Poll: What best describes you?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
1
0%
0 0%
0
0%
0 0%
1
0%
0 0%
10
0%
0 0%
7
0%
0 0%
7
0%
0 0%
4
0%
0 0%
5
0%
0 0%
0
0%
0 0%
4
0%
0 0%
1
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Dialogue Mass
#11
(11-30-2009, 08:11 PM)AlanF Wrote: As another traditional Catholic once sayd to me: "We're like Mary, kneeling at the foot of the Cross, and Mary was silent at the foot of the Cross."

I like that thought - it is a beautiful image.
Reply
#12
No.

A contemplative soul, I never fail to manifest a preferential option for silence. :)
Reply
#13
(11-30-2009, 07:20 PM)Credo Wrote: Yes. It restored an authentic tradition of the Church. The idea of the silent Low Mass being a good thing is itself the novelty, not the kind of congregational participation one sees in a dialogue Mass.

The dialogue Mass was approved only beginning of the 1920's.  Before that for centuries there was only the Solemn Mass and the Low Mass. In many countries during the low Mass people were allowed to sing in vernacular or Latin, but no loud responses.

Eastern rites up to the 20th Century Celebrated the Canon behind closed doors, which separated the sanctuary from the people, with the meaning that Mass is sacred = separated.

I myself prefer the silent Mass. 
Reply
#14
(11-30-2009, 08:43 PM)glgas Wrote: Eastern rites up to the 20th Century Celebrated the Canon behind closed doors, which separated the sanctuary from the people, with the meaning that Mass is sacred = separated. 

I always assumed they still did that...  When they stop? Is this one of those 60s things again??
???
Reply
#15
I think people need more silence, especially at Mass, but in out lives too...and that goes for me more than anyone else.

I really need to keep my keyboard silent more often.

Reply
#16
Oh ye gods!!! The "Dialogue Mass"....that's what all the libs were pushing just before the Revolution!
No...people...please!!! If you all want to yak your way thru' a Mass, do it in the vernacular and not in a language "not understanded of the people."
The tradition of both East and West is that texts are either whispered or sung.....not declaimed.
Reply
#17
No low Masses. All sung, all the time.
Reply
#18
(11-30-2009, 11:32 PM)Observer Wrote: The tradition of both East and West is that texts are either whispered or sung.....not declaimed.

Absolutely false.

The tradition of the East has no such thing as a "Low Mass".
Reply
#19
The Dialog Mass is the logical application of the wishes of the Popes (St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius, XI, Pius XIII, John XXIII) to the recited Mass. All of these Popes supported what St. Pius X desired in restoring the Ordinary chant to the faithful and that the faithful follow and pray the Mass.

If the Mass is not to be sung, then these same desires clearly promote the idea of the faithful reciting these same parts. As with singing the Ordinary this is as the ability of the faithful allows. If they are untrained, then they should refrain from singing or reciting the parts until they are trained in this.

In my experience the most ideal form of the dialog Mass has the people reciting the Kyrie, Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, Agnus Dei (either the "qui tollis" etc. or "miserere nobis/dona nobis pacem") and the various responses to the priest, without reciting the preparatory prayers. In order to do this either the acolytes need to lead the faithful, or there need to be a few leaders in the congregation who blend, but are loud enough to cue others.

The silent Low Mass is not "traditional" in the least. Instead it is the aberration, and, in my mind is part of the reason bishops and priests welcomed a reform of the Mass at Vatican II. Before the council there were hundreds of Low Masses for even one sung Mass and, at least in the United States, the most common practice was for the faithful to ignore the Mass and instead follow their own private devotions, like the Rosary. That is exactly what St. Pius X did not want. He wanted the faithful to live and follow every moment of the Mass itself, particularly by "actual participation" (not the often mistranslated "active participation"). The bishops and priests desperately wanted the faithful to actually participate in the Mass and thinking vernacular and other changes would make it more accessible, followed the liberals in destroying the liturgy.

That said, I don't prefer the Dialog Mass, because any parish with resident musicians or a school should be able to muster enough boys or men for a schola and could at least do a recto tono sung Mass without incenses or any extra servers. Such a Mass would take but 5 minutes longer than a typical Low Mass and singing recto tono is far easier than reciting anything in unison.
Reply
#20
(12-01-2009, 12:14 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: The Dialog Mass is the logical application of the wishes of the Popes (St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius, XI, Pius XIII, John XXIII) to the recited Mass. All of these Popes supported what St. Pius X desired in restoring the Ordinary chant to the faithful and that the faithful follow and pray the Mass.

If the Mass is not to be sung, then these same desires clearly promote the idea of the faithful reciting these same parts. As with singing the Ordinary this is as the ability of the faithful allows. If they are untrained, then they should refrain from singing or reciting the parts until they are trained in this.

In my experience the most ideal form of the dialog Mass has the people reciting the Kyrie, Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, Agnus Dei (either the "qui tollis" etc. or "miserere nobis/dona nobis pacem") and the various responses to the priest, without reciting the preparatory prayers. In order to do this either the acolytes need to lead the faithful, or there need to be a few leaders in the congregation who blend, but are loud enough to cue others.

The silent Low Mass is not "traditional" in the least. Instead it is the aberration, and, in my mind is part of the reason bishops and priests welcomed a reform of the Mass at Vatican II. Before the council there were hundreds of Low Masses for even one sung Mass and, at least in the United States, the most common practice was for the faithful to ignore the Mass and instead follow their own private devotions, like the Rosary. That is exactly what St. Pius X did not want. He wanted the faithful to live and follow every moment of the Mass itself, particularly by "actual participation" (not the often mistranslated "active participation"). The bishops and priests desperately wanted the faithful to actually participate in the Mass and thinking vernacular and other changes would make it more accessible, followed the liberals in destroying the liturgy.

That said, I don't prefer the Dialog Mass, because any parish with resident musicians or a school should be able to muster enough boys or men for a schola and could at least do a recto tono sung Mass without incenses or any extra servers. Such a Mass would take but 5 minutes longer than a typical Low Mass and singing recto tono is far easier than reciting anything in unison.

Recently our priest gave an explanation almost identical to this as to why the liturgy was changed. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)