Low Mass/ High Mass Questions
#11
(05-03-2010, 11:00 PM)SaintRafael Wrote:
(05-02-2010, 06:38 PM)sfgiants1962 Wrote: 2.) Fr. sings and wants us to sing the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei.

That should be done by the schola or choir only and not the faithful in the pews. Dialogue Mass with the laity is disturbing abuse.

In every TLM I've ever attended, the schola or choir is made up of laypeople.  Usually in a choir loft, but in the absence of a proper loft, just in a section of the nave.  What is the difference between being in the faithful in a choir loft and being the faithful in the pews?
Reply
#12
(05-03-2010, 11:46 PM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote: In every TLM I've ever attended, the schola or choir is made up of laypeople.  Usually in a choir loft, but in the absence of a proper loft, just in a section of the nave.  What is the difference between being in the faithful in a choir loft and being the faithful in the pews?

Why even have a choir? The reason is that they are responsible for singing certain parts of the Mass. The laity in the pews are not the choir and their roles are different  for a variety of reasons. the schola/choir and altar servers were traditionally clerical positions made up of clerics. In our modern times, permission and authority has been given to lay people so that there are lay choirs and altar boys, but the same respect and differentiation for the roles is still there, from the time that these were clerical positions. For the laity in the pews, their role is to assist, pray, and receive the sacraments at Mass, nothing more.

This has been debated ad nauseam in so many trad newspapers and magazines, were there are better resources and arguments. As many have pointed out, the dialogue Mass was introduced as the stepping stone towards the Novus Ordo.
Reply
#13
(05-03-2010, 11:00 PM)SaintRafael Wrote: That should be done by the schola or choir only and not the faithful in the pews. Dialogue Mass with the laity is disturbing abuse.

That is not a dialogue Mass. A dialogue Mass is a low Mass (recited Mass) with the laity verbally saying the responses. A sung Mass with congregational singing is simply a sung Mass. What you are saying goes directly against all of the early 20th century popes.

Pope Saint Pius X, Tra le sollecitudini Wrote:Special efforts are to be made to restore the use of the Gregorian Chant by the people, so that the faithful may again take a more active part in the ecclesiastical offices, as was the case in ancient times.

Pius XI, Divini Cultus Wrote:In order that the faithful may more actively participate in divine worship, let them be made once more to sing the Gregorian Chant, so far as it belongs to them to take part in it. It is most important that when the faithful assist at the sacred ceremonies, or when pious sodalities take part with the clergy in a procession, they should not be merely detached and silent spectators, but, filled with a deep sense of the beauty of the Liturgy, they should sing alternately with the clergy or the choir, as it is prescribed. If this is done, then it will no longer happen that the people either make no answer at all to the public prayers -- whether in the language of the Liturgy or in the vernacular -- or at best utter the responses in a low and subdued manner.

Quote:History tells us how in the ancient basilicas, where bishop, clergy and people alternately sang the divine praises, the liturgical chant played no small part in converting many barbarians to Christianity and civilization. It was in the churches that heretics came to understand more fully the meaning of the communion of saints; thus the Emperor Valens, an Arian, being present at Mass celebrated by Saint Basil, was overcome by an extraordinary seizure and fainted. At Milan, Saint Ambrose was accused by heretics of attracting the crowds by means of liturgical chants. It was due to these that Saint Augustine made up his mind to become a Christian. It was in the churches, finally, where practically the whole city formed a great joint choir, that the workers, builders, artists, sculptors and writers gained from the Liturgy that deep knowledge of theology which is now so apparent in the monuments of the Middle Ages.

Pius XII, Musicae Sacrae Wrote:Furthermore, even where it is licit to use these exemptions, local Ordinaries and the other pastors should take great care that the faithful from their earliest years should learn at least the easier and more frequently used Gregorian melodies, and should know how to employ them in the sacred liturgical rites, so that in this way also the unity and the universality of the Church may shine forth more powerfully every day.
Reply
#14
SaintRafael Wrote:Why even have a choir? The reason is that they are responsible for singing certain parts of the Mass.

I, and almost all other schola geeks, believe that congregations should be able to sing multiple settings of the Ordinary by heart. I believe MagisterMusicae and a great number of other Gregorian chanters on the forum would agree with me and the popes on that.

This doesn't make the choir obsolete. The schola/ecclesiastical choir has a special role in singing the Propers of the Mass: Introitus, Graduale, etc.
Reply
#15
(05-03-2010, 11:46 PM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote: In every TLM I've ever attended, the schola or choir is made up of laypeople.  Usually in a choir loft, but in the absence of a proper loft, just in a section of the nave.  What is the difference between being in the faithful in a choir loft and being the faithful in the pews?

There is no difference between a typical choir of men and women, and the laity in the pews. That choir is a subset of the faithful at large. This kind of choir ought to sing in the back or away from view.

There is a difference between the laity and a choir of males in cassock and surplice who sing as an ecclesiastical choir/schola. They are essentially an extension of the altar servers. This choir will ideally sing in choir stalls or elsewhere in the sanctuary.

A good church can have both; the former to sing polyphonic settings of the Ordinary, the latter to sing the Propers. But it is still good for the faithful at large to sing the Ordinary by heart. That's what's done at Saint Nicolas du Chardonnet, the flagship church of the SSPX in Paris.
Reply
#16
(05-04-2010, 01:05 AM)SaintRafael Wrote: This has been debated ad nauseam in so many trad newspapers and magazines, were there are better resources and arguments. As many have pointed out, the dialogue Mass was introduced as the stepping stone towards the Novus Ordo.

And the reason it is constantly debated ad nauseam is illogical crap like this.

There is absolutely no connection between the "Dialog Mass" and the Novus Ordo except that recalcitrant "fifties fogies" refuse to drop this post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and the related, poising the well fallacy (i.e. Bugnini had a hand in it so it must be intended to eventually lead people to the Novus Ordo that he'd had in his back pocket all along). The objections to the Novus Ordo are theological and doctrinal problems, not problems regarding people making responses.

Logically if the introduction of more and more "active participation" led to the Novus Ordo, then we would see a gradual decline in the statistics, not a wholesale cliff dive starting about 1970.

Also, the Dialog Mass was not very common, so even if the point were conceded, it was a miserable failure in trying to usher in the Novus Ordo.

Also, you say the "Dialog Mass" is an abuse, but an abuse is a violation of law. There is nothing as regards the Dialog Mass which is in any way a violation of Liturgical principles, or law. In fact Popes have even celebrated such Masses (Including Benedict XV and Pius XI).

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not the biggest fan of the Dialog Mass. In fact, I prefer it not be used in most situations (schools being a notable exception, in order to help the children learn and follow the Mass), but my reasons for the distaste are personal and are no objections on principles, because there is no logical argument which would stand in condemning the Dialog Mass on liturgical principles.

In one of the "debates" of which you speak I was one of the primary researchers for a gentleman who was arguing for the Dialog Mass (and he also isn't the biggest fan of it, but was pulled in because of the wildly idiodic and patently false claims of the gentleman who was against the Dialog Mass).

(05-03-2010, 11:00 PM)SaintRafael Wrote:
(05-02-2010, 06:38 PM)sfgiants1962 Wrote: 2.) Fr. sings and wants us to sing the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei.

That should be done by the schola or choir only and not the faithful in the pews. Dialogue Mass with the laity is disturbing abuse.

Every 20th century Pope (including the only Saint among them) manifestly disagrees in their decrees with your statement that the faithful should not be singing the Ordinary.

In fact, St. Pius X even said that if he could succeed in restoring to the faithful the singing of the Ordinary it would be for him the greatest achievement of his Papacy.
Reply
#17
(05-04-2010, 02:03 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not the biggest fan of the Dialog Mass. In fact, I prefer it not be used in most situations (schools being a notable exception, in order to help the children learn and follow the Mass), but my reasons for the distaste are personal and are no objections on principles, because there is no logical argument which would stand in condemning the Dialog Mass on liturgical principles.

My son goes to an SSPX school which, not surprisingly, has daily Mass.  And that Mass is a Dialog Mass.  Since basically every boy there is in training or already an altar server, this is a great help to them.  I cannot believe that the SSPX would be encouraging a liturgical practice that was intrinsically wrong.
Reply
#18
(05-04-2010, 12:52 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-04-2010, 02:03 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not the biggest fan of the Dialog Mass. In fact, I prefer it not be used in most situations (schools being a notable exception, in order to help the children learn and follow the Mass), but my reasons for the distaste are personal and are no objections on principles, because there is no logical argument which would stand in condemning the Dialog Mass on liturgical principles.

My son goes to an SSPX school which, not surprisingly, has daily Mass.  And that Mass is a Dialog Mass.  Since basically every boy there is in training or already an altar server, this is a great help to them.  I cannot believe that the SSPX would be encouraging a liturgical practice that was intrinsically wrong.

Indeed. I teach at an SSPX school, where all of our Low Masses are Dialog Masses. We say the same responses the servers do, but it would be even better if we could recite the Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei as well.

When we have a sung Mass the children are encouraged to sing the hymns and the Ordinary of the Mass.

The SSPX encourages this practice (which is much more common overseas, particularly in France), though I know several SSPX priests who have a distaste for the Dialog Mass.

As above, I'm not a promoter of the Dialog Mass itself (and actually I know very few people who are really as adamant about having Dialog Masses as the critics who rail against it), but it is useful in some situations.

That said, there are several common liturgical faux pas that the SSPX, particularly the French priests of the SSPX, promote. Nothing intrinsically evil, but certainly things which ought not be done (e.g. the bishops of the SSPX celebrating Mass from the throne, or French customs which violate the local customary practice in places like the United States). No one's perfect, not even the SSPX.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)