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 He began by acknowledging that his 1948 book The Mass of the Future was already out of date, so rapidly had liturgical practice progressed.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