Dialogue Mass: What's the point?
#51
I didn't read the whole thread, but you reminded me of a newspaper article I read the other day by an altar boy from the 1950s. He said the priest used to correct him for not making the responses loud enough for the congregation to hear. Interesting. By the time I came along the children were making responses at the before-school morning Mass. I don't know if it was a Low Mass or whatever, but it was in Latin, and we responded "Et cum spiritu tuo" in our shrill high voices.

I don't think a quiet liturgy was intended to ever be "the norm."
Reply
#52
(03-04-2014, 09:51 AM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: I didn't read the whole thread, but you reminded me of a newspaper article I read the other day by an altar boy from the 1950s. He said the priest used to correct him for not making the responses loud enough for the congregation to hear. Interesting. By the time I came along the children were making responses at the before-school morning Mass. I don't know if it was a Low Mass or whatever, but it was in Latin, and we responded "Et cum spiritu tuo" in our shrill high voices.

I don't think a quiet liturgy was intended to ever be "the norm."

I don't think it really was everywhere - I have heard that the Irish and Irish-Americans in particular preferred a near-silent Low Mass, whereas among the French, for example, the laity tended to make the responses. The very word "liturgy" suggests the people play a role, though obviously the validity of Mass does not depend on their participation in this way.
Reply
#53
(03-04-2014, 01:15 PM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(03-04-2014, 09:51 AM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: I didn't read the whole thread, but you reminded me of a newspaper article I read the other day by an altar boy from the 1950s. He said the priest used to correct him for not making the responses loud enough for the congregation to hear. Interesting. By the time I came along the children were making responses at the before-school morning Mass. I don't know if it was a Low Mass or whatever, but it was in Latin, and we responded "Et cum spiritu tuo" in our shrill high voices.

I don't think a quiet liturgy was intended to ever be "the norm."

I don't think it really was everywhere - I have heard that the Irish and Irish-Americans in particular preferred a near-silent Low Mass, whereas among the French, for example, the laity tended to make the responses. The very word "liturgy" suggests the people play a role, though obviously the validity of Mass does not depend on their participation in this way.

The reason the Irish had a quiet Mass is because of the persecutions. They were forced for so long to have a literally silent Mass that it became ingrained. The Irish are not quiet people. Boisterous would be more apt, and musical to boot. Their persecution essentially formed later generations.
Reply
#54
(02-26-2014, 08:05 AM)spasiisochrani Wrote:
(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.
That WAS the case before St. Pius V codified the Mass as it is now. I believe it is (or at least was before the NO) a venial sin to miss the prayers at the foot of the altar on a day of obligation now, right? Before St. Pius those prayers were probably said in the sacristy or something. I see how's it's more apparent in Sung Masses when the Introit is usually sung over the prayers at the foot of altar.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)