Dialogue Mass

Pope Saint Pius X never, not once, advocated, proposed or legislated in favor of a Dialogue Mass.

The Dialogue Mass - supported by Catholic Conservatives * - was the blackguarded ideological program of one of the original liturgical revolutionaries, Dom Lambert Beauduin, whose agenda was the promotion of the universal priesthood of all believers via active participation in the liturgy and an ecumenical pan-unity of all Christians of whatever stripe.

Beaudoin's program was advanced in the first decade of the XXTh century - he was the Father of Vatican Two in terms of his liturgical active participation, ecumenism and ecclesiology.

Yay Beaudoin!!!

This ideological nightmare is what we now see in our gathering spaces where women roam the sanctuary, reading the lessons, while the priest (Alter Christus) sits off by his own self in a chair.

I sum up the entire liturgical movement of the revolutionaries this way - He (Jesus Christ) must decrease so we (Laity) can increase.

Us trads were learnt to assist at Mass but that never meant anything other than to "listen" to the Priest as he offers the Holy Holocaust/Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and us laity had the liberty to either silently follow along with the Priest in a Missal or Tell our Beads as Pope Pius X taught but that liberty has been stolen from us by the revolutionaries who demand we actively and audibly participate in giving the responses to the priest rather than let that be the job of the Altar server who speaks in the name of all the laity present at the Holy Holocaust.

As a footnote in my 1934 Dom Gaspar Lefevbre Missal observes We should remember that the server, even when answering alone, speaks on behalf of the whole congregation.

No doubt I am in a minority when I say that the Motu Proprio, Summorum Ponitificum, from he who abdicated, was a failure to deal directly with the liturgical revolution he was part of at Vatican Two:

TO FRANCE ON THE OCCASION OF THE 150th ANNIVERSARY

OF THE APPARITIONS OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY AT LOURDES
(SEPTEMBER 12 - 15, 2008)

INTERVIEW OF THE HOLY FATHER BENEDICT XVI 
DURING THE FLIGHT TO FRANCE

Friday, 12 September 2008

Fr Federico Lombardi, S.J., Director of the Holy See Press Office: What do you say to those who, in France, fear that the "Motu proprio' Summorum Pontificum signals a step backwards from the great insights of the Second Vatican Council? How can you reassure them?

Benedict XVI: Their fear is unfounded, for this "Motu Proprio' is merely an act of tolerance, with a pastoral aim, for those people who were brought up with this liturgy, who love it, are familiar with it and want to live with this liturgy. They form a small group, because this presupposes a schooling in Latin, a training in a certain culture. Yet for these people, to have the love and tolerance to let them live with this liturgy seems to me a normal requirement of the faith and pastoral concern of any Bishop of our Church. There is no opposition between the liturgy renewed by the Second Vatican Council and this liturgy.

Do you, dear reader, think the Lil' Licit Liturgy and The Real Mass are equivalent with no opposition between them and do you think the Real Mass is aught but a cultural artifact the powers that be should tolerate for our personal benefit?

If he who abdicated truly loved and valued the Real Mass, why did he never offer/celebrate the Real Mass publicly after Vatican Two?

Until an Order of Priests completely cuts out the cancer of revolution from its body and quits The Dialogue Mass/Active Participation and returns to the pre 1955 Real Mass, Catholic conservatives will forever be comprised because they will have accepted the deadly cancer of active participation even though they will most likely verbally object to the worst excesses of active participation - like Clown Masses, Puppet Masses etc; -  that is, they will accept the novel and cancerous liturgical principle of active participation but be personally opposed to its worst excesses.

Yay Conservatives !!!

Sacrosanctum Concilium

14. Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.

In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; 

Active Participation, a novelty, is claimed to be a restoration and it is THE aim of the Real Mass.

31. The revision of the liturgical books must carefully attend to the provision of rubrics also for the people's parts.

Has their ever been - prior to the Second Vatican Council - rubrics having to do with the Laity?

NO!!!!!

RUBRICS

Originally red titles of law announcements. They are the directive precepts or liturgical provisions found in the Missal, including the Sacramentary and lectionary, and in the ritual, to guide bishops, priests, or deacons in the Eucharistic liturgy, the administration of sacraments and sacramentals, and the preaching of the Word of God. Rubrics are printed in red and are either obligatory or merely directive, as the context makes amply clear. (Etym. Latin rubrica, red earth; title of law written in red; hence law instruction.

As Carol Byrne  observes:... as Fr. Adrian Fortescue pointed out in 1920, "lay people in the body of the church...enjoy a natural liberty" precisely because of the lay status, and also because the rubrics only apply to "those who assist more officially, the server, clery, others in the choir, and so on."

Well, so much for our liberty. It has been stolen by those revolutionaries who now try to convince us they were liberating us and those revolutionaries - who did their work in secret, out of the view and knowledge of the laity - were succored by the Popes. our Fathers, who were supposed to support and protect us, their family/flock.

I know that in calling for an order of priests to cut the cancer of active participation out of their worship I am asking for the impossible because most orders of priests have become inured to having the novelty of active participation part of their ecclesiastical existence and they can't image going back to a time when there was no active participation cancer.

It can be done but I doubt it will be done in my life time. 

I see no evidence that those who love the Dialogue Mass of the FSSPX have any desire to return to Tradition where the Dialogue is solely between the Priest and those who serve at the Altar inside the Sanctuary and not with the laity outside the Sanctuary to say nothing about them even knowing The Dialogue Mass is a serious revolutionary rupture with Catholic Tradition.

C'est la vie. All I can do is to stop spreading the cancer by being silent at Mass.

* Conservatives per the Calvinist Preacher Robert Dabney, a Casandra for all times:

It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation.

 What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity, and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. 

American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. 

It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always—when about to enter a protest—very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance. The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy from having nothing to whip. 

No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.

Indeed, as De Tocqueville predicted, innovations in the direction of extensions of suffrage will always be successful in America, because of the selfish timidity of her public men. It is the nature of ultra democracy to make all its politicians time-servers; its natural spawn is the brood of narrow, truckling, cowardly worshippers of the vox populi, and of present expediency. Their polar star is always found in the answer to the question, “Which will be the more popular?” As soon as any agitation of this kind goes far enough to indicate a possibility of success, their resistance ends. Each of them begins to argue thus in his private mind:—“The proposed revolution is of course preposterous, but it will be best for me to leave opposition to it to others. For if it succeeds, the newly enfranchised will not fail to remember the opponents of their claim at future elections, and to reward those who were their friends in the hour of need.” Again: it has now become a regular trick of American demagogues in power to manufacture new classes of voters to sustain them in office. It is presumed that the gratitude of the newly enfranchised will be sufficient to make them vote the ticket of their benefactors. 

Conservative Catholic Popes, Prelates and Priests are like American secular political conservatives...