Dialogue Mass: What's the point?
#41
(02-24-2014, 07:27 PM)Gidge Wrote: What some people do not understand is that the Solemn High Mass is the model that all Masses should aim for, and whichever level of solemnity the Mass is offered it should be offered in the best possible way.  I know many who believe that the Low Mass is the standard because they were most common in parishes 50+ years ago.

That's been a problem since the 13th century, and it was unfortunately enshrined in the post-Trent books, which assume Mass is a Low Mass, and a High Mass is a Mass to which "High" ceremonies are added.
Reply
#42
(02-23-2014, 04:38 AM)GodFirst Wrote: And as far as the singing of the Benedictus after the Consecration that is up to the choir. I've been to Solemn Masses where Gregorian Chant is used throughout and the Benedictus is not separated from the rest of the Sanctus. I've also been to Missa Cantatas where the Benedictus is sung after the Consecration. This stuff is all up to the choir director.

"If the Sanctus-Benedictus are sung in Gregorian chant, they should be put together without interruption; otherwise, the Benedictus should be sung after the Consecration."

http://www.adoremus.org/1958Intro-sac-mu...zpbaD.dpuf
Reply
#43
(02-24-2014, 09:31 PM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(02-24-2014, 07:27 PM)Gidge Wrote: What some people do not understand is that the Solemn High Mass is the model that all Masses should aim for, and whichever level of solemnity the Mass is offered it should be offered in the best possible way.  I know many who believe that the Low Mass is the standard because they were most common in parishes 50+ years ago.

That's been a problem since the 13th century, and it was unfortunately enshrined in the post-Trent books, which assume Mass is a Low Mass, and a High Mass is a Mass to which "High" ceremonies are added.

My opinion on this is the Low Mass was undergoing  organic growth with those kinds I mentioned. The Church was on the right track prior to Vatican II. Laypeople were supposed to be taught their Latin and to sing chant per Vatican II. This was not done and in fact abandoned. The High Mass should not have been abandoned, it was in it's correct place as Aquinas has noted. Had the growth not been stopped we'd have a Mass with chant as a matter of course. As a young boy and later man I had a pretty good voice and the sisters acknowledged it. I for on would have loved to sing the chant. Singing the Gloria could make my heart soar nearly to touch the face of God.

tim
Reply
#44
Personally, I prefer the servers making the responses. 

That being said, the Mass has and always has had a dialogue format.  Before the servers took over for the congregation in the West, for many centuries in the Latin rite and for all time in the others, the dialogue was between the priest and congregation.  It seems to have an Apostolic origin so there must have been a good reason for it.  I think the idea is that since the liturgy is the "work of the Church," the whole Church is included in praying it publically.
Reply
#45
FYI; the servers made their responses, and more than a few folks were quiet.

tim
Reply
#46
(02-24-2014, 11:11 PM)spasiisochrani Wrote:
(02-23-2014, 04:38 AM)GodFirst Wrote: And as far as the singing of the Benedictus after the Consecration that is up to the choir. I've been to Solemn Masses where Gregorian Chant is used throughout and the Benedictus is not separated from the rest of the Sanctus. I've also been to Missa Cantatas where the Benedictus is sung after the Consecration. This stuff is all up to the choir director.

"If the Sanctus-Benedictus are sung in Gregorian chant, they should be put together without interruption; otherwise, the Benedictus should be sung after the Consecration."

http://www.adoremus.org/1958Intro-sac-mu...zpbaD.dpuf
Thanks. I did not know this, but come to think about it the separation was probably when the choir did the "Mass for four voices" for the regular Sunday Missa Cantata. I love sacred polyphony, but I love sacred chant more Gregorian, Ambrosian, Bzyantine, and you name it.
Reply
#47
(02-25-2014, 12:31 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: Personally, I prefer the servers making the responses.
For the Prayers at the foot of the Altar that's fine (though I would love it if the whole congregation responded and prayed the confiteor aloud), but that just can't work for the rest of Mass if it's High.
Reply
#48
(02-26-2014, 05:02 AM)GodFirst Wrote:
(02-25-2014, 12:31 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: Personally, I prefer the servers making the responses.
For the Prayers at the foot of the Altar that's fine (though I would love it if the whole congregation responded and prayed the confiteor aloud), but that just can't work for the rest of Mass if it's High.

Fr. Jungmann's The Mass of the Roman Rite says that the prayers at the Foot of the Altar are not the people's prayers, but prayers of the clergy, said by the altar servers in place of the minor clergy who used to be present.  The people's part of the Mass begins with the Introit, which is a entrance hymn.  This is much more apparent in a sung Mass.
Reply
#49
Yep, the prayers at the foot of the Altar were said by the Priest and servers, not the folks in the pews.

tim
Reply
#50
I'd much prefer Dialogue Masses to the New Mass. for what it's worth. If the only problem with the Mass was bad singing by the people, we'd have no problems at all.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)