A mentor told me of his terror as a boy learning to serve the Mass in the 50s. The pastor insisted that things move as quickly as possible and raced through his parts without regard for the poor little server. So the beginning of the Mass sounded something like

P. & S. together: IntroiboAdadDeumaltarequilaetificatjuventutemmeam

JudicaQuiametuDeuses,etDeusdiscernefortitudocausammea:meamquaremerepulisti,etquaretristisincedo,dumaffligitmeinimicus?

It was quite possible to experience a Low Mass in which as one priest proceeded to the altar another ascended the pulpit, from which he led recitation of the Rosary throughout the Mass except for a pause at the consecration.

I've heard of that happening. I've seen it on occasion in the NO (not lead by a priest, but rosary-saying by individuals in the pews). Was that a common occurrence? If it was, I can see how those sorts of things would have influenced the dogma of "full and active participation".

the dogma of "full and active participation"

i love this!
(Will most likely use this theological description in the future)

A mentor told me of his terror as a boy learning to serve the Mass in the 50s. The pastor insisted that things move as quickly as possible and raced through his parts without regard for the poor little server. So the beginning of the Mass sounded something like

P. & S. together: IntroiboAdadDeumaltarequilaetificatjuventutemmeam

JudicaQuiametuDeuses,etDeusdiscernefortitudocausammea:meamquaremerepulisti,etquaretristisincedo,dumaffligitmeinimicus?

This types very much still exist in the TLM.

There’s also the opposite where both the priest and the choir drag out high Masses by being ridiculously slow leaving so much space between responses (5+ seconds in a relatively small fully carpeted church) that you’re not sure if the choir forgot to respond/isn’t sure how to respond and waiting on the congregation, and moving at a snails pace that the natural rhythm and cadence of the Mass doesn’t exist, which is particularly frustrating for visitors who have that rhythm and cadence ingrained into them.

Question arising on another thread: Is this true?

Mass attendance was understood as fulfilling an obligation, rather than a participation in the liturgy.

In the parish of St Joseph, Hanwell, then in Middlesex now Greater London it was usual for many of the men to spend the whole Mass standing outside the church unable to see or hear anything of the proceedings as the church was not large enough. This was the church in which I was baptised and in whose school I received my elementary education (1944-49), though we lived in the neighbouring parish, St Benedict's Ealing. My father would occasionally take me to Mass there when visiting relatives. My father had received his secondary education in junior seminary. It was definitely understood that one could fulfill the obligation in this way. There was a suggestion that you should be able to see someone who could see through the open doors so that you could kneel for the consecration.
Also see my comment at the top of the thread, based on observation in a church in central Dublin.
[EDIT]And, francis, I also served a monastic missa privata weekly from 1952 to 1963 (Fridays}, and enjoyed collectively chanting the Ordinary at school Masses (Thursdays). The Sunday experience was totally different.

Maybe this depends on how much someone tends to be distracted by these circumstances from inner participation at the liturgy and thereby profiting from the spirital fruit that emerges rom it. Speaking for myself, I doubt that I could keep any long-term spiritual relation to the mysteries if I 'fulfilled' my Sunday obligation in this way on a regular basis. I guess that this holds for quite some other people as well.

I'm not sure what the story means for these purposes. The inside of the Church was at capacity, so there were men outside, some of whom presumably gave up their seats for women and elders. Yes, standing outside could not have been highly participatory, but they're outside because the mass is crammed.

I'm not sure what the story means for these purposes. The inside of the Church was at capacity...

Well, a lot of those men standing outside the church were smoking throughout Mass. I put that in purple, but I think it's accurate. Were they smoking while fulfilling their Sunday obligation, or fulfilling their Sunday obligation while smoking? I understand there are places in Latin America where it is the "custom" of the men to stand outside the church regardless of how much room is available inside, so don't chalk it up to deferential treatment for women and elders.

What it says about participation depends on your answer to @tomjaw's question

the Church is full and so I stand outside, am I in some way not participating in the Mass as much as someone inside the Church?

Clearly, clear at least to me, as an embodied person the way in which my body/hearing/vision are engaged, i.e. my perception, has an effect including a psychological effect.

Trent session XXII ...
Chapter V On the Ceremonies and Rites of the Mass
And whereas such is the nature of man, that, without external helps, he cannot be easily upraised to the meditation of divine things; on this account has holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a softened, and others in a raised tone. She has likewise made use of ceremonies, such as mystic benedictions, lights, fumigations of incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind, derived from an apostolical discipline and tradition, whereby both the majesty of so great a sacrifice might be recommended, and the minds of the faithful be excited, by these visible signs of religion and piety, to the contemplation of those most sublime things which lie hidden in this sacrifice.

I've been thinking about this thread a lot. We are frequently SRO on a regular Sunday for 1 to 2 of the four weekend Masses, to the point that there's been discussion about adding an additional Mass if this trend continues. We've had a lot of growth in recent years due to both immigration and conversion.

So, modern fire codes are really strict, in that we're not supposed to allow people standing in the aisles and at the back/in the vestibule. Standing outside isn't an option during the winter (I'm in a cold part of Canada lol). We have an old building, ~120ish years old. Like many parishes, we both additional Masses with overflow for Christmas and Easter, where we set up seating in the adjacent hall (the hall and main church are physically attached), and run a livestream feed onto a huge TV so they can see and hear what's going on. Communion ministers are assigned, and they bring Communion to them. There's also talk of simply adding overflow to the regular Sunday Mass, which is almost always SRO out on a weekly basis.

I've always wondered if that's enough. To go to church, but not be physically even in the same room as what's taking place.

To me it seems that watching from an overflow location is different than watching a livestream in that:
1. Presumably the overflow room would have the chance to receive communion
2. The congregation made an effort to show up

I agree that it wouldn't be ideal, but hopefully it would be a temporary situation.
It seems like a good problem to have! I've been to a Mass like that (TLM in Alabama) and the overflow room was at a 90 -degree angle to the main nave, with large doors that were open, so we could at least see some of the sanctuary (if memory serves).

How is that any different to someone watching a livestream from their own house, or from another location

I'm sure there's a document saying that the latter doesn't count, even though it may be done if there are no other options

At the beginning of the Covid pandemic, when churches and everything else were shut down (the rules were quite strict where I live), our bishop gave a general dispensation so that TV Masses "counted". That went on for the better part of 2 years before we were all required to physically go back.

To me it seems that watching from an overflow location is different than watching a livestream in that:
1. Presumably the overflow room would have the chance to receive communion
2. The congregation made an effort to show up

That would be my assumption too, but I was unsure.

BTW, the reception of Holy Communion during mass was almost unknown until the post WWII era. A friend of mine, in his 70s, recently attended a high mass with me. He's been away from the church for more than 50 years. He opined that back in the day, very few went to communion during the mass. This is how churches could schedule masses every 45 minutes all Sunday morning long. As one priest told me, he was taught in seminary that the mass should be one half hour "from sacristy to sacristy." This is something that might be thought advantageous if brevity is the foremost objective.

And Pope St Pius X promulgated Sacra Tridentina in 1905 to move that decree forward into more effective practice.

Two months later, Boston (uncharacteristically, in the context of liturgical musical practice of the period) did better:

https://praytellblog.com/index.php/2013/11/22/music-at-john-f-kennedys-funeral/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UxyEDjkYjI

https://www.amazon.com/Mozart-Requiem/dp/B00CU55HLA/

Yea, verily. An ecclesiastical fog horn worthy of Boston Light (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Light).