UNDESIRABILITY OF ITS PROMOTION

Even if it is readily conceded that Dialogue Mass is neither Modernist nor heretical this is not to say that it is desirable.  Many practices of the Church in previous centuries were abandoned for good reasons and it is most unwise to revive them now.  Even if there was a liturgy in the early Church which approximated to the Dialogue Mass it is well known that there was also Mass in the vernacular, Communion under two kinds and in the hand, Mass sometimes celebrated facing the people and a married priesthood (even the first Pope was married!).  None of these practices are in themselves against the Faith and were quite legitimate but recent history has proved what dire consequences have ensued when many of them were revived after the Second Vatican Council.

Neither is it in any sense desirable to introduce Dialogue Mass in places where it has never been the established practice before the Council.  The Faith of most Catholics was nurtured by the liturgical forms of their youth and there is no excuse to disturb this now and renew the bitter experiences of the pre- and post- conciliar years.  This was the praxis adopted by Archbishop Lefebvre in the Society of St. Pius X during the years when this Society was effectively the sole guardian of the Traditional Rites and this is surely the most wise and considerate position to continue to adopt at the present time.  One day the Liturgical Movement with its 20^th century ideas and assumptions will be judged in the light of history.  To some extent this has already begun.  Until then, may all reforming zeal according to its questionable principles, cease!  As St. Paul says, “all things are lawful to me; but all things are not expedient”  (I Cor.VI.12).

 Given this historical context of its appearance and the circumstances of its promotion in the life of the Church, it is paradoxical that, while rejecting so many nostrums of the 20th Century Liturgical Movement, some Traditional Catholics find the Dialogue Mass to be, not merely acceptable where it already exists, but would seek to extend its practice.

This would mean, if the practice became universal, that it would become impossible to say the Rosary, read any prayer book other than the Missal, or practice any devotion which does not involve external vocal participation during Mass. This would be a tremendous loss. There is, in fact, nothing in any Christian religion outside of the Catholic Church equivalent to the unique sight of a large congregation participating in silent adoration at Low Mass. 

This is why Dialogue Mass should not be promoted or introduced in places where it was not generally found before the Council. By all means let it remain in countries where it was accepted in good faith before the consequences of the seemingly harmless innovations of the first half last century became clear. After so many decades it would be wrong to disturb the Faithful or introduce unnecessary controversy or problems when we already have more than enough of these to deal with as the situation of the Church continues to deteriorate.

It is noteworthy that an inherent contradiction is commonplace in advocates of Dialogue Mass. Either an attempt is made to prove that :

(a)    vocal participation by the laity was always and everywhere practiced (except, perhaps, for a short period in certain places) and that therefore this should be everywhere implemented or continued.  Otherwise :

(b)   the laity were deprived  of being able to respond during a thousand year period of liturgical decadence and therefore this situation should be corrected and dialogue restored.

In both cases the proponents of “silent “ Mass are considered to be wrong, if not actually obstinate and at odds with the mind of the Church! However, such a specious form of argumentation should not influence anyone against being unreservedly attached to the manner of assisting at Mass favoured by our forefathers in the Faith for over one thousand years!

One year after the incipient practice of Dialogue Mass was raising questions in certain quarters, the Sacred Congregation of Rites of August 4, 1922, issued a Decree which was sadly ineffective. The Decree was in reply to the question “May the congregation, assisting at the Sacrifice make the responses in unison, instead of the server?”

Reply: The norm is: Things that in themselves are licit are not always expedient. Owing to the difficulties which may easily arise, as in this case, especially on account of the disturbances which the priests who celebrate and the people who assist may experience, to the disadvantage of the sacred Action and of the rubrics. Hence it is expedient to retain the common usage, as we have several times replied in similar cases.

TACTICS OF THE REFORMERS

The standard procedure of the liturgical reformers has always been to appeal to the practice of the early Church, ignoring the greater part of her history until the 20th century, (save for the purposes of ridiculing it), in order to justify their innovations. Once papal sanction is granted to their ideas they invariably invoke this authority, oftentimes without adequate justification.  It is truly remarkable how they did, in fact, obtain sanction for most of their proposed reforms both before and after the Second Vatican Council even to the point of the de facto abolition of the traditional rite of Mass itself!  At the time, the average Catholic had no notion of the machinations of the leaders of the Liturgical Movement, or indeed of the liturgical practices of the primitive Church.   The argument of papal authority was enough for all of the reforms to be generally accepted without question. The final step then was to present the innovations as the authentic tradition of the Church.

Such a thesis entirely excludes the operation of the Holy Ghost in the development and enrichment of the Church’s worship throughout history.

SPEAKING AND SINGING

A case is frequently made, that as the laity have always been permitted to sing the High Mass it is logical that they should be allowed to make the responses at Low Mass. As this seems reasonable, we may well wonder why, until the 20th century, this was never done or even encouraged ANYWHERE. The idea sometimes expressed, that it was the result of persecution in anti-Catholic countries is a fallacy. Dialogue Mass was quite as unknown in the Papal States as in the Ireland of penal times! Indeed, the fact that Sung Mass (Missa Cantata) only appeared in the 18th century and bilingual missals for laity in the 19th suggests that the idea of active lay participation - if such an idea existed at the time - was , in fact, discouraged. That this state of affairs existed for more than 1000 years must surely mean that it cannot be considered merely as an abuse as the result of neglect of the laity by the popes and ecclesiastical authorities.

This being so, it must have stemmed from the fact that it is never necessary to state the obvious. It is only when things become obscured that it is necessary to explain their meaning. No doubt Christ's sacrifice in the Mass is indeed a prayer - even the highest prayer which exists - but a distinction must be made. The liturgy of the Church had always been understood as a common ACT i.e. the physical presence of the ritualised sacrifice of Calvary rather than an exercise of Common prayer.

There is a very significant difference between singing and speaking in a language which one does not understand. The music itself is a profound expression of the soul and the meaning of the individual words which are sung is often secondary. It is sufficient to consider that a person ignorant of the Italian language might happily listen to an opera in that language but would certainly hesitate to listen to a play. Indeed, raising the mind and heart to God is the very essence and definition of prayer which need not be synonymous with an exercise of the vocal chords.

 A final reason why vocal participation was never encouraged, particularly after the Tridentine Missal was promulgated, was the danger that such participation would demonstrate similarities to Protestant worship and the likely conclusion that intelligent spoken participation would produce a demand for vernacular for it is plain that having a spoken dialogue in a language which one does not understand, without the dimension of music mentioned above, rather begs the use of the vernacular. Later history was to prove that these concerns were entirely justified.

HOW THE DIALOGUE MASS INFLUENCED MODERN ARCHITECTURE

One may suppose that Dialogue Mass was never considered an option until modern times as it would have been simply impractical. It is impossible for a priest at a distant altar to dialogue with a large congregation without the use of a microphone as otherwise he could not be heard and, in any case, in many churches the priest was separated from the congregation by the rood screen which divided the sanctuary from the nave. We are all familiar with the fact that in large churches the pulpit was placed in the nave quite far from the altar and raised up on high so that the sermon could be heard. Similarly churches would have had to be completely reorganised in order for Mass to be heard, thus destroying all of the mystical symbolism of the cruciform plan. Interestingly enough, the new emphasis on vocal participation even before the Council, or any thought of a new Mass in the minds of most people, had already produced the beginnings of the new church architecture: “Reconceiving liturgical space had begun; especially with St. Michaels in Burlington, Vermont in 1944. A more radical step was Blessed Sacrament Church in Holyoke, Massachusetts, built in 1953. Here the altar was dead centre in an octagonal church and surrounded by eight rows of pews.

This soon turned out not to be the answer, but it did herald the movement to reconceiving the relationship of congregational space to the sanctuary. All was still in flux when events after Vatican II soon gave new directions to church building. (Roman Catholic Worship: Trent to Today by James I White) These churches were built for the old Mass – not the new - but a Mass in which obviously active vocal participation was very strong in influencing the design!

THE SAINTS

Let us cherish the traditional form of “silent” Low Mass as one of our greatest treasures. This is the form of Mass developed at a high point of Catholic culture and devotion in an era which we love to call “The Age of Faith”. This is the form of Mass which nurtured the spiritual life of the saints who were the greatest of the true reformers of the Church, Saints Francis, Dominic, Bernard, Ignatius, Catherine of Sienna, Teresa of Avila, etc. Here is how Saint Francis de Sales recommends that we should assist at Mass: To attend Mass properly, either actually or spiritually, make your preparation with the priest from the beginning until he goes up to the altar, by putting yourself in the presence of God, acknowledging your unworthiness and asking pardon for your sins. From then until he begins reading the Gospel, consider quite simply and in a general way the birth and life of Our Lord. From the Gospel to the end of the Credo consider His preaching and resolve to live and die faithful to His word, as a member of the Church. From the Credo to the Pater Noster consider His passion and death actually symbolised by the sacrifice which, with the priest and the rest of the congregation, you offer to God the Father for His honour and your salvation. From the Pater Noster to the Communion stir up countless desires in your heart, long to be united to your Saviour in eternal love. From the Communion to the end thank Our Lord for His Incarnation, His life, His death and for the love He manifests in the Eucharist, begging Him to be always merciful to you, your relatives and friends and to the whole Church. Then with heartfelt humility and devotion receive the Divine blessing which Our Lord gives you through His priest. If you would rather meditate on the mystery you are considering that day, there is no need to set it aside to hear Mass as I have suggested; it will be quite sufficient if, at the beginning of Mass, you make the intention of offering the sacrifice in that way because in every meditation the acts I have suggested are included, either implicitly or explicitly. (Introduction to the Devout Life )

None of the Saints were dissatisfied with the “silent “Mass, as known by them and us, but rather they loved it and there is no evidence that they felt that they suffered any deprivation from their lack of ”active participation “in the worship of Christ’s Mystical Body. Let us also love and be thankful for this grace and “be zealous for the better gifts” (I Cor. XII.31)