Letters to the Editor

Your comments and suggestions are welcomed by the Editor. If you can, please keep your comments brief. Write to: The Editor, The Angelus Press, Box 1387, Dickinson, TX 77539.

DIALOGUE MASS? RUBRICS OF JOHN XXIII? 

Editor's Note: Father Pierre de la Place, Society of St. Pius X priest, a teacher at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, recently sent the following item to us. Father de la Place, as well as other Society priests, have received questions about "the John XXIII Mass" or, "the Dialogue Mass." We are grateful that Feather took the time to answer these questions so adequately, and that he sent us a copy to share with you.

Dear Friends of the Society of St. Pius X:

I am quite astonished by the half-truths and insinuations used to make Traditional Catholics believe that the Dialogue Mass is nothing other than a disgusting foretaste of the New Mass!

Participation in Mass?

So important does the Church consider the Mass for our sanctification that she has made it obligatory once a week and on certain feast days. But regular attendance at Mass will do us little good if we do not use it properly. This divine reservoir of grace and life, though infinite in itself, is conditioned in its efficacy with regard to ourselves by the devotion and fervor which we bring to its celebration. It is precisely in order to help the faithful reap the fullest possible fruit from the Mass that the Church has surrounded the essential matter and form of the Sacrifice of the Altar with so many ceremonies. These ceremonies are therefore important and we are supposed to pay attention to them. The very ritual of the Mass shows that the readings are addressed to the faithful, the prayers are said in their name, and several times the priest greets the faithful to unite them more closely with his strictly priestly action. We should therefore endeavor to give a genuine interior assent to what is spoken and done in our name, to make it our own. Hear the words of the saintly Pope Pius XII:

"It is desirable that all the faithful should be aware that to participate in the Eucharistic Sacrifice is their chief duty and supreme dignity, and that not in an inert and negligent manner, giving way to distractions and day-dreaming, but with such earnestness and concentration that they may be united as closely as possible with the High Priest, according to the Apostle, 'Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus' (Phil II, 5). And together with Him and through Him, let them offer up themselves" (Mediator Dei, 20 November 1947).

Now, not all methods enable us to follow the Mass and unite ourselves with Our Lord as closely as possible. To pray the Rosary or to read the Stations of the Cross may help one to meditate on the Holy Sacrifice but surely the best method is the one which keeps us always attentive to what is taking place at the altar, united with every prayer and action the priest performs.

What is the mind of the Popes?

—St. Pius X: "…the active participation of the faithful in the most holy Mysteries and in the public and solemn prayer of the Church is the primary and indispensable source of the true Christian spirit…" (Motu proprio, "Tra le sollecitudini," 22 November 1903.)

—Pius XI: "It is most necessary that the faithful, not as outsiders or as silent spectators, but as understanding truly the beauty of the Liturgy, should so assist at the sacred ceremonies that their voices alternate with those of the priest and the choir, as it is prescribed. If this be done, then it will no longer happen that the people, either make no answer at all to the public prayers, or, at best, utter the responses in a lower murmur" (Apostolic Constitution, Divini cultus, 20 December 1928).

—Pius XII: "Therefore, they are to be praised, who with the idea of getting the Christian people to take part more easily and more fruitfully in the Mass, strive to make them familiar with the "Roman Missal" so that the faithful, united with the priest, may pray together in the very words and sentiments of the Church. They also are to be commended who strive to make the Liturgy, even in an external way, a sacred act in which all who are present may share. This can be done in more than one way, when, for instance, the whole congregation, in accordance with the rules of the Liturgy, either answer the priest in an orderly and fitting manner, or sing hymns suitable to the different parts of the Mass, or do both, or finally, in High Masses, when they answer the prayers of the minister of Jesus Christ and also sing the liturgical chant" (Encyclical Mediator Dei, 20 November 1947)

Is the "Dialogue Mass" Something New?

The Dialogue Mass is nothing else than a Low Mass in which the faithful respond with the server to the prayers of the celebrant. This manner of attending Mass cannot be called "new" for, from the very beginning of the Church, the ceremonies of Holy Mass were so ordered that everywhere the Christian people had truly an active part in them. All took part in the singing and expressed their assent by responding in various parts of the Liturgy. We have the undeniable testimony of St. Justin (+ 163), that all the faithful answered the priest: "…when he has ended the prayers and thanksgiving, all the people present cry out, saying 'Amen' " (I Apologia. 65, 3 and 67, 5). The same custom persisted in the following centuries according to St. Jerome (+ 420) who records that the faithful of Rome said "Amen" so loudly and in so great a number that it sounded like "a clap of thunder" (Praef. libr. II in Epistol. ad Galatas. P.L. 26, 355). Also very ancient is the opening dialogue of the Preface between priest and faithful, according to the testimony of St. Cyprian (+ 258): "For this reason also the priest, by way of preface before his prayer, prepares the minds of the brethren by saying, 'Lift up your hearts,' that so upon the people's response, 'We lift them up unto the Lord,' he may be reminded that he himself ought to think of nothing but the Lord" (De Domini oratione, 31). Likewise, St. Cyril of Jerusalem (+ 368) writes: "After this the priest cries aloud, 'Lift up your hearts'…then the answer, 'we lift them up unto the Lord,' assenting to it by your avowal….Then the priest says, 'Let us give thanks'…then ye say, 'It is right and meet' " (Catecheses XXIII, 4, 5, 19). We could also quote the Apostolic Constitutions (VIII, 12-P.G. I, 1102), written around the year 400. And still more convincing is the testimony of the Gelasian and of the Gregorian Sacramentaries.¹ They are among our most ancient liturgical books: one was composed by Pope St. Gelasius (+ 496) and the other by Pope St. Gregory the Great (+ 604). In their rubrics are used the words "respondet populus" or "R.P." which show that the faithful were supposed to answer the priest. And this active participation in the Liturgy was certainly customary in the first ten centuries of the Church. However, in the course of time, though no official prohibition was uttered, this participation of the faithful at Holy Mass diminished gradually. With the growing size of the congregation, the churches were enlarged and many Masses began to be celebrated simultaneously. The chant became more ornate and more difficult. Finally, the liturgical language was less and less understood. But certain vestiges of the more ancient use still remain. In the first place, we have the prohibition to celebrate Mass unless at least one minister is present to answer, and if there is no man to serve, a woman can answer the prayers from her pew (can. 813). This demand of Canon Law shows that the faithful are not absolutely excluded from answering the priest, and that the server responds in their behalf as a result of their gradual incapacity of making the Latin responses.

In the second place, we have the ancient rubrics of Pope St. Pius V in the Ritus Servandus² which clearly suppose that those attending Mass can respond: "…minister et qui intersunt respondent…" (Tit. Ill, 9, 10); "…if the server or those present do not respond, the priest recites the Kyrie alone" (Tit. IV, 2); "…the Orate fratres is to be answered by the server or by those who are present" (Tit. VII, 7); etc. And the rubrics of the Missal cannot be invoked against the Dialogue Mass when they mention only the servers, because the dialogue is not a form of serving Mass but of assisting at the Holy Sacrifice. It does not dispense with the obligation of having a server to minister to the priest and make responses.

Conclusion Concerning the "Dialogue Mass"

Thus the Dialogue Mass is nothing else than a new name for a truly traditional custom which was restored under the pontificate of Pope Pius XI. The American Ecclesiastical Review of March 1934 (p. 247), states: "Pope Pius XI has on various occasions celebrated Holy Mass in the Vatican for pilgrim groups who answered the prayers after the manner of the Missa Recitata (Dialogue Mass), to the joy of the Pontiff as he himself asserted. In particular, on the occasion of the International Eucharistic Congress in Rome in 1922, the Holy Father gave a striking object-lesson of active participation when, by his own initiative, he induced a multitude of over 10,000 to take active part in the papal Mass in St. Peter's by responding to the Mass prayers as spoken by the Pope."

And we cannot deny that it enjoyed also the favor of the saintly Pope Pius XII, since it was approved by a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites as "a more perfect" (or, more complete: plenior) manner of taking part in the Low Mass (Instruction on Sacred Music and Liturgy, 3 September 1958).

Now, we do not say that the Dialogue Mass is the only fruitful manner of participating in the Holy Sacrifice, and we agree that certain conditions or circumstances may make it inexpedient. But its widespread use in Europe may explain why so many Catholics remained attached to the traditional liturgy, comparatively more than in the United States. In France where the number of baptized Catholics is approximately the same as in the United States, there are at least three monasteries of monks, and nine convents of nuns (Benedictine, Franciscan, Dominican, Carmelite), without speaking of the Society of St. Pius X Seminary and Convent—all of them using exclusively the traditional Latin Mass—a Dialogue Mass. Maybe there would be as many vocations in American youth if they could learn to love the liturgy by using its very words Sunday after Sunday.

The American Ecclesiastical Review mentioned above, quoted that some students of an eastern college, where the Dialogue Mass had been celebrated almost daily since 1925, "…think it is much better than a simple Low Mass, because, unlike at home, I go into the chapel, and there I have something to help me hold my attention on the Sacrifice. At home, I go into the church, but I have no incentive for prayer during the Mass, and consequently I eagerly await the end of the Mass….I am very sure that the Missa Recitata has helped me more in the devout attendance at Mass than any other agent. I find now, after using this method at school for four years, that when I am in church away from here, the saying of the prayers with the priest, silently, has helped me to maintain a more devout attitude during the Holy Sacrifice" (p. 248).

THE RUBRICS OF POPE JOHN XXIII

Some False Accusations

Many of those who condemn the Dialogue Mass also allege that the reform of John XXIII is Jansenist and Modernist. A traditionalist priest (not of the Society of St. Pius X) wrote recently: "…tell the priest literally to go have a seat while the choir sings these texts [of the Mass], thereby letting the people perform one of the essential functions of the Mass."

Even though it was the practice of the early Church [see: Editor's note 1], the rubrics of Pope John XXIII do NOT dispense the priest from saying these texts (Introit, Gradual, etc.), besides the Epistle and Gospel. And the Epistle and Gospel are not sung by the people but by the sacred ministers (subdeacon and deacon). But worse than this gratuitous accusation, which can be easily dispelled by reading the rubrics of a Pope John XXIII altar missal, it is also said that the "John XXIII breviary follows almost exactly the Jansenist breviary." To understand how ludicrous is this accusation, it would be enough to say that it is like accusing the breviary of St. Pius X of being Jansenist! There is little difference between the breviaries of Pope St. Pius X and Pope John XXIII. Indeed, the John XXIII breviary is substantially that of St. Pius X's (beside some changes in the calendar and some suppression in the readings and prayers), and that is why, at the time of this reform many priests did not bother to buy a new breviary since they were able to manage with their old one. In fact, many priests of the Society of St. Pius X do the same because of the difficulty in finding a John XXIII breviary!

Now, the Jansenist Breviary, or Breviary of Vinitimille (published in Paris in 1736), was composed to suit the heresy: its authors suppressed all mention of God's mercy and of the salvation offered to everyone, to underline God's justice and the predestination of a few. They changed the readings, the hymns, the antiphons; they downgraded the worship due to Our Lady. The only "common" points with the John XXIII Breviary are the suppression of certain feasts and octaves, and the reduction of the readings of Matins to three lessons. Let us remember that Pope St. Pius X himself did the same thing with the Breviary of Leo XIII, cutting here and shortening there.³ St. Pius X explains why in his Bull Divino Afflatu of 1 November 1911. Nothing smacking of Jansenism here!

Is it Pope John XXIII's Reform?

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre testifies:

In reality, this reform [of the breviary] was done by Pope Pius XII, not Pope John XXIII. When I was Apostolic Delegate in Africa they asked me to ask the Episcopal Conferences of French-speaking Africa to ask the bishops about a reform of the breviary. You know that was during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII….I knew the president of the commission who did this reform of Pope John XXIII. It was Msgr. D'Amato, who was the Abbot of St. Paul Outside the Walls. He is still there at St. Paul's. I knew him very well and I spoke many times with him. He is very much a traditionalist, very traditional…and during the Council of Vatican II he was removed because he was a Traditionalist. They replaced him with Msgr. Bugnini" (Conference to the Seminarians at Ridgefield, 24 April 1983).

…Our Predecessor, Pope Pius XII of happy memory, acceding to the wishes of a number of bishops, decided to reduce the rubrics of the breviary and missal in some aspects to a simpler form—a work which was accomplished by the G. Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, of 23 March 1955. In the following year, 1956…this same Predecessor of Ours decided to ask the opinions of the bishops regarding a liturgical revision of the Roman Breviary. And after having thoroughly considered the bishops' replies, he determined to deal with the question of a general and systematic revision of the rubrics of the breviary and missal, and he entrusted the work to that special commission of experts to which the charge of studying a general liturgical reform had been committed. For Our part We often deliberated as to what should be done about this plan of Our Predecessor. After long and mature reflection, We decided that…the aforesaid revision of the rubrics of the breviary and missal should no longer be deferred" (July 25, 1960—AAS 52-593).

—Father de la Place