Poll: What best describes you?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
1
0%
0 0%
0
0%
0 0%
1
0%
0 0%
10
0%
0 0%
7
0%
0 0%
7
0%
0 0%
4
0%
0 0%
5
0%
0 0%
0
0%
0 0%
4
0%
0 0%
1
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Dialogue Mass
#41
(12-01-2009, 08:07 AM)glgas Wrote:
(12-01-2009, 12:14 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: The silent Low Mass is not "traditional" in the least. Instead it is the aberration, a

In the good old times, and this is going back at least for 1500 years there were enough priest, and each believed that they shall celebrate the sacrifice of Jesus Christ every day. Also on that good old times people had to work on weekdays, they had no time to attend Mass. Consequently  with the exceotion of the Cathedrals and convents the weekday masses were Low Masses.

Do you really think that the majority of the Masses through the centuries were aberration?

The world was saved by Jesus Christ and his sacrifice not someone else.

Actually the Low Mass started because of many priests, especially in monasteries, needing to say Masses as part of their obligations to benefactors. Eventually the same for the cases for priests who had benefices, especially the Canons. So a recited form of the Mass was used here. Eventually it was also permitted for missions and then ferial Masses in churches where a Solemn Mass was impossible (back in those "good old times" it was Solemn or Low -- no Sung Mass).

I have no issue that there is a recited form, only its use. In my opinion, based on my experience in Sacred Music for a decade and based on the teachings of the Church through her Popes on how the liturgy should be celebrated, I think a limited use of Low Mass is proper and desirable. Low Mass should be used when it is unreasonable or impossible to have a Sung Mass and for the "private" Masses of priests outside of the principle Mass at a Church each day. When it is necessary to have a Low Mass and there is sufficient attendance and proper training, I see no justifiable reason not to have a "Dialog Mass".

The Low Mass is an aberration, because it is not the normative form of the Mass. It is an exception to the rule, which is the Solemn Mass. So too is the Sung Mass an exception to the norm. By norm I mean model, not the most celebrated, hence, since all forms of the traditional Roman Liturgy are based on the Solemn Mass, anything less Solemn is an aberration -- an exception.

An aberration is not just some evil thing. It also means a "deviation".

As an aberration, we should treat it as the exception, rather than the idealized form of the Mass.
Reply
#42
(12-01-2009, 11:20 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(12-01-2009, 08:07 AM)glgas Wrote:
(12-01-2009, 12:14 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: The silent Low Mass is not "traditional" in the least. Instead it is the aberration, a

In the good old times, and this is going back at least for 1500 years there were enough priest, and each believed that they shall celebrate the sacrifice of Jesus Christ every day. Also on that good old times people had to work on weekdays, they had no time to attend Mass. Consequently  with the exceotion of the Cathedrals and convents the weekday masses were Low Masses.

Do you really think that the majority of the Masses through the centuries were aberration?

The world was saved by Jesus Christ and his sacrifice not someone else.

Actually the Low Mass started because of many priests, especially in monasteries, needing to say Masses as part of their obligations to benefactors. Eventually the same for the cases for priests who had benefices, especially the Canons. So a recited form of the Mass was used here. Eventually it was also permitted for missions and then ferial Masses in churches where a Solemn Mass was impossible (back in those "good old times" it was Solemn or Low -- no Sung Mass).

I have no issue that there is a recited form, only its use. In my opinion, based on my experience in Sacred Music for a decade and based on the teachings of the Church through her Popes on how the liturgy should be celebrated, I think a limited use of Low Mass is proper and desirable. Low Mass should be used when it is unreasonable or impossible to have a Sung Mass and for the "private" Masses of priests outside of the principle Mass at a Church each day. When it is necessary to have a Low Mass and there is sufficient attendance and proper training, I see no justifiable reason not to have a "Dialog Mass".

The Low Mass is an aberration, because it is not the normative form of the Mass. It is an exception to the rule, which is the Solemn Mass. So too is the Sung Mass an exception to the norm. By norm I mean model, not the most celebrated, hence, since all forms of the traditional Roman Liturgy are based on the Solemn Mass, anything less Solemn is an aberration -- an exception.

An aberration is not just some evil thing. It also means a "deviation".

As an aberration, we should treat it as the exception, rather than the idealized form of the Mass.

An excellent post. +1 (in spirit).
Reply
#43
(12-01-2009, 01:29 PM)rbjmartin Wrote: I prefer sung or solemn Masses, but if it's going to be low, then no dialogue.  In my opinion, dialogue Masses operate under the NO mentality of giving people something to do so they feel like they are participating more.  I think the low Mass can be useful in helping one come to a better understanding of how best to assist at Mass (i.e. internally uniting oneself to the sacrifice of the altar and not concentrating on externals). 

My old spiritual director made an excellent point when he told me that no one in history assisted at Mass better than Our Lady did at the foot of the cross, and she did so without saying a word.

A pious idea, but the Crucifixion is not the Mass. Our Lady was not "assisting at Mass" at the foot of the Cross.

The Mass is the Liturgy -- from the Greek leitourgia, "public service" -- it is the public prayer of the Church. One of it's elements is the re-presentation in an unbloody manner of the sacrifice of the Cross.

I would fully agree that at that moment when the sacrifice of the Cross is renewed we should adore God in utter silence of heart, mind and ideally tongue. If like in the ancient liturgy we cannot do so with our eyes (because it is hidden by riddle curtains or iconostasis) then we do so with our hearts and our minds. Despite that during the "Canon" various Eastern rites have the liturgical choir and faithful sing prayers over top of the priest's prayer, as far as I am aware, there is always silence at the actual moment of Consecration.

The Mass, however, is not just a sacrifice, but also the public prayer of the Church. As a public prayer, as the faithful we have an obligation to participate. One method is internal union with the prayer of the priest, but the nobler method is "actual participation", that is reciting or singing the parts proper to us faithful, just as the Deacon, Subdeacon, Acolyte, Choir of Clerics and Celebrant each have their proper hierarchical role in participating in this prayer, so too do the faithful.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)