Low Mass vs. High Mass

[Catholic777]

I think that really is confusing the lay/clerical distinction.

The Introit is a Proper, and is proper to the choir of clerics.

Of course, I'm all for opening at least the minor orders to men from the parish, married men even (as was allowed in the minor orders until the 1700s). So we could have truly ordained Acolytes serving (instead of lay "boys") and have a truly first-tonsured choir of clerics as the choir instead of the lay-substitutes you often get.

Perhaps though, if Psalm verses were reintroduced to the propers, which I support...then the laity could sing the antiphon (after the choir had sang it once) and then the choir would sing the verses while the congregation repeated the antiphon in between.

[Catholicmilkman]

I think that really is confusing the lay/clerical distinction.

The Introit is a Proper, and is proper to the choir of clerics.

Not in the East. That's traditional in the East I believe.

Of course, I'm all for opening at least the minor orders to men from the parish, married men even (as was allowed in the minor orders until the 1700s). So we could have truly ordained Acolytes serving (instead of lay "boys") and have a truly first-tonsured choir of clerics as the choir instead of the lay-substitutes you often get.

Oh, I so love this idea of tradition.

[Catholicmilkman]

And the Rosary has been just fine at Mass for generations. The Church thrived with our great grandparents and great great grandparents saying Rosaries at Mass. How come it's not good enough to be said at Mass anymore? I have a problem with this issue.

Is the Mass all about our following along perfectly, is the Mass dependent on our following along intellectually or do we receive graces due to the condition of our hearts and souls? Where does this put people who can't read a missal? What about them?

No one is saying it is necessary, not even to receive the infinite grace of Christ's holy Sacrifice. But we're talking about the ideal. If someone can't read then why not a chance to teach him (act of mercy). I would love it had that the words of the Mass been the first words I learned to read.

[Catholicmilkman]

That's the way I think about it and why I personal believe the "Low Mass" ought to be abolished for the most part or used only by indult for certain circumstances.

The Low Mass is meant to be a private Mass.  I believe all priests need to celebrate Mass once a day.  In parishes with more than one priest, it would be impractical for them all to each have their own High Mass.  Also, the length of the Mass does become an issue.  Our Sunday High Mass usually takes 1 hour and 15+ minutes, while Low Mass is just over 30.  If the weekday Masses were over an hour, I know myself and others wouldn't be able to attend regularly.

Assumption Grotto Parish, where I go for Daily Tridentine Mass sometimes, has two Missa Cantata's back-to-back almost everyday and always for Fr. Perrone's 7:30am tridentine Mass. Every Parish ought to pray Missa Cantata's everyday which is like a "Low" Mass but sung. This Parish has THREE PRIESTS (and a Holy Ghost Father, I believe) and they make it happen so why can't every other Parish? This is how we will restore the Church to Her glory.

[Robb]

Yes, the NO mass is all noise and mischief to my ears.  many a time I have tried ti pray there and have found it hard to the horrendous music and communal interaction.  On top of that many NO parishes have begun to try and force people to sing along with the horrible hymns, even during communion time. 

I agree that we should participate in mass by following along as best as possible. But people can follow along in their own way and meditate on the mass and its meaning by praying the rosary or another devotion as an act of union with the priest and his intentions.  I actually prefer the high mass, especially solemn high mass to the low.  However, just as its not my right to force a preference of mine on other so it is also not right to force our own devotional habits on those whom they might not gel well with. 

[Jacafamala]

Yes, the NO mass is all noise and mischief to my ears.  many a time I have tried ti pray there and have found it hard to the horrendous music and communal interaction.  On top of that many NO parishes have begun to try and force people to sing along with the horrible hymns, even during communion time.  I agree that we should participate in mass by following along as best as possible. But people can follow along in their own way and meditate on the mass and its meaning by praying the rosary or another devotion as an act of union with the priest and his intentions.  I actually prefer the high mass, especially solemn high mass to the low.  However, just as its not my right to force a preference of mine on other so it is also not right to force our own devotional habits on those whom they might not gel well with. 

Ok, a disclaimer: I don't pray the Rosary at the Mass. I read along with the prayers in my missal, whether I'm at the EF or the OF. But I can sympathize with the people who would, for various reasons find this an edifying practice.

The topic of praying the Rosary at Mass came up at another forum I visit. David, the moderator posted this:

 Marialis Cultus #48:
it is not difficult to understand that the Rosary is an exercise of piety that draws its motivating force from the liturgy and leads naturally back to it, if practiced in conformity with its original inspiration.; It does not, however, become part of the liturgy. In fact, meditation on the mysteries of the Rosary, by familiaring the hearts and minds of the faithful with the mysteries of Christ, can be an excellent preparation for the creation of those same mysteries in the liturgical action and an also become a continuing echo thereof. However, it is a mistake to recite the Rosary during the celebration of the liturgy, though unfortunately this practice still persists here and there.
Sacrosanctum Concilium #13:
13. Popular devotions of the Christian people are to be highly commended, provided they accord with the laws and norms of the Church, above all when they are ordered by the Apostolic See.

So clearly, Paul VI says, "No Rosary at Mass." So, that's how it is. Who am I to argue over this with the Pope?

Still in all I can't get past the fact that people had been doing this (praying the Rosary at the Mass), for centuries. And it's as you say, Robb, they pray the Rosary not in order to block the Mass out, but rather to unite their prayers to the Mass.  So, I wonder if this "Marilis Cultus #48" could ever be nullified by a future Pope. It's not a defined doctrine, or is it?

[Catholic777]

Not in the East. That's traditional in the East I believe.

The East is an entirely different matter. An entirely different set of liturgies with entirely different sets of rules and presumptions.

In the West, the Introit is one of the things reserved to the choir of clerics.

[Catholicmilkman]

Not in the East. That's traditional in the East I believe.

The East is an entirely different matter. An entirely different set of liturgies with entirely different sets of rules and presumptions.

In the West, the Introit is one of the things reserved to the choir of clerics.

Both they should unify these things or bring a little closer in uniformity. I can't believe the Apostles did things so differently from one another and yet they are where we receive our ecclesiastical traditions. We don't have to do exactly the same thing but this is odd and radical difference. Other the East should stop the laity or the West should have the laity sing the Propers. Somewhere and at sometime in Church history we both must have done the Mass the same general way with our little particular differences from culture. I want to know what the Apostles has their faithful do and that it what we ought to do.

[DrBombay]

I prefer low Mass because it's quicker.  I keep hearing about the legendary 12 minute low Masses from back in the day.  I'd attend Mass everyday if it was one of those.

Well, ok, no I wouldn't.  But I'd love a 12 minute Mass every Sunday.

I never know if you're joking or not, Doc. It's hard to tell sometimes.

Should be noted however, that most liturgical writers say that if a priest says Mass in less than 20 minutes he commits a grave sin of sacrilege.

While I might agree in principle, I don't think the Church herself has put a time minimum on Mass, saying that it must be at least this long.  And we all know that we can't be more Catholic than the Church.  Or can we??

Just for fun one time, I timed a NO Mass using the altar missal.  I used Penitential Rite B, EP II and added an additional 7 minutes to account for the homily, Prayers of the Faithful, distribution of Communion and moving hither and yon within the sanctuary.  I read it in what I considered to be a very reverent and slow voice.  14 minutes 38 seconds. 

Of course, it was just an academic exercise since I wouldn't use EP II on a dare.  Unless I had some sort of stomach issue.  I think God would understand a bit of haste in such a situation. 

And it's generally a good idea not to take anything I say seriously.  I'm something of a buffoon. 

[Catholic777]

Both they should unify these things or bring a little closer in uniformity. I can't believe the Apostles did things so differently from one another and yet they are where we receive our ecclesiastical traditions.

It is a pious but ultimately fanciful and naive notion that the traditions (lower-case t) come directly from the Apostles in any substantial sense, especially in any particular detail.

In fact, the Introit itself is known to have been invented at a certain date centuries later, though likely developed from the singing of psalms in the synagogue.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1917), says:

The "Liber Pontificalis" ascribes this antiphonal chant at the Introit to Pope Celestine I (422-32): "He ordered that the  psalms of David be sung  antiphonally [antiphonatim, by two choirs alternately]  by all before the Sacrifice, which  was not done before; but only the epistle of St.  Paul was read and the holy Gospel"  (ed. Duchesne, I, Paris,  1886, 230). The text seems even to attribute the use of the  Introit-psalm in any form to this pope. Medieval  writers take this idea from the "Liber Pontificalis", e.g. Honorius of Autun, "Gemma animæ" (in P. L., CLXXII): "Pope Celestine ordered psalms to be sung at the entrance (ad introitum) of the Mass. Pope Gregory afterwards  composed antiphons in  modulation for the entrance of the Mass"  (I, lxxxvii). Probst thought that Gelasius I (492-96) invented the Introit (Die abendländische Messe vom 5 bis zum 8 Jahrhundert, Münster, 1896, 36).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08081a.htm

We don't have to do exactly the same thing but this is odd and radical difference.

"odd" and "radical"?!?! lol. It is an extremely minor difference considering how different the liturgies as a whole are.

In fact, a bigger difference is certainly that the East doesnt have an Introit at all!

Again, Catholic Encyclopedia says, in its article on the Introit:

There is nothing corresponding to our Introit in the Eastern rites. In all of them the liturgy begins  quite differently. The preparation (vesting, preparation of the  offerings) takes place in the sanctuary, so there is no procession to the altar.

Either the East should stop the laity or the West should have the laity sing the Propers.

No, there is no need for this sort of monolithism of tradition. There is a diversity of Rites and a diversity of traditions in the Church

Somewhere and at sometime in Church history we both must have done the Mass the same general way with our little particular differences from culture.

Not really. The differences between different liturgies are hardly "little" and except for perhaps the first few decades when the apostles were still alive...they have always been said very differently.

I want to know what the Apostles has their faithful do and that it what we ought to do.

There was no concept of "Propers" in that sense for the Apostles, certainly not the "Introit" in particular, and no choir of clerics yet existed. Only the distinction between priest and laity at the beginning.

Also, no there is no need to take archaeologism as the paradigm.