just pray out loud? Why this anxiety of wanting always to do something, this inquietude?
I agree in part with the articles (at least the ones I've read). Active participation should be understood the way Benedict XVI exposed it: in prayer – not just doing your own thing.

Besides, I'm no specialist in Orthodoxy, but the Orthodox liturgies I've been to only the choir sings. And even if it were true that they sing in their liturgies, why should we take as correct the practice of schismatics? Again, there seems to be that assumption that all eastern things are older or better – non-sense.
Tradition in Action is a website that's wrong on many issues.  I'm an SSPX supporting counter-revolutionary monarchist, btw.  Just so we're clear.  

TIA supports the UNJUST wars in the Middle East, claiming they are just.  

They also write lies about Distributism.  

They have a few uncited articles as well.  I don't trust them and their scholarship is very shoddy.
I've read the first two articles, and so far the only disagreement I've had is that they seem to take the interpretation of some revolutionary bishop as the official interpretation of active participation.
Also, to dismiss an argument based solely on the person that makes it is a fallacy.
(07-03-2014, 01:41 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: [ -> ]Norm of millenia? This sounds like one instance of that delusion that says that everything eastern is older. In the local council of Laodicea (390 AD) there is a canon (Canon 15) forbidding people that are not authorized to sing: “No others shall sing in the Church, save only the canonical singers, who go up into the ambo and sing from a book.”.

I am curious of the original language wording of that canon, as Greek has several words for "sing." It doesn't necessarily enjoin silence - it could just mean that a particular form of liturgical "singing" or particular liturgical "songs" are restricted to canonical singers, whereas other portions might be sung by all.
Quote:Besides, I'm no specialist in Orthodoxy, but the Orthodox liturgies I've been to only the choir sings. And even if it were true that they sing in their liturgies, why should we take as correct the practice of schismatics? Again, there seems to be that assumption that all eastern things are older or better – non-sense.

It differs by jurisdiction and local custom. The Greek liturgies I've been to are usually choir-heavy, though I wouldn't describe the laity as "silent." The Carpatho-Russian liturgies had more involvement from the laity; the Rusyns have a venerable tradition of congregational singing. As far as Orthodox practice in general, it can hardly be irrelevant, since both Leo XIII and St. Pius X explicitly praise it and say that Eastern Catholic worship should be identical; the latter sainted pontiff told the Russian Catholic clergy that their worship should be "no more, no less and no different" than the Russian Orthodox. In this regard, Vatican II was simply continuing the teaching of previous pontiffs.

Also, though it is a fallacy to say that Eastern is always older or better, it is likewise erroneous to assume Roman practice is always older or better. Rome has itself introduced innovations in sacramental life; that fact, like liturgical change in the East, is not of itself problematic. Times, cultures and other circumstances change, and the Church has authority to regulate the liturgy, even changing it if judged necessary. Particular changes have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Regnatus,

1) If the laity chanting the Liturgy is so wrong, then why did Popes and religious devote so much time and effort teaching the Laity to plainchant the liturgy and why did numerous popes publish repertoires of plainchant for the laity?  Seems like a misguided effort if they really just wanted the laity to shutup LOL

2) I don’t have a problem with silence.  I enjoy it very much.  I don’t have a problem if others want to be silent during Liturgy. Different strokes for different folks.  But I do have a problem with people telling others that they are not allowed to sing the liturgy or that silent mass is the high water mark of Liturgy.

3)  Regarding the East, enjoying the Byzantine Divine Liturgy does not mean I am taking my cue from schismatics.  Singing the Liturgy is not peculiar to the East.  The West did it also. 
(07-03-2014, 03:40 PM)AxxeArp Wrote: [ -> ]Regnatus,

1) If the laity chanting the Liturgy is so wrong, then why did Popes and religious devote so much time and effort teaching the Laity to plainchant the liturgy and why did numerous popes publish repertoires of plainchant for the laity?  Seems like a misguided effort if they really just wanted the laity to shutup LOL

2) I don’t have a problem with silence.  I enjoy it very much.  I don’t have a problem if others want to be silent during Liturgy. Different strokes for different folks.  But I do have a problem with people telling others that they are not allowed to sing the liturgy or that silent mass is the high water mark of Liturgy.

3)  Regarding the East, enjoying the Byzantine Divine Liturgy does not mean I am taking my cue from schismatics.  Singing the Liturgy is not peculiar to the East.  The West did it also.   

Could you cite some references for item 1.
Quote:He who sings prays twice

~ Saint Augustine

I will take a saint's word's over that disreputable blog.
Isn't active participation different depending if the mass is high or low? My understanding is during a high mass the choir sings or chants different parts of the mass and the congregation is free to join in with the singing if they wish. During a low dialogue mass the congregation says not sings some of the mass responses in latin along with the altar boys .  I've been to many sung high masses but never been to any low dialogue masses.  Nome of the parishes I've been to that have latin masses have offered it in the dialogue form. I thought t it was a 1950's practice that got phased out.
Pages: 1 2 3