MOST PERFECT FORM OF PARTICIPATION

By the middle of the twentieth century the entire ethos of the Catholic liturgy was changing due principally to the new enthusiasm -in sharp contrast to the past -  for “active participation” This was exemplified in the 1958 Instruction “On Sacred Music And Liturgy” with its unambiguous assertion that “A final method of participation, and the most perfect form, is for the congregation to make the liturgical responses to the prayers of the priest, thus affording a sort of dialogue with him, and reciting aloud the parts which properly belong to them.” 

It must be noted, however, that this “most perfect” form of participation is at odds with the Church’s traditional practice.  The contemporary ideal of placing the Roman missal in the hands of the faithful in such a way that united, to the priest, they may pray with the same words and sentiment of the Church – whether the Mass be silent or dialogue – was impossible of achievement for the far greater part of the Church’s history as the vast majority of any congregation would have been unable to read, the printing press not yet invented, or books too expensive.  It is really only towards the end of the nineteenth century that cheap books became available to the average person so it is perfectly clear that the liturgy was never designed with this type of participation in mind

It has been claimed that after the Reformation, an individualist Protestant spirit began to gradually seep in amongst the Catholic clergy and laity alike.  It contributed to Catholics following private devotions during their attendance at Mass, rather than communally uniting themselves to the liturgical actions.  Meanwhile, the age of the printing press was on hand to deliver a prolific number of Mass prayer books  whose contents were usually devotions far removed from the sacrificial action taking place at the altar. Of course, the true reason for this state of affairs has nothing whatsoever to do with Protestantism but the simple fact that it was FORBIDDEN by the Church authorities to translate the Missal e.g. 1661 Pope Alexander VII condemned a Missal translated into French and forbade any further translations under pain of excommunication. This prohibition was renewed by Pius IX as late as 1857 and only in 1897 was it no longer enforced. 

It is surely highly significant that by 1958 Annibale Bugnini , (who’s name is synonymous with the New Mass) and the key figure  in the pre- and post- Conciliar changes had been secretary of the Commission For Liturgical Reform for already 10 years and much progress had already been achieved, including limited use of the vernacular in certain rites.  Pius XII died only a few weeks later and things were set in motion for the Council.  As the Dialogue Mass was the spearhead of the Liturgical Movement's desire for active lay participation it is not surprising that it should be praised as the “most perfect form”  of assistance in this document. 

If the faithful were “mute spectators” before the 20^th century it was the result of deliberate policy by the Popes and the highest authorities of the Church for 1000 years and not the result of any ill-will or preference of their own.   This is surely why it is not possible to find Pontifical documents in praise of the “silent” Mass for it was simply a fact of life in the Church and required no praise or justification, unlike the new form of participation which required to be promoted.

LEADING TO THE VERNACULAR AND NOVUS ORDO

As far back as 1953 Joseph Jungmann was drawing attention to the “problem” of an exclusive Latin Liturgy “The monumental greatness of the Roman Mass lies in its antiquity which reaches back to the Church of the martyrs, and in its spread which, with its Latin language, spans so many nations. Nowhere else is it so plain that the Church is both apostolic and catholic. But this double advantage of the Roman Mass also involves weaknesses. The Latin tongue is nowadays become more and more unfamiliar even to cultured people. Will there ever be any relaxing in this matter in the setting of the Mass? ….. The Latin language is only one of the peculiarities of the Roman liturgy that, due to its venerable age, has to some extent become a problem. …. In the present shape of the Roman Mass, forms and practices have been retained which are no longer comprehensible to the ordinary onlooker.” There is in fact, a close connection between the introduction of dialogue into the Traditional Mass and the universal imposition of dialogue in the celebration of the New Mass which followed It. For further evidence one has only to peruse the fascinating book, Bringing the Mass to the People ,by Father Reinhold published just before the Council in 1960. This work not only clearly states that there WILL be a new Mass but even describes the form that it is likely to take as a result of the resolutions of the liturgical congresses at Maria Laach (1951) Sainte Odile (1952) and Lugano (1953). As a result of these meetings of liturgical experts the Holy See was convinced to promote various reforms of which the Dialogue Mass was an integral part. In fact it was never envisaged that there would be any provision for public “silent Masses” in the new reformed liturgy. Here follows a brief selection of surprisingly detailed proposals for the reform of the Mass which will easily be recognised by laymen (many of the other proposals concern the actions of the priest) which were proposed to the Sacred Congregation of Rites in 1953 and adopted afterwards by the Council reforms: (a) Omission of the Judica me etc (b) The first part of the Mass should be called the Liturgy of the Word. It should be carried out in choro, not at the Altar. (c) A three or four year cycle of Lessons and Gospels for Sundays. (d) Bidding prayers should be reintroduced as the conclusion of the Liturgy of the Word. (e) No Confiteor etc at Communion time. (f) No last Gospel. On the basis of these and other far more radical recommendations Father Reinhold puts together a sample Mass Rite which is strikingly similar to what was eventually enforced. He observes: “by noting the most advanced proposals for reform, I may well cause surprise in many readers. A tendency exists among priests and people alike to set great store on preserving the liturgy unchanged, simply for stability’s sake. But the drastic reforms which the Holy See has already made indicate plainly that there is a sense of urgency in high places. It would be a mistake for us not to recognise that more reforms in the liturgy are impending. And we should realise that this popular inclination to preserve the past unchanged has already had various unfortunate results. Some of the reforms which have been made recently seemed quite unexpected to many people; it became evident that an unprepared public may, in its temporary confusion, find it rather hard to collaborate enthusiastically with the intentions of the See of Peter. For the sake of the future, therefore, it would be better if Catholics generally were given the means to understand the direction of liturgical thought and thus were prepared for the changes which were to come ……. Because of the loyalty and discipline we owe to the Holy See, therefore, we need to become informed in this matter of impending changes; we must ourselves begin to realise the needs of our time which are to be met by these reforms. What the uninitiated reader may find startling at first in the proposals embodied in this book will not seem so surprising in the end; he will find that they all hang together. And he will realise that it is better to be astonished now by something which seems novel but which he will find to be well reasoned, than it would be to remain uninformed and so to allow the finished reform to shock him when it comes, which will be precisely when his full co-operation will be called for and needed”. (p 26, 31)

It is abundantly clear that the liturgical reforms of the twentieth century, although not against the Faith as such, were certainly tendentious and largely stemmed from a dissatisfaction with the development of the liturgy over the previous millennium which the reformers certainly considered as at least unfortunate, Hence the enthusiasm to “restore” so much that disappeared during that time: simple altars in the centre of the sanctuary without tabernacles, Bishops, or Eucharistic presidents chairs prominently placed in the position which had lately been occupied by the late-medieval style altar with tabernacle against the east wall. Offertory Processions, Communion under both kinds or in the hand. Concelebrations, rather than a multiplicity of Low Masses and - of course - active vocal participation accompanying them all and that in the vernacular. In short, (at least superficially), everything restored as it had been before the second millennium during which the liturgy became progressively “decadent”. The very title of Father Ellard’s important book The Mass of the Future says it all! This volume contains photographic illustrations of several of the above things actually taking place on an experimental basis with full ecclesiastical approval as shown on this page

The book was published in 1948; twenty -one years before the New Mass was introduced! This very book tells of Dialogue Mass in the vernacular as having already granted to Cardinal Bertram in Germany. Extensive parts of the Ritual were later allowed to be celebrated in the vernacular by the time Second Vatican Council began and permission had been granted to certain Religious orders to recite the Divine Office in the vernacular from 1953 onwards in order to encourage a more comprehending and active participation in the public prayer of the Church. Referring to the permission for use in the vernacular in the innovative renewal of Baptismal Promises at the Easter Vigil, Father Ellard in a book published eight years later The Mass in Transition ( no longer of the Future!) observes, “So , in this fashion, the use of the vernacular is quietly introduced into the beginning of this restoration and just as quietly enlarged – if with restrictions still - and allowed to spread.”(p28) GRANDFELLOW FEAST OF OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE

LONG OVERDUE REFORM ?

A claim is often made that such a reform was delayed until the 20th Century due to the numerous afflictions which beset the Holy See requiring the Popes to focus on other priorities. If it really had been intended to reform the liturgy, but other matters had prevented this, it is indeed remarkable that the aims of the liturgical movement were so successfully prosecuted during the cataclysmic wars of the 20th Century and the period of anti-Catholic totalitarian rule in Nazi Germany and the countries which fell under the rule of atheistic communism. It would have been expected then that during such a time changes in the liturgy would scarcely have been contemplated. However, that was certainly not the case. One of the most astonishing examples of the urgency to promote active participation is also given by Father Ellard: “Christmas Eve 1943 brought from the Sacred Congregation of Rites a decree of approval addressed to Cardinal Bertram, as president of the Fulda Conference, for the uniform and largely vernacular (!) form for the Dialogue Mass and the largely vernacular German singing at High Mass where that was in vogue” (p153). This was at the height of the Second World War which was then beginning to turn against Germany. Only one year later Cardinal Bertram’s cathedral city of Breslau would be besieged by the Red Army and destroyed with tens of thousands killed and the rest of the population fleeing as refugees. Even Rome itself was not free from the danger of destruction at a certain time; yet liturgical reform continued unabated! Breslau Cathedral 1945

After Dialogue Mass there was nothing left to reform except the rite itself and/or render it in the vernacular. This was, in fact, the direction of liturgical scholarship before the Council. The most authoritative work on the Mass produced during these years is Joseph Jungmann’s epic work “Missarum Solemnia”, published in 1949 with several later additions. Here is what Jungman has to say about the Tridentine form of Mass: “After fifteen hundred years of unbroken development in the rite of the Roman Mass, after the rushing and the streaming from every height and out of every valley, the Missal of Pius V was indeed a powerful dam holding back the waters or permitting them to flow through only in firm, well-built canals. At one blow all arbitrary meandering to one side or another was cut off, all floods prevented, and a safe, regular and useful flow assured. But the price paid was this, that the beautiful river valley now lay barren and the forces of further evolution were often channelled into the narrow bed of a very inadequate devotional life instead of gathering strength for new forms of liturgical expression……In fact someone has styled this period of Church history as the epoch of inactivity or of rubrics.”

posted on the Feast of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary by grandfellow.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

..
The Dialogue Mass, being less than 90 years old in comparison with the 2000 year old history of Church’s worship, must be seen in the context of the unprecedented and constant changes in the liturgy which took place in the 20th century. Most of these were of very short duration. A striking case is that of the Breviary. Even before the Council, the Roman Breviary - the most important book after the Mass - suffered very important and short-lived changes. In 1911 Pius X drastically altered the immemorial Breviary codified by Pius V in 1567. Only 34 years later Pius XII introduced a completely new Latin Psalter to replace the one which had been in constant use since the earliest days of the Church. Although in theory optional, Breviaries were no longer printed with the old Psalter. This was reversed by John XXIII who made further alterations in 1960 and restored the old Psalter. Almost everyone then abandoned that of Pius XII. This is only one example of the numerous liturgical changes which took place without ceasing throughout the period from the reign of Pius X to that of John XXIII before the traditional liturgy was finally abandoned. Nothing like it had ever been known in the entire history of the Church. It is therefore obvious that Liturgical directives do not remain binding for all time!



Most of these changes, unprecedented and far-reaching as they were, passed unnoticed by the average layman. However, papally-approved liturgical change was the daily bread of the priests for half a century before the Council (being equal in length to the entire priestly life of many of them ) and had become all too familiar. This surely explains why the Post-Conciliar reforms met with little clerical resistance but indeed were largely received with enthusiasm or equanimity much to the bewilderment of the Faithful. The survival of the Traditional liturgy was due largely to the efforts of laymen to whom the New Mass and the notion of radical change to the sacred liturgy was a tremendous shock. They had the very greatest difficulty in finding priests prepared or interested in celebrating the Traditional Mass for them since the direction in which things were moving had been clear for years:

“In 1956 Gerald Ellard published The Mass in Transition. He began by acknowledging that his 1948 book The Mass of the Future was already out of date, so rapidly had liturgical practice progressed. People were beginning to grasp the difference between praying at Mass and praying the Mass itself. Various practices were becoming common. Vernacular missals were now in the hands of millions of lay people. In a few places the altars had already been prized loose from walls and priests were celebrating facing the people albeit it with a tabernacle in the way. The so called Dialogue Mass was well on the way to being no longer a rarity in the United States and was prevalent in Germany.” (Roman Catholic Worship: Trent to Today by James I White)

Furthermore, these changes were all promoted by the very same people who established the New Mass and the new liturgy As the New Mass provides for nothing other than active lay participation it is surely not unreasonable to believe that the Dialogue Mass was a significant step towards the introduction of the new liturgy. Although the adage post hoc ergo propter hoc is certainly a logical fallacy if applied in every circumstance, it does not alter the fact that effect most surely follows cause and we can now see with hindsight where all these changes were leading. It is now no longer possible to maintain with objectivity that liturgical changes such as the Dialogue Mass were completely unrelated to what was to follow.

ACTIVE PARTICIPATION ACTIVELY DISCOURAGED 900 – 1900AD.

All of the historical evidence points to the fact that vocal participation in the liturgy by the laity, if it existed at all, as a common practice at Low Mass, gradually died out during the Middle Ages and that this was precisely one of the grievances of the Protestant Reformers.

Nevertheless, it is sometimes claimed that vocal participation was common throughout the Middle Ages but this is by no means clear. As the practice gradually died out it inevitably lingered in some places more than others and so the situation is somewhat confused as the liturgy was not then regulated centrally by Rome as it is now and records of precise practices are fragmentary.

In Jungman’s famous book Missarum Solemnia the progressive decline of active participation by the laity in the modern sense of the word is amply demonstrated. This author was a great proponent of the Liturgical Reform, (which explains the rather negative language which he uses on occasion in regard to certain historical practices) but he is recognised as perhaps the most reputable historian of the liturgy in modern times. It is therefore especially interesting that he does not hesitate to chronicle the lack of vocal participation even although he deplores the fact.

After describing a Papal Stational Mass in the 800s he observes: “the people apparently no longer answer the prayers, no longer take part in the singing….”(p55).
Then describing Mass in the mediaeval Gothic period: “the Mass is looked upon as a holy drama, a play performed by the participants” (p80) and again, “The priest alone is active. The faithful viewing what he is performing are like spectators looking on a mystery-filled drama of Our Lord’s way of the Cross. It is no accident then, that Calderon in his Autos Sacramentales should employ the medieval allegory to present a drama in which the whole economy of salvation from Paradise to world’s end, is hinged to the Mass; and yet never a word, either at the Offertory or at the Communion, of the active participation of the laity.

The eucharistia has become an epiphania, an advent of God Who appears amongst men and dispenses His graces. To gain a share in these graces, we are gathered before the altar, in an attitude of wondering contemplation that bespeaks our longing to take part in the Mass as often as possible” (p88).




Then in the Baroque period: “The spirit of the times forced into the background any notion that the faithful had a part to play in the prayer of the priest or that they should co-offer in closer union with him. For since the Reformers had denied a special priesthood, it seemed necessary to stress not what was common between priest and people but rather what was separative” (p107).

Finally, by the 19th Century “the people at Mass were once more – and this time more consciously – reduced to the role of spectators and the attempt to reveal the Latin liturgy to the faithful was turned aside partly as a matter of principle. The Mass-liturgy was, for the leaders who espoused this tendency, a monument, finished and fixed once and for all, a monument which in its mystery-filled objectivity not only did not take the faithful into consideration but even shut off their every approach. Therefore the liturgy is praised as a finished art-product, as a wonderous work of the Holy Spirit, ….”(p118)

From the above it is evident that due to a combination of different historical circumstances, i.e. the eclipse of the Latin language as the vernacular of Christendom, the reality of a largely illiterate population for nearly all of the Church’s history, the impossibility of the laity to purchase, let alone read, a missal in Latin or any other language until after the invention of the printing press, together with the difficulty of the celebrant being heard in a large church during a recited Low Mass, it became inevitable that the participation of the laity would become externally more passive. At the same time an increasing emphasis on the sacrificial aspect of the Mass, and the adoration of Christ in the Eucharist led to a deepening mystical approach to the sacred liturgy. This state of affairs was simply the consequence of the realities of life through which God generally reveals His providential design and therefore can most certainly be considered an organic development under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Indeed until the Liturgical Movement of the 20th Century it was always considered to have been so!



Therefore any assertion that the Faithful have always and everywhere generally participated during the Liturgy, save for a short period in the Western Church of liturgical decadence, is patently false and an example of wishful thinking unless one genuinely believes a thousand years to be a short period of time!! However, no one asserts that vocal participation continued after the Council of Trent which means quite simply that the Tridentine Mass which we know and love was NEVER dialogued before the 1920’s. It would, however, have been easy for the Tridentine Fathers to order Dialogue Mass as weapon against the Protestant Reformers and a legitimate concession to their demands, especially if, as it is oftentimes claimed, the Dialogue Mass represents, or is close to, the Church’s liturgical ideal. Since they did not do this, it is quite reasonable to assume that they did not wish to confuse the Protestant notion of active participation in communal prayer with assistance at the sacrificial re-enactment of Calvary.



As a pioneer of liturgical reform, Fr Hillenbrand of Sacred Heart Parish, Hubbard's Woods, Illinois sought permission to say Mass “facing the people” in the late 1950s, shown here in the short interim period when tabernacles were still placed on altars

grand fellow feast of the Holy Gaurdian Angels 2nd October 2011

A NOVELTY - NOT A RESTORATION

Dialogue mass is a novelty in the history of the Church. Even those who approve of it and feel that it is an improvement on what went before must, in all honesty, admit this for it does nothing for their case to pretend otherwise. It was quite unknown before the 20th century. St Pius X did not envisage Dialogue Mass but rather congregational singing when he advocated ”active participation” for although the Dialogue Mass simply did not exist in his day he could easily have introduced it. This is proved by his radical reform of the Roman Breviary which clearly demonstrates that he did not hesitate to implement liturgical change which he considered necessary. This successor Benedict XV is credited with having done so and of having personally celebrated Dialogue Mass ONCE in his priesthood which lasted 44 years. It seems that Pius XI celebrated it twice. This does not indicate that they considered it a high priority but it was enthusiastically adopted in latter years by bishops and clergy who were very progressive at the time, especially in France and Germany.

The Dialogue Mass is nothing more than a liturgical praxis. Although it may not be Modernist in terms of theology, it is undoubtedly MODERN and imbued with the spirit of the age which produced it as Joseph Jungman in his book Missarum Solmenia frankly admits ,“from the Dialogue Mass the Faithful gain a living knowledge of the actual course of the Mass and so they can follow the Low Mass as well as the Solemn Mass with an entirely new understanding. To have been deprived of such an understanding much longer would not have been tolerable even to the masses in this age of advanced education and enhanced self consciousness. But what is even more important, now that the Faithful answer the priest and concur in his prayers, sacrifice with him and communicate with him, they become properly conscious for the first time of their dignity as Christians.” ( sic!)

It is scarcely credible that a scholar of Jungmann’s repute should claim that it was only in the twentieth century of the Church’s history that the Faithful for the first time of their dignity as Christians – and that thanks to the introduction of Dialogue Mass!


Papal Mass in the 1950'S -a Liturgy not yet "restored"

Whereas it is indeed true that “there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecce 1.10), it is generally accepted in common parlance that anything which re-emerges after a lapse of centuries, or the best part of a millennium, is reckoned new. Vocal participation in Sung Masses has, of course, always been the norm and this has never been questioned, but the degree of such participation in Low Mass, over the centuries of its development, is far from certain. Certain liturgical authorities such as Father Ellard in his book The Mass of the Future are sometimes quoted as giving a number of examples to demonstrate vocal participation into the mediaeval period. However, it is noteworthy that, in spite of that, he writes: “Taking Christendom as a whole it is accurate to say that the countries not deeply affected by the Protestant revolt were carrying into the modern age the same self imposed secrecy touching the Canon of the Mass (and sometimes by extension other Mass prayers also) that had been common in the late Middle Ages”. In another place Father Ellard states: “That modern usage commonly styled the Dialogue Mass was something implicit in Pius X’s great Motu Proprio. This liturgical expert of modernist tendency takes it for granted that the practice IS modern and by claiming that Dialogue Mass is merely implicit in that document confirms that Pius X’s description of “mute spectators” refers to Sung Mass and not to Dialogue Low Mass. The Motu Proprio of 1903 was, of course, concerned with Sacred Music as Dialogue Mass had not yet been introduced into the Church.

Once the supposedly implicit in the Motu Proprio became explicit and Dialogue Mass was later permitted, care was taken to describe it as a restoration and therefore unquestionably justified. On this basis most of what Traditional Catholics term innovations in the post-Conciliar liturgy i.e. vernacular, communion in the hand, altars constructed as tables, tabernacles removed from altars, communion under two kinds etc , are all likewise restorations. Should this assertion be doubted, we invoke the authority of Mgr Bugnini whom many Traditional Catholics see as the creator of the New Mass. In another book The Mass in Transition (1956), Father Ellard states, “Father Bugnini said editorially in Osservatore Romano last year, changing the liturgy is not like laying out a new subdivision in the suburbs: ‘ For the liturgy is not an uninhabited and open field on which one can draw the outlines of a new city. Rather there is a question of ‘restoration’…” (p153)
The following photographs give a sample of the “Restored” Liturgical ideal of the 1950’s:



High Mass at Mount Saviour Elmira NY. incensation of the altar and chanting the gospel


grand fellow on the feast of the Exaltion of the Holy Cross

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT WORSHIP

“The main difficulty experienced by Protestants in witnessing Catholic worship arises from their not understanding the difference between a common act and a common prayer. The acts of the Church, such as processions, expositions of the Blessed Sacrament, the administration of the Sacraments, and above all the Holy Sacrifice, are indeed always accompanied by prayer, and generally by prayers of priest and people, though not necessarily by united or common prayer. In any case, the act must be distinguished from the prayers.

A Protestant may easily understand what is meant by this distinction by aid of a few illustrations:

Suppose a ship, filled with a mixed crew of French, Spanish, and Portuguese, is being wrecked off the coast of England. A crowd is assembled on the cliff, watching with intense earnestness the efforts being made by the captain and crew on the one hand, and by life boats from the coast on the other, to save the lives of the passengers. A great act is being performed, in which all are taking part, some as immediate actors, others as eager assistants. We may suppose this act carried out in the midst of united prayers. English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, each in their own tongues and many without spoken words at all, are sending up petitions to Almighty God for the safety of the passengers. It is a common act at which they assist; it is accompanied by the prayers of all; but they are not common prayers, in the sense of all joining either vocally or mentally in the same form of words.



When the priest Zacharias had gone into the temple of the Lord to offer incense, and “all the multitude of the people was praying without” (Luke 1.9), there was a common act performed by priest and people – by the priest as actor, by the people as assistants – and the act was accompanied by united prayers. But it mattered not to the people what language was spoken by the priest or what sacred formulae were used. Their intentions were joined with his. Their individual and varied petitions were one great Amen said to his sacerdotal invocations; and all ascended together in a sweet-smelling cloud of incense to Heaven.

Or to come still nearer to Catholic worship, let the reader represent to himself the great act of Calvary. Our Lord Jesus Christ is Priest and Victim. He accompanies His oblation of Himself with mysterious and most sacred prayer. Two of His seven words are from the Psalms; and it has therefore been conjectured that He continued to recite secretly the Psalm, after giving us the clue to it, by pronouncing the words, ”Eloi, Eloi, Lamma Sabacthani?- My God, my God , why hast Thou forsaken Me?” Or again, “Father, into Thy hands I commend My Spirit”. There were many assistants at that act and among those who assisted piously – the Blessed Mother of Jesus, the Apostle St. John, the holy women, the centurion, the multitude “who returned striking their breasts” – there was a certain unity in variety, not a uniform prayer, yet a great act of harmonious worship.



There are, then, prayers used in Catholic churches in which the whole congregation joins, such as the singing of hymns, the recitation of the Rosary, performing the Stations of the Way of the Cross, especially the chanting of Vespers or Compline. Such prayers are either recited in the vernacular, or, when Latin is used, they require some little education in those who take a direct and vocal part in them. But the great act of Catholic worship is the Holy Mass, or the unbloody sacrifice. One alone stands forth and makes the awful offering; the rest kneel around, and join their intentions and devotions with his; but even were there not a solitary worshiper present, the sacrifice both for the living and dead would be efficacious and complete. To join in this act of sacrifice, and to participate in its effects, it is not necessary to follow the priest or to use the words he uses. Every Catholic knows what the priest is doing though he may not know or understand what he is saying and is consequently able to follow with his devotions every portion of the Holy Sacrifice. Hence a wonderful union of sacrificial, of congregational and of individual devotion. The prayers of the priest are not substituted for those of the people. No one desires to force his brother against his will. It is the most marvellous unity of liberty and law which this earth can show. The beggar with his beads, the child with her pictures, the gentleman with his Missal, the maiden meditating on each mystery of the Passion, or adoring her God in silent love too deep for words, and the grateful communicant, have but one intent, one meaning, and one heart, as they have one action, one object, before their mental vision. They bow themselves to the dust as sinners; they pray to be heard for Christ’s sake; they joyfully accept His words as the words of God; they offer the bread and wine; they unite themselves with the celebrant in the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, which he as their priest offers for them; they communicate spiritually; they give thanks for the ineffable gift which God has given them. Their words differ, their thoughts vary; but their hearts are united and their will is one. Therefore is their offering pure and acceptable in the sight of Him who knows their secret souls, and who accepts a man, not for the multitude or the fewness of his sayings, for his book or for his beads, but for the intention with which he has, according to his sphere and capacities, fulfilled His sacred will, through the merits of the Adorable Victim who is offered for him”.
(Ritual of the New Testament by Rev. T. G. Bridgett)



from grand fellow 2nd September 2011

Non clamor sed amor sonat in aure Dei - Not shouting but love resounds in the ear of God

For those Catholics described in the title the Liturgy is not merely a collection of sacred ceremonies governed by rubrics which have been subject to change at various stages of the Church’s history , but an immersion in the presence and ethos of the worship of Our Saviour Who, in and through the sacred mysteries, continues to make intercession for us.

It is indeed the Mass that matters and this in essence means Low Mass as attendance at High Mass has always been a rarity for the average Catholic. Given the devastated state of the Liturgy today this is likely to remain so for a very long time to come. However, this situation is by no means entirely unfortunate as Low Mass is something of wonderously simple yet profound beauty which raises the soul to God its own special manner. Indeed for the overwhelming majority of Catholic this was –and is – THE MASS.

At Low Mass the silent recollected soul communes with its Divine Redeemer on Calvary and with all the members of His Mystical Body. That this contemplative union ( or the soul’s striving for such) should be threatened by the misplaced zeal of certain Catholics who, while claiming to abide by the traditional liturgical practices of the Church, seek to bring into the Holy Temple of God the noise and bustle which is the hallmark of the secular and profane world, is a matter of some considerable concern. The fact that an appeal is made to the liturgical practices of the first half of the twentieth century, during the years which preceded the Second Vatican Council, in order to justify this attempt to introduce and extend the use of Dialogue Mass serves merely to confirm the fear that such a course of action is greatly mistaken.

This site will demonstrate that the profound change of ethos in the Church’s Liturgy during that time was surely the harbinger of the disaster to come and that “silent” Low Mass is one of the Church’s greatest treasures which should be lovingly cherished and courageously preserved.

from grand fellow 19th august