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

Or not "hearing" it as the case maybe, since most of it was read silently or to the priest's self, or was covered over by a choir singing something. But I agree with you.

As beautiful as a Solemn Mass (1962) is to watch, unless you have something to follow for reading the prayers to yourself, all you can do is watch. And then if your nose is in a book reading everything that is going on at the altar, you don't see what is going on. It's devotional gymnastics.

"As beautiful as a Solemn Mass (1962) is to watch, unless you have something to follow for reading the prayers to yourself, all you can do is watch. And then if your nose is in a book reading everything that is going on at the altar, you don't see what is going on. It's devotional gymnastics."

People don't realize that having a bi-lingual missal in the pews represented something of an innovation in itself, one strongly resisted when first suggested. So prior to the early 20th century, either you knew Latin and could follow that way, or you were totally confounded. Which is why people usually spent their time during Mass silently reciting the Rosary or engaged in other private devotions. There were really two different things going on--one involving the priest, the other involving the laity--until it was time to receive communion. Having done so, the people returned to the pews and picked up their personal devotions once more. This was one of the major targets of Sacrosanctum concilium.

I wish I had more time to comment, and I will later, but for now, this is my experience of attending places celebrating the Traditional Mass, and the result of much reading on the subject of contemporary Traditional Masses.

High Masses are very common, and I think Stuart and others would be happy to know that in the Traditional movement of the Latin Rite, the idea of the High Mass as being the missa normativa is strongly put forth. While Low Masses do occur, I've generally found that all/most of the Traditional orders, societies, fraternities, etc. are very, very strongly in support of High Mass. That's definitely the way it is at the local FSSP parish.

Now, I think in the post-Summorum Pontificum world of the last two years, this has changed slightly. Before SP, the vast majority of priests celebrating the "TLM" were priests from Traditional societies and fraternities, having received their entire priestly formation in the Traditional Rite, and so very familiar with all forms of Mass. Post-SP, numerous priests who have not previously learned the TLM are now learning it, thanks to "workshops," and weekend get-aways hosted by Traditional fraternities and societies in order to teach the newcomers the beauties of the Traditional Rites. These priests mostly learn the Low Mass first, as it is a good deal simpler than High and Solemn Mass. So at this time, the percentage of Low Mass-to-High Mass may have increased, for the time being, until these priests can manage to learn the more complicated High Mass (which many are eager to do, and which these workshops teach).

I think that THIS is perhaps an unintended and mercifully God-sent result of the Pauline reform disasters: the true beauty of Latin Rite liturgy has become ever more prized and cherished, because it was so forcefully cast aside in favor of the New Rites. Now, priests have to seek it out; it's not the norm that it was pre-1965/1969. Therefore, where it is celebrated, greater attention is paid to the normative nature of High Mass and to the beauty of the Mass in general than was often the case in the decades leading up to Vatican II.

Stuart,

Although in practice, Low Mass was perhaps considered the norm in some places (and you say by Trent - really?! I hope not...), but officially the Solemn Mass has always been the norm in the Latin Rite. But, in terms of that translating into reality, I agree with you that that may've been hard to see in a pre-Vatican II world. But I don't think we should fall under the impression that, even at that time, the majority of parishes were not offering High Mass on a weekly and holy day basis. I think that still was true, but is much truer now of the Traditional movement than at that time.

And that's my little opinion of the Novus Ordo reforms: they do and will serve a purpose, to reorient the Latin Rite to the beauty and mystery of its Tradition. Ironic, isn't it?

Alexis

Stuart,

Even though the rubrics for low Mass were clearly intended for use as a private Mass, the fact remains that low Mass was the de facto norm for parochial Masses for some 800 years. Thus, to equate the two is not exactly correct.

To my knowledge, relatively few "low" Masses being celebrated at this time follow all the old prescriptions, such as no chanting or singing of any part of the liturgy, the priest to recite all prayers sotto voce ("so as not to disturb the priest celebrating at the next altar"), etc. So, they are not "low Masses" in the strict sense.

Then again, there's the problem that some priests will use the term "high" Mass for a sung Mass with incense, while others will consider anything without "deacon" and "sub-deacon" to be a low Mass.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

I am afraid that this is not true. I would like to refer you to 1984CIC can. 351 §1 [vatican.va]:


Therefore, all Cardinals today are Bishops, unless they have been dispensed by the Pope from this canon. Examples of priests who have been made Cardinals and have been dispensed from the obligation to receive episcopal ordination are Urbano Cardinal Navarrete Cortés, S.J. [catholic-hierarchy.org], Tomáš Cardinal Špidlík, S.J. [catholic-hierarchy.org], Roberto Cardinal Tucci, S.J. [catholic-hierarchy.org], and Albert Cardinal Vanhoye, S.J. [catholic-hierarchy.org], all of whom are Jesuits and all of whom were over 80 (or very close to 80 in the case of Cardinal Tucci) when they were made Cardinals.

In the ancient rite (now extraordinary form) the kinds of Masses are three:
- "said" Mass (= 2 candles on the altar)
- "sung" Mass (= 4 candles on the altar -sometimes also 6 were used)
- "solemn" Mass (= 6 candles on the altar - 7 candles only if it was a pontifical Mass or a Mass for Ordination )

The Sung Mass can be of two types: "more Missa Lecta" (with one or two not-clerical helpers), and "more Cappellanorum" (with one or two clerical helpers): no deacons / subdeacon are strictly needed.

In the sung Mass are allowed the same incensations of the Solemn Mass. In this kind of Mass the Epistle can be read or sung by a cleric (with a alb), never by a nun.

By the way, as far as I know, also in the "said" Mass when it is celebrated with the help of a acolyte (altarboy), the answers of the acolyte are not repeated by the celebrant. In other words it was the acolyte who said all the parts of the faithfuls. To act as an acolyte was thus quit difficult: all the answers should be known by hearts. Now in all the extraordinary-form Masses I went all the answers are said aloud by the faithfuls.

I think Avery Cardinal Dulles was, likewise, simply a priest and never a bishop.

Alexis

It seems that there were Cardinals who were just deacons up to 1916, when the canons of the Latin Church required that a cardinal be ordained at least to the presbyterate. In all likelihood, the raising of deacons to the the Cardinalate must have been falling into desuetude by then, but up to the Renaissance, at least, they were prominent figures, particularly the Archdeacon of Rome, who, as the Pope's closest confidante, often had the inside track to Peter's throne. It seems remarkable today, but there was a time when the Pope was first and foremost the Bishop of Rome, selected from among the clergy of the Metropolitan Province of Rome--and frequently raised up from the diaconate.

That said, it never ceases to amaze me how the Holy See exempts itself from the rules it mandates for everyone else--in this case, the use of ordained presbyters as deacons.

A little more research indicates that the last layman to wear the red hat died around 1899. Since that time, all Cardinals have at least been ordained to the presbyterate.

Cardinal Teodolfo Mertel died as an ordained Deacon in 1899. He was ordained the following day after the Consistory that made him a Cardinal. He was the last Cardinal who was not at least a priest.

antv,

You've got some interesting stuff here. Perhaps some of our RC members, who know more about these things than I, can respond. I have to confess, though, that some of these statements seem to conflict with my understanding of "high" and "low" Masses.


When I was trained as a Latin Rite altar server, that was the way--the priest did not repeat any of the words we said. However, at TLMs I have attended more recently, the priest did say the entire prayer, "Domine, non sum dignus ..." three times along with the people. I still don't know why that is.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Very interesting indeed! Thanks for finding this information.

ALEXIS:

I think I've read that Cardinal Dulles was ordained to the episcopate.

BOB

Not according to Catholic-hierarchy.org: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bdulles.html

And not according to Annuario Pontificio 2006 which I have in front of me now.

All of the obituaries for Avery Cardinal Dulles stressed that he was one of the few priests honored with a red hat.