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
#21
silence for me. Facilitates contemplation and prayer. Dialogue Mass is ok though if It occurs
Reply
#22
(11-30-2009, 11:59 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(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".

I did not mean that the East has a "Low Mass"....only that liturgical texts are traditionally uttered "sotto voce" or sung...not read out in a declamatory way.
Reply
#23
(11-30-2009, 11:50 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: No low Masses. All sung, all the time.

That is the ideal, of course; but if, as on weekdays, a Mass has to be Low, let it be a Dialogue Mass.

Regarding congregational singing, I have to disagree with some opinions voiced here; in France, pretty much all regular Sunday TLMs involve such congregational singing as is alluded to by MagisterMusicae, and it is very generally satisfactory.
Reply
#24
(12-01-2009, 12:14 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: The silent Low Mass is not "traditional" in the least. Instead it is the aberration, a

In the good old times, and this is going back at least for 1500 years there were enough priest, and each believed that they shall celebrate the sacrifice of Jesus Christ every day. Also on that good old times people had to work on weekdays, they had no time to attend Mass. Consequently  with the exceotion of the Cathedrals and convents the weekday masses were Low Masses.

Do you really think that the majority of the Masses through the centuries were aberration?

The world was saved by Jesus Christ and his sacrifice not someone else.
Reply
#25
Growing up in the 50 s the dialogue mass was something I really liked.
The low mass  was really a case who said it,  many older priest mumble and that was  terrible.
Then the High mass- the must beautiful thing this side of heaven.
I was lucky to live in a Parrish with a good choir- so I  attended every Sunday  at noon.
Until  the N.O came in. You could not tell what was a high mass .
The trouble with some trads.,  is they do not like to sing they have this weird theory  its Protestant.
I like to sing and I only sing thing that I know. So now I have a choice on Sundays 
10 am (SSPX) 11AM  (S NJ) or 12noon ( St.Paul's cc -sp) .
If I could not attened a high mass I would  goto a dialogue mass instead, if offered.
Reply
#26
For me it was my foundation, we had low masses and we responded, so I like very much the Missa Dialogata and Recitata, and the Cantata. It would appear that is true for most. I always avoided the High Mass on Sunday as it was for the la di da folks. You know the Doctors the Lawyers, the Dentists, the Jewelers, the Politicos,
the Banksters, and other asst'd big dealers, and snobs.
tim
Reply
#27
(11-30-2009, 08:55 PM)AlanF Wrote:
(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??
???

It depends what is meant by this.  Some heavily latinized individual parishes have removed the iconostasis, the priest may face the parish, and the text would be the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom while the form would look like a Novus Ordo.  In properly Eastern parishes, there is still an iconostasis, and the majority of the Canon is prayed silently by the priest.  All of the consecratory prayers are prayed behind the iconostasis.  However, while the priest is praying this, the choir is chanting other prayers that go along with what is going on at that moment.  The laity can and should be singing along with the choir.
Reply
#28
(12-01-2009, 12:09 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-30-2009, 08:55 PM)AlanF Wrote:
(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??
???

It depends what is meant by this.  Some heavily latinized individual parishes have removed the iconostasis, the priest may face the parish, and the text would be the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom while the form would look like a Novus Ordo.  In properly Eastern parishes, there is still an iconostasis, and the majority of the Canon is prayed silently by the priest.  All of the consecratory prayers are prayed behind the iconostasis.  However, while the priest is praying this, the choir is chanting other prayers that go along with what is going on at that moment.  The laity can and should be singing along with the choir.
The later is the only way I have seen the Divine Liturgy celebrated.
Reply
#29
(12-01-2009, 08:07 AM)glgas Wrote:
(12-01-2009, 12:14 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: The silent Low Mass is not "traditional" in the least. Instead it is the aberration, a

In the good old times, and this is going back at least for 1500 years there were enough priest, and each believed that they shall celebrate the sacrifice of Jesus Christ every day. Also on that good old times people had to work on weekdays, they had no time to attend Mass. Consequently  with the exceotion of the Cathedrals and convents the weekday masses were Low Masses.

Do you really think that the majority of the Masses through the centuries were aberration?

The world was saved by Jesus Christ and his sacrifice not someone else.

The NO is an aberration, but it can still be valid.  It doesn't mean it was a good thing.  Same with Low Masses.
Reply
#30
This may be a little off topic here but our priest told us last Sunday that the Priest always faced "the people" at St. Peter's in Rome. Obviously he said the priest wasn't purposely facing the people but the Church was built backwards and not facing East. Back in the "good old days" Churches would be built facing East. But when they built St. Peters they had to build it backwards so the Sanctuary faced to the west. So the priest had to face towards the east which was the direction of the people. In fact, during some parts of the Mass, the people "turned their back on the priest" and faced east with the priest.

He went on to say, unfortunately someone must have thought that was a good idea because now the NO Mass always faces the people.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)