This is no surprise to me. And, it is why a beautifully celebrated NO is a far better thing than the pre-counciliar Tridentine usage. This is not just the way it was in the 1930's. This is the way it was for hundreds upon hundreds of years. We are no longer in the mediaeval era. People are now educated, they can read, they know things, with the catechesis that they deserve they have a functional understanding of the sacred mysteries, and, ideally, should be intelligent participants in the sacred rites, not mere dumb observers, who (can you believe it??!!!) get presumptuously scolded for uttering so much as a word.

It's not just the lack of literacy that caused people to be silent; there was in some countries, obviously, an attitude such as stulte describes where the people were expected and encouraged to be passive spectators. And yet, as the book I'm reading says, the Polish immigrants in America at this time were not passive spectators and sang hymns and the parts of the Mass. I also know a French friend who says when she visited France as a child, the whole village would show up for funerals and the old men would sing the entire Requiem from memory, and she learned to sing it with them. Similar stories can be heard about poor African villagers who were taught by the Holy Ghost Fathers to sing the Mass and could sing all the propers as well as the ordinary *in Latin*, so congregational participation seems to have been a matter of culture.

In America, though, it seems that passive participation was in most places the norm. Another fascinating perspective from The Unread Vision is from a priest, Fr. Vitus Stoll of Des Moines, Iowa, writing a letter entitled "Our Present Situation" to the editor of Orate, Fratres in the 40's:

Dear O.F.:--Well, well, so you have sufficient courage to print the following: 'The writer recalls the monotonous drawling of the rosary during Mass in many localities,' and 'the writer confesses frankly that much opposition to the introduction of liturgical Mass prayers is raised by narrow educators, who, because of hide-bound custom, would rather drone the rosary or sing some popular hymn than pray the Mass.' Congratulations! The above expressed the vortex of the whole liturgical problem. It is my conviction that nothing has done and is doing more harm to and causes greater disintegration of the liturgy than the enforced recitations of the rosary at Mass. It has come to be and is still almost universally advocated by 'narrow educators.' Until this situation can be rectified, there is little progress in store for the liturgy. Your correspondent, who had to listen to the advocacy of the rosary for the Mass, is just one of millions; just a sample of the state into which things can come in the kingdom of God.

It's very sad that the Rosary which is a beautiful and most salutary form of prayer was used and apparently even enforced as a substitute for the prayers of the Mass.

Yes! and there's a great section on that in the book. The Church in the USA was greatly influenced by the Irish immigrants who suffered such privations during the Penal Times and were reduced to attending Mass secretly, in caves and barns. The Irish "rock Masses" were stripped down to the essentials and had to be kept as quiet as possible. In consequence, some Irish came to believe that singing during the liturgy was a Protestant custom.

Did you go then to the grey rocks,
And behind a wind-swept crevice there,
Did you find Our Mary gently waiting,
Our Lady, sweet and fair?
Did the sun shine gently round her,
Making gold darts through her hair?
And will you stay silent as the day
When the wind has left the air?
— "Were You At the Rock?"
(traditional Gaelic hymn)

In my town there are three late 19th-century churches -- one for the Irish, one for the Italians, and one for the Germans. The two largest ones stand about 150 yards apart.

Irish and the Germans wanted little to do with each other.

In the Diocese of Cleveland, it was not until the 20th century that a bishop appeared who knocked heads together and got them to play nice with each other.

The parish my family attended in the 1950s was in a community whose initial Catholics in the late 19th century were German and Irish (the area had first been Euro-settled by Quakers in the late 17th century). The Benedictines in charge of the new parish at time chose St Kilian as the patron and title - the Irish apostle to Franconia. That said, its liturgical sensibilities were German because the Benedictines were from a line of abbeys that were ultimately German in ethnic origin. And the Germans most definitely didn't share the Irish love of the most minimalist form of Low Mass.

I see on wdtprs.com that the question of "active participation" has come up. The author opines that "active participation" means "carrying things around, singing and clapping, etc." Hence, he suggests that the congregation ought to engage instead in "active receptivity" which he says is far superior since it involves interior engagement and focus of the mind and will.

If I didn't know better, I might be tempted to think that the author is setting up a false dichotomy between his own personal definition of "active participation" and his own expectation of what he would prefer that the people do at Mass which is: "Watching carefully and quietly, actively receptive (sic) listening to the spoken Word or to sacred music."

I would suggest instead that we take as our definition of active participation that which Sacrosanctum Concilium gave, because after all, His Eminence Cardinal Sarah referred to this document as the "magna carta of all liturgical celebrations."

Here is the correct definition of active participation, as given to us by the Second Vatican Council in the Constitution on the Liturgy, signed by virtually all the bishops of the world, even Arbp. Lefebrve:

#34: To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence.

#54: . . . steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

It seems to me that there are those among the traditional-minded clergy who can't wait to return Catholic congregations to a state of mute spectatorship and immediately reduce the laity to a caste system where only professional musicians and chant scholars (men only, of course) are allowed to sing the parts of the Mass.

It's almost as if the last 100 years had never happened in the Church. What makes them think things were so great when Catholics were saying their beads and had their noses buried in their devotional books and couldn't utter a peep during Mass? What was so wonderful about liturgical and cultural Quietism ---you know, the attitude that Catholics can only pay, pray (silently) and obey---that we must revert to it post haste?

It seems, this discussion abetted by KevinK's situation, that our clergy's zeal to enact (as if) their misguided concept of FCAP remains uninformed of the ancient cliché "You can lead a horse to water, but...."
Again, disheartening.
Soon we may be pondering "What's so funny about....and where did it go: Sacred, Universal, and Beautiful?"

God bless you, Stulte! Been there, done that, with six squirmy toddlers. : ) Maybe that's why now, when I am able finally to pick up my missal and hymnal and sing, I get upset if I'm told during a Latin Mass that "No sound must emanate from the pews during Mass"--- when I know that contradicts the stated papal desires from St. Pius X on and the mandate of Vatican II and the recent statements of Cardinal Sarah, the current Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship, who called Sacrosanctum Concilium "the Magna Carta of every liturgical action" and declared that the faithful should “be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them,” and said that the liturgy “must stop being a place of disobedience to the requirements of the Church.”

Always remember the famous words that initiated the restoration of Gregorian Chant in the liturgy:

"Special efforts are to be made to restore the use of the Gregorian Chant by the people, so that the faithful may again take a more active part in the ecclesiastical offices, as was the case in ancient times." ----Tra le sollecitudini, Pope St. Pius X, 1903

As then-Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out in 1998, in those places where the Liturgical Movement flourished and the people were taught to sing and say in Latin those parts of the Mass that pertained to them, they resisted the liturgical reforms, whereas in those countries where the Liturgical Movement never existed, "the disappearance of the old liturgical books caused no sorrow."

It seems to me that if traditional-minded clergy want the people to understand, love and treasure the traditional rite and be prepared to fight for it and protect it at all costs, then they should follow the mandates of the preconciliar and postconciliar popes and the Second Vatican Council and encourage the full, conscious and active participation of the people at the Vetus Ordo and not try to keep the people mute spectators, not worthy of lifting their voices in prayer in the house of God, not worthy of "dialoguing" with the sacerdos, not worthy of uttering the responses in their Missal, not worthy of singing one syllable of chant.

Of course, I should have made clear I'm talking primarily about the EF, since I've never heard of a priest in the OF telling the people it is diocesan policy for them to be silent during Mass and that only the servers or the schola can make the responses. I can't imagine the reaction if that ever occurred in the OF, but in the EF, at least in the northeast, it is not uncommon.

You're absolutely right that noone must be forced to participate in the liturgy, and Pope Pius XII certainly was sensitive to the different levels of spirituallity of the faithful, but teaching and encouraging the people to say or sing the responses is the obligation of every priest, mandated by Sacrosanctum Conciliium, and applies equally to celebrations of the EF, as I'm sure you know very well already. Of course, we can't have liturgy police putting a gun to people's heads and forcing them to make the responses; everyone should be free to choose the degree of participation they desire, but pastors of souls are supposed to be leading the people to a full and active participation.

SC, #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; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit; and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work."

I've known some who prefer to blame "active participation" for destroying the treasury of sacred music.

Cognizant of the intent of that sentence, I yet feel that a more correct version would add "destroying the restoration of the treasury of sacred music."
The truly ironic skeleton is that the pervasive employment of said treasure had grossly eroded by the eras of Pio's 9-12. All of us who came into "leadership" roles in the post-conciliar Church likely had libraries of St. Gregory's, Pius X or the Peoples' Mass Book on the shelves. Hardly the cream of the crop, save for the PiusX. Then there's the common recollection of pre-Boomer PIP's here in the states that defacto "treasury" was rendered by parochial school choirs on Fridays. The irony is that now that we have all the pedagogical tools pertinent to performance practice, repertoire and liturgical exactitude, we are being alienated once again to the margins by the autocratic politics existing between absentee bishops, besieged pastors, liturgist/terrorists, and the demands of "It's all about ME" laity. The laity truly believes that the Rothschild Champagne of Sacred Music now comes in a box, is cheap and gets you just as drunk, or that fine music is some sort of Castor Oil that we elitist musicians force down their throats. Geez, what were the plebes of 18th C. Salzburg and Vienna listening to at Mass? Carey Landry's "Gentle Woman?"

Looking back to the OP to Fr. Peckler's lament in 1998 that "we are in the midst of a liturgical malaise," I see in Kathleen Hughe's, How Firm a Foundation, a compilation of quotes from the Early Liturgical Movement, that she makes a similar admission in 1990 about the post-conciliar liturgical renewal movement running out of gas:

"For a variety of reasons the liturgical movement has gotten bogged down. The fire of the founders is rarely visible among us. There is a good deal of discouragement. Some say that the liturgical movement actually ended at Vatican II. Others say the liturgical movement realized all of its goals in the post-conciliar Consilium and the International Commission on English and the Liturgy produced a new library of liturgical books. What is clear is that the liturgical movement became institutionalized and needs to recover its prophetic character. Who better than the pioneers to reenergize our efforts by rooting us once again in their vision that the liturgy become the heart and center of the Christian life?"

But it was precisely the hip, modern, smart post-conciliar liturgical reformers who, after seting the Church on fire in the 70's, by the 90's were saying that their great renewal had stalled and sputtered to a stop. In other words, 20 years after Bugnini they had run out of inspiration, creativity and ideas.

Why is that, dear Dad29? (That's a softball question if there ever was one.)

I'm only too happy to answer my own question. It seems to me that there was indeed sufficient justification for the development of the Liturgical Movement (although, in some sense, the original goals of the Liturgical Movement are a perennial need since there is always a need for the restoration of collective piety and a refocusing on the essentials).

However, the Bugnini reformers, instead of focusing on the fulfillment of the "essential criteria of Sacrosanctum Concilium" (cf. Cardinal Ratzinger), became obsessed with ritual change and believed it was their mission to redesign and recreate the liturgy. As Thomas Merton proclaimed in 1964: "All is yet to be fashioned . . . I wonder too if we are yet ready to create new forms that will be "eternal." Better to envisage a long state of transition and experimentation and hope that plenty of freedom will be granted and properly used!"

So they determined to create almost ex nihilo a brave new liturgical world, but because they rejected out of hand so much of the preconciliar liturgical tradition, they quickly ended up in a ditch. Nemo dat quod non habet. They were big on promise but short on substance, and some of them, from what I can tell, are ready to go back and find the baby they threw out with the bath water so long ago.

I wonder how much of the Bugnini reform would have been needed at all if the laws and traditions of the Roman rite had been faithfully observed?

I certainly hope I will be among the doggies having a ball in the heavenly dog park, too, and if I make it there, I fully expect to see many of the great liturgists of the 19th and 20th centuries, regardless of what form of the Roman rite with which they are associated. One thing I've learned from reading about the people in the Liturgical Movement is that most of them were clearly very saintly, zealous, profound and heroic, even if I don't agree with every single thing they wrote. Believe me, Charles, I think I have far more in common with Dorothy Day, for example, than with many other folks of my own ideological ilk (whatever that is); I don't even really know what my ideological identity is anymore. I feel like an ideological nomad most of the time. : )

if the laws and traditions of the Roman rite had been faithfully observed?

They never have been. Read Mgr Hayburn's "Papal Legislation..." It's the same letter(s) published dozens of times from 50AD forward.

Apropos liturgical laws not being observed:

"Popular appreciation of the sacred liturgy would have been vastly different today if, before every administration of the sacraments in the past hundred years, an explanatory instruction had been given, as the Roman Ritual directs; if at every Sunday Mass---there had been the homily or explanation required by the Council of Trent; if at every Low Mass the celebrating priest had pronounced loudly and clearly the words which we must now teach the people; if the faithful at a Sung Mass had not been denied the right to respond in violation of the traditions of our rite; if church builders had placed the choir near the altar where it belongs, to lead the people; if baptistries had been placed at the entrance to churches, to signify the meaning of baptismal initiaion.

This is only to suggest, by a few examples, how obedience to law has ample motivation in the reasonableness and fruitfulness of the legal precept. And this is nowhere clearer than in the case of sacred worship, where the reverence due to God is at stake and where the sanctity of persons is the profit."

Fr. Frederick McManus, Address at the National Liturgical Week, Notre Dame, 1959

"Popular appreciation of the sacred liturgy would have been vastly different today if"

Hmm.
If today we do "aaa" then tomorrow vastly different will be "bbb".
What are "aaa"?
What are "bbb"?