High Mass vs. Low Mass
#21
(04-14-2010, 01:06 PM)WanderingPenitent Wrote: Again, "Standard" does not mean "Common."

Please, quote the Missal, that the Solemn Mass is the standard. I always like to learn.
Reply
#22
(04-14-2010, 03:16 PM)glgas Wrote:
(04-14-2010, 01:06 PM)WanderingPenitent Wrote: Again, "Standard" does not mean "Common."

Please, quote the Missal, that the Solemn Mass is the standard. I always like to learn.

You're not going to find that in the Missal, because just as the Bible doesn't explain all the Truths of the Faith, the Missal doesn't give all the details on the Liturgy. In fact, the Missal doesn't even tell the deacon where to stand when chanting the Gospel!

Those versed in the history, rubrics and principles of the Roman Liturgy can easily demonstrate that the Solemn Mass is the typical form (in the true sense of the word "type"). All other forms are derivatives of this, both in text, praxis and rubrics.

The principles are derived from a study of the history and rubrics of the Liturgy, not from some list printed in the Missal. These Roman principles (often referred to as Romanitas) are also important to help understand the purpose, successes and failures of the Liturgical Movement.

An example: In 1956, beginning with the revised Holy Week promulgated by the S.R.C. under the authority of Pius XII, the Deacon, Subdeacon and Lector would sing the parts of the Mass proper to themselves. The celebrant would either sit at the sedillia or (for the Gospel) stand at the altar facing the deacon, who was singing the Gospel. Prior to this the priest would read, sotto voce, exactly what the Lector, Subdeacon and Deacon were already singing and paying no attention to those ministers. This was because of the influence of Low Mass, where the priest read everything. This was not consonant with the principles of the Liturgy so, when the rubrics were being reformed (a process which came to a pinnacle with John XXIII's promulgation of a reformed code of rubrics), this unnecessary and unprincipled duplication was eliminated. At the same time we can also see the failures of the movement with the Prayers of the Faithful that were attempted in the late 1960s and then which became a mainstay of the Novus Ordo Missæ, which have little principled or historical basis. Were there formerly Prayers of the Faithful? Yes, they were very much like what remains on Good Friday -- a series of fixed prayers done in a formalized format like a standard penitential collect. Understanding this history and the principles of the Liturgy shows immediately why what was established in the 1960s was an absolute falsehood.

The ideal form of Mass is the typical form, envisioned by the rubrics: a Solemn Mass for every Mass. This is not practical, so we deviate from the ideal as necessary: A Sung Mass or Recited Masses. None of these is "bad", but if a more solemn form is practically and reasonably possible, then it should be done. Consistently avoiding the Solemn or Sung forms of the Liturgy without a decent reason is robbing oneself of the treasure of the Church and throwing away special graces that are free for the taking. Taking advantage of the less Solemn forms for a just reason however is hardly a sin.
Reply
#23
(04-15-2010, 09:42 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Consistently avoiding the Solemn or Sung forms of the Liturgy without a decent reason is robbing oneself of the treasure of the Church and throwing away special graces that are free for the taking. Taking advantage of the less Solemn forms for a just reason however is hardly a sin.

So what exactly are you saying?  I read that as, if you do NOT have sufficient reason, it is a sin to not go to Solemn Mass if it is available.  You are definitely implying that, even if you did not mean it.

And, are you saying there are more graces at a Solemn Mass than a Sung Mass or Low Mass?  Isn't the liturgy the same words in all cases, the difference being who says them and if it is sung or recited?

Reply
#24
(04-13-2010, 12:34 PM)cgraye Wrote: If a Solemn Mass could be said, but it isn't for no real reason, that's certainly not a good thing.  Is it offensive to God?  Well, he does tend to want to best from us, doesn't he?  But I will stop short of saying it offends God without finding something to substantiate that.  I can't really speak for God.

I totally agree about not being able to speak for God.  Ironically, you would be the first Traditional Catholic I've ever met that does not claim to know what is offensive to God, and proceed to tell me all about it.

Reply
#25
(04-16-2010, 12:53 AM)calicatholic Wrote: Ironically, you would be the first Traditional Catholic I've ever met that does not claim to know what is offensive to God, and proceed to tell me all about it.

From the rules:

Quote:Anyone is most welcome to participate if they will respect the sensibilities of traditional Catholics who respect the Petrine Ministry and the man who holds the office, and if they obey the forum rules. In other words, read about what is meant by "traditional Catholics" -- and don't come here to rile people who fit that description. We get smeared everywhere else; it won't happen here.

Don't beat up trads here.  Thanks. :tiphat:
Reply
#26
(04-16-2010, 12:51 AM)calicatholic Wrote:
(04-15-2010, 09:42 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Consistently avoiding the Solemn or Sung forms of the Liturgy without a decent reason is robbing oneself of the treasure of the Church and throwing away special graces that are free for the taking. Taking advantage of the less Solemn forms for a just reason however is hardly a sin.

So what exactly are you saying?  I read that as, if you do NOT have sufficient reason, it is a sin to not go to Solemn Mass if it is available.  You are definitely implying that, even if you did not mean it.

And, are you saying there are more graces at a Solemn Mass than a Sung Mass or Low Mass?  Isn't the liturgy the same words in all cases, the difference being who says them and if it is sung or recited?

The Baltimore Catechism says this:

Quote:Q. 924. Are all Masses of equal value in themselves or do they differ in worth?

A. All Masses are equal in value in themselves and do not differ in worth, but only in the solemnity with which they are celebrated or in the end for which they are offered.



Q. 925. How are Masses distinguished?

A. Masses are distinguished thus:

1.(1) When the Mass is sung by a bishop, assisted by a deacon and sub-deacon, it is called a Pontifical Mass;

2.(2) When it is sung by a priest, assisted by a deacon and sub-deacon, it is called a Solemn Mass;

3.(3) When sung by a priest without deacon and sub-deacon, it is called a Missa Cantata or High Mass;

4.(4) When the Mass is only read in a low tone it is called a low or private Mass.
Reply
#27
(04-13-2010, 04:14 PM)timoose Wrote: The "abuse" was the fact of so many people in a Parish. We had Missa Lecta on Sunday starting at 5:00 am on the half hour until 8:00 am, then Missa Cantata until 10:00 am, then a Missa Solemnis, then back to Missa Cantata for 11:00am and 12:00am, simultaneously in the chapel starting at 7:15 am had Missa recitata until 12:15 pm on the hour. All the Parishes had schedules similar, as the Parishes were huge in number but small in area. The main Church could fit 1500 people as it was used for the Grammar School every day and it could fit all of us and the regulars with out problem. The Chapel could fit about 500 as it was used for the seventh and eighth graders and it was half full with them alone. The Churches were full, babies were being born and baptised, children were educated to be Catholic, and received the sacraments; people were married in the Church, divorce was unheard of,people got sick and had Extreme Unction, died and were buried with Mass, in plain English don't look for the problems in the Church from the people in the pews during those years. The amount of Liturgical abuse in those days would not fit in a thimble, and the people prayed payed and obeyed. No one in the pews that I know ever asked for change. We were never consulted.
tim

unless i counted wrong, that's eighteen Masses every Sunday.  big parish.  they could have never done it without some of them being shorter Masses.

Reply
#28
Yep 18 Masses every Sunday. It was Chicago which was then the second largest city in the US, and the largest Archdiocese. Churches were about a mile apart and the city was small geographically but dense in population. I have thought this over and my guess and I don't have the numbers is it would be about 15,000 at Mass on Sundays. My old Parish may have been special because the Pastor was an Auxiliary Bishop of Chicago. If you think it through in those days it was 75% of approx.50 million vs. 25% of 75 million, then the amount of parishes were much much lower. Except for California, suburban sprawl was in it's infancy, and the proliferation of hangar churches was just beginning. Orthodoxy with a small "o" was a function of population density, now the expansion in area of the population leads me to intuit that we are not even orthodox with that small 'o" at each node of population. We were like a balloon filled with excited molecules of gas, we reached the apex, the molecules are no longer excited and the balloon is deflating. This anisotropism will never stand.
tim
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)