www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Latin Rite Post-Vatican II

Edit Reason: Stylistic enhancement

Excellent note...

Stuart,

I am probably showing my ignorance (no matter - I do that often enough), but I didn't know that the priest assumed the part of the people in Sung and Solemn Masses. I'm not sure I'm understanding what you mean when you say, "[the choir's] words are not considered to have any efficacy." What do you mean "efficacy"? Unnecessary for the proper celebration of the Mass?

Also, I didn't know the priest took over the Propers. I'm not old enough, not even close, to remember pre-Vatican II Masses, and I'm certainly under no impression that the celebrations of the Traditional Mass nowadays are exact replicas of how they were most often celebrated before the Pauline reforms, but every Sung or Solemn Mass I've ever attended had the Propers chanted by the schola - and the people's parts were chanted by the people.

Lastly, by "five Mass suite" do you mean the Kyrie, Sanctus, etc. at the expense of not chanting the Propers? I'm not too familiar with the term.

As an aside, as I understand it, sometime in the early 20th century hymns were allowed to substitute for the Propers at Low Masses (and only at Low Masses). In this way, it's almost as if an 95% of Novus Ordo Masses could be seen as "Low," since the vast majority of these Masses make use of hymns in lieu of the Propers.

Alexis

Stuart,

I'm not sure if efficacy is the correct term (although I wouldn't be surprised if it was used in this context), but I do recall attending "sung" Masses according to the 1962 missal, in which the priest repeated every liturgical prayer that the choir chanted. I assume this practice was required by the rubrics, and I also assume the reason for this is that somehow the prayers had more value when a priest said them as opposed to laypeople (possibly because laypeople could not be presumed to understand the Latin words they were chanting?).

In this same vein, I once attended a sung TLM at which there were no hymns sung during Communion. When I inquired why this was, the answer was rather interesting:

• since this was not technically a high Mass, the low Mass rubrics had to be followed
• the low Mass rubrics call for the priest to recite the Communion antiphon only after the distribution of Communion
• the choir could not be permitted to chant the Communion antiphon before the priest recited it, and
• since the liturgical (i.e. the Communion antiphon) must always take precedence over the non-liturgical (i.e. a Communion hymn), no Communion hymn could be sung

One more reason why I am happpy to be Byzantine!


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Fr. Dcn. Richard,

Wait, why does that make you happy to be Byzantine? Because you find it to be too rule-oriented?

Why was this Sung Mass not technically a High Mass, I wonder? Basically this was a "Sung Low Mass," then? I thought that was contradictory. If it's chanted, then it's a Missa Cantata, even of the "lowest" form (i.e. without incense, etc.), right? As I understand it, there are two types of "High Mass": one more similar to Low in that it doesn't make use of incense, etc., and the other closer to Solemn Mass, in that it does. Of course I'm not including "Solemn Mass" as "High Mass" here.

Alexis

I have never seen the practice of the priest facing the people as a form of clericalism. It is simply allowed so that the people may follow along more easily with the words and gestures of the celebrant so as to increase active participation of all the faithful.

Also, I do not mean to dispute anyone's claim but how exactly is a mass facing the people an abuse? If this was a practice forbidden by Rome then why was it allowed to be implemented in the first place? Also, I have seen the Pope celebrating mass in this manner many, many times so I assume that he is not only aware of it but also supports it to some extent by his use of it.
If a person does not prefer this practice then that's fine but we should not go as far as to call it an abuse (BTW, I am also completely against this practice being incorporated into any Eastern liturgy since it violates the time honored traditions).

"I have never seen the practice of the priest facing the people as a form of clericalism. It is simply allowed so that the people may follow along more easily with the words and gestures of the celebrant so as to increase active participation of all the faithful."

How, exactly, does having him face the people do this? Do Latin priests habitually mumble? In most Latin parishes I have visited, the priest is miked and, if anything, heavily over-amplified, like the Great and Powerful Oz. So hearing is no problem whether facing East or facing the people. As for having to see what he is doing, we never get to see (in fact, often the Royal Doors are closed, and it does not hinder our full and active participation. That you feel the need to see means, paradoxically, that you think what the priest is doing is of the utmost importance. You have elevated him from celebrant to center of attention. You have clericalized the liturgy by making it about him.

"Also, I do not mean to dispute anyone's claim but how exactly is a mass facing the people an abuse?"

The Tradition of the undivided Church--the oldest stratum of the liturgical tradition, required everyone to face East--the priest, the deacons, the people, everybody. There is mystagogical significance in the action, which is lost when the priest is on the wrong side of the altar facing the wrong way.

"If this was a practice forbidden by Rome then why was it allowed to be implemented in the first place? "

As I said, it is a good question. Lots of things that are abuses become hallowed by custom. As I noted earlier, the very idea of "private Mass" would have horrified the Fathers, but by the Middle Ages, it had become common, and at the time of Trent was considered the normative form. The Fathers would have considered Communion under one species an abuse, but the Fourth Lateran Council, for reasons we today would consider spurious, mandated it for the Latin Church. The Latin Church of the first millennium, like all the apostolic Churches, practiced infant communion, but (for reasons also connected with Lateran IV) it was suppressed in the Latin Church--something else which the Fathers would consider a serious abuse.

It's not a matter of preference, it's a matter of returning to the authentic Tradition of all the Churches.

Under the rules promulgated for the celebration of the Tridentine Rite today, is the low Mass still celebrated at all, or are all such Masses celebrated according to the high form?

I don't believe anything has changed. All the old rubrics still apply.

The celebration of High Mass still requires three sacred ministers: a Priest, a Deacon and a Subdeacon. Unless these are present, it is not possible to celebrate High Mass.

Previously, it would be two other priests who took the role of Deacon and Subdeacon. Now, permanent deacons can of course be Deacon and/or Subdeacon. I also understand that an Instituted Acolyte can function as Subdeacon, since there are no longer any subdeacons in the Latin Church (except in the FSSP [fssp.org] and similar institutes).

The widespread availability of permanent deacons today should make it a little easier than before to find enough sacred ministers for the celebration of High Mass. Therefore, it might be a good idea to train more permanent deacons to assist in the celebration of the Extraordinary Form.

"Previously, it would be two other priests who took the role of Deacon and Subdeacon."

Oh, yeah--I forgot that. It's another liturgical abuse that got hallowed by time. Thankfully, the Latin Church has abandoned it at last. Eastern Catholics used to do it, too, but that was before my time.

So which form is more common in FSSP parishes and chapels? High or low?

At a Solemn Mass or a Sung Mass--the priest was required to recite everything, including the epistle and the gospel as the sub-deacon and deacon sang them, and even if the choir was singing the propers and ordinary. Efficacy is perhaps not a good word, decoration or solemnization of the Mass texts by them being sung by a choir would be a better explanation. The priest is saying the Mass, the choir is not.

But the point is, he is "saying" it, the people are "hearing" it. There is a problem with both concepts.

Alexis,

Even though both Pope Pius X and Pope Pius XII gave their full endorsement to the Liturgical Movement, neither of them saw fit to make an official amendment to the liturgical discipline of the Latin Rite that would give official standing to the "Missa Cantata," that is, a form of the Mass in between the high Mass and the low Mass. Thus, there were never clear guidelines for this form, with the result that some priests considered it a modified high Mass, while others would insist that it was a modified low Mass.

I personally feel that better, more pastorally-oriented guidelines in this area could have done a great deal of good. There was still a void in this area at the time of Vatican II, which is part of the reason why the Liturgical Reform came out the way it did.

Heaven knows, the Byzantine liturgical books are not lacking for rules! However, in my experience, I have not seen them followed so strictly as to have such absurd results.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

I am sorry to have to disappoint you, but this practice is still going strong with regard to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite (here [the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com] for example).

We also see (here [newliturgicalmovement.org] for example) that Pope Benedict XVI has resurrected the practice of having Cardinal Deacons (in mitres and dalmatics) assisting him at solemn liturgical functions.


I don't know specifically about FSSP parishes and chapels. But if you look at the listings [latin-mass-society.org] of the British Latin Mass Society, I think you will find that there are no High Masses that are regularly scheduled on a weekly basis.

Unfortunate, given that the Decree on the Sacred Liturgy called for the suppression of private Mass. On Cardinal Deacons, I believe they really are deacons, not priests. There is nothing that says a Cardinal must be a bishop, or even a priest. The honor has even been extended to laymen on occasion.

Continuation of low Mass creates a conundrum for the Latin Church, insofar as it is a violation of the liturgical principles it holds up as normative.

"I personally feel that better, more pastorally-oriented guidelines in this area could have done a great deal of good. There was still a void in this area at the time of Vatican II, which is part of the reason why the Liturgical Reform came out the way it did."

Considering the magnitude of the change that Vatican II envisaged for the Latin rite, nothing should have been done without at least a decade of intensive catechesis--for the clergy as well as for the laity. Change, when implemented, should have been done with a very light touch indeed, and a transition period of perhaps ten or fifteen years should have been considered in order to avoid the kind of traumatic disruption in the life of the Church that resulted from the sudden promulgation of the new Missal.

On a personal note, my great aunt, who used to go to Mass regularly, never stepped inside a Catholic Church (except for weddings and funerals) after the change to the New Mass. It totally alienated her and left her unengaged. She was mightily impressed with the Divine Liturgy in the Greek Orthodox Church when she attended the baptism of my sister's daughter, shortly before her death. "That's what Mass should be like", was her comment.