We no longer use “High Mass” and “Low Mass” in the Ordinary Form, rather, we use the principle of “progressive solemnity” wherein different and varying parts are sung and ceremonies increased (e.g. number of candles, use of incense) according to the importance of the celebration.The terminology was either dropped or faded away, but don’t we still, in substance, retain this distinction? Wouldn’t a typical Sunday Mass be aptly called High Mass and a typical weekday Mass be no less aptly called Low Mass? And if so, why not retain that terminology?
While it does not apply to the OF (aka Novus Ordo), the terminology was not dropped nor did it fade away. It’s still alive and well in the EF where it continues to have meaning.The terminology was either dropped or faded away, but don’t we still, in substance, retain this distinction? Wouldn’t a typical Sunday Mass be aptly called High Mass and a typical weekday Mass be no less aptly called Low Mass? And if so, why not retain that terminology?
Right, I understand. But isn’t it still fundamentally accurate to say that we have a full-scale Mass, as on a Sunday, where the liturgy follows the GIRM’s prescription, and then we have a daily Mass where various parts of the liturgy or its adornments are omitted? And isn’t that so regardless of the many internal gradations that could be found in either—whether or not incense is used, whether various parts (Sanctus, Our Father, etc.) are sung or spoken, and so on?We no longer use “High Mass” and “Low Mass” in the Ordinary Form, rather, we use the principle of “progressive solemnity” wherein different and varying parts are sung and ceremonies increased (e.g. number of candles, use of incense) according to the importance of the celebration.
Moreover, a deacon can be used at any Mass whatsoever in the Ordinary Form regardless of solemnity.
It is not. It never has been, since as accurately pointed out by a poster, even in the older rite, a Sunday Mass could be Low Mass. In the older rite, the High Mass was clearly distinguished from a Low Mass:Right, I understand. But isn’t it still fundamentally accurate to say that we have a full-scale Mass, as on a Sunday, where the liturgy follows the GIRM’s prescription, and then we have a daily Mass where various parts of the liturgy or its adornments are omitted? And isn’t that so regardless of the many internal gradations that could be found in either—whether or not incense is used, whether various parts (Sanctus, Our Father, etc.) are sung or spoken, and so on?
And to the extent that that is so, isn’t it helpful to have a vocabulary that can express that basic structural difference?
And if it is, since “weekday” vs. “weekend” just won’t cut it, isn’t the high Mass / low Mass terminology well-adapted to that office?
That particular rule was abrogated in full in 1958 (I think that was the year). Prior to that time, the use of incense at a missa cantata required the permission of the local Ordinary (which was, as correctly noted, routinely granted, often on a “standing” basis). After that time, the use of incense at a missa cantata no longer required an indult.Midway between these two is the Sung Mass, commonly called High Mass: same as the Solemn High Mass but without the deacon and subdeacon. Incense is used by permission, now generally given.
Right, that’s exactly what I mean in saying that weekend Mass / weekday Mass won’t suffice. You can’t call the more stripped-down version a weekday Mass because there’s nothing to say they can’t be celebrated on weekends. So you need some other terminology. Perhaps a term freighted with the implication that this Mass has few or no parts sung, no incense or deacon, two candles on the altar… Wait…as accurately pointed out by a poster, even in the older rite, a Sunday Mass could be Low Mass.
Oh yeah.In the older rite, the High Mass was clearly distinguished from a Low Mass … Low Mass [has]: no parts sung, no incense, two candles on the altar, no incense, no deacon and subdeacon.
I’m not suggesting a legal definition, just trying to establish if a terminology that has been largely abandoned might profitably be revived to describe two different kinds of Masses to which, mutatis mutandis, they bear some natural application. Isn’t refurbishing and redeploying a familiar old lexicon better than a (predictably ghastly) neologism?In the modern rite, this strictness was dropped, and Masses could be “mix-and-match” so to speak. Since we now use the principle of progressive solemnity, it’s not accurate to say “High Mass” and “Low Mass”. More appropriate might be the terms “solemn Mass”, “sung Mass” and “spoken Mass”, but these will by no means be de jure terms as were the older “High Mass” and “Low Mass” monickers.
Well, if it’s any consolation, my own Ordinary Form rector of a few years ago still used “High Mass” and “Low Mass” depending in whether he sang the Mass parts, so I suppose they could be used de facto.Right, that’s exactly what I mean in saying that weekend Mass / weekday Mass won’t suffice. You can’t call the more stripped-down version a weekday Mass because there’s nothing to say they can’t be celebrated on weekends. So you need some other terminology. Perhaps a term freighted with the implication that this Mass has few or no parts sung, no incense or deacon, two candles on the altar… Wait…
Oh yeah.
I’m not suggesting a legal definition, just trying to establish if a terminology that has been largely abandoned might profitably be revived to describe two different kinds of Masses to which, mutatis mutandis, they bear some natural application. Isn’t refurbishing and redeploying a familiar old lexicon better than a (predictably ghastly) neologism?
Growing up in the late 50’s and 60’s, the thing I remember was High Mass cost $5 and a Low Mass could be said for a couple of dollars. I suppose to higher amount to cover incense and extra candles. Nuns played the organ for free and there was no such thing as a paid choir section leader in those days.Well, if it’s any consolation, my own Ordinary Form rector of a few years ago still used “High Mass” and “Low Mass” depending in whether he sang the Mass parts, so I suppose they could be used de facto.
But in the Missal of 1962, the priest could celebrate the Low Mass on a weekday or a Sunday, but in the current Ordinary Form, the Mass celebrated on Sunday, even when there are no smells and bells, and every licit option is excluded, is still distinct from the Mass on a weekday. So these days, “weekday Mass” and “Sunday Mass” work just fine.Right, that’s exactly what I mean in saying that weekend Mass / weekday Mass won’t suffice. You can’t call the more stripped-down version a weekday Mass because there’s nothing to say they can’t be celebrated on weekends.
That’s right, and this only further shows that “High” and “Low” Masses don’t exist in the OF, but what you describe is an example of progressive solemnity. A weekday Mass quite commonly can have a choir, so the Ordinary can be sung, but during weekdays, the priest will normally only recite the Propers and Preface. This isn’t like the older Low Mass because the Low Mass had no singing whatsoever.A Solemn Mass (high) is sung with Deacons/Ministers assisting
A Sung Mass is sung without Deacons/Ministers
A Recited (low) mas is spoken not sung
In the OF there doesn’t seem to be a distinction. There are just various options you can pick and choose from.
Unless an OF Mass was sung (most especially the dialogue between the Priest and people) with the bells and smells, I don’t know I’d call it a High Mass or even a Sung Mass.
Most of the OF Mass’ I’ve been to are like a Low Mass with vernacular hymns (not as good hymns though imho) though the Sanctus and Agnus Dei get sung and sometimes the Gloria.
Just to note, there is, of course, no reason why a weekday Mass in the EF could not also be “High Mass” and have a choir, etc.A weekday Mass quite commonly can have a choir, so the Ordinary can be sung, but during weekdays, the priest will normally only recite the Propers and Preface. This isn’t like the older Low Mass because the Low Mass had no singing whatsoever.