Low and high mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter John_Fitzgerald
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

John_Fitzgerald

Guest
My son told me that the Low Mass is obsolete, there is no sich thing. I remember that with limited singing, it was a Low Mass. At a High mass, part of the liturgy (?) was sung by a choir.
Can you redefine the terms ?
Thank you
John Fitzgeraldf
 
In the novus ordo, they’re no longer strictly defined. But the terms may certainly be used.

The problem comes in that there used to be strict rules which basically said that each Mass had to be either entirely sung or entirely recited (and other things, like the number of candles that were lit…). In the ordinary form, there’s more room for mixing the two, so it’s possible to have something that is in between a high and a low Mass. Do we call that a “medium Mass?”
 
When the Mass of Paul VI was being developed the model was the low Mass since that was the more normal experience of Catholics. Technically, a High Mass was always sung while in the Low Mass nothing was sung. There was also a solemn High Mass that required a bishop, priest and deacon.

Deacon Ed
 
When the Mass of Paul VI was being developed the model was the low Mass since that was the more normal experience of Catholics.

Not according to Fr. Zuhlsdorf:

“The paradigm for Holy Mass is not the ‘low Mass’. This is a common mistake. The template is the most solemn form: the bishop’s solemn celebration. Other Masses of decreasing solemnity imitate the ‘higher’ more solemn forms to the extent they can within the bonds of common sense and resources.”
 
I have been in my diocese for over 35 years. When was the last time I experienced a high mass? Never. When was the last time I heard a Gregorian chant at mass? Never. When was the last time I heard a sung litany at mass or in preparation for mass? Never. When was the last time I heard neo-Christian evangelical Protestant music at mass? Last week! Are we Catholics or Protestants? I am a convert of of 50 years and know Protestantism when I see it.
 
When the Mass of Paul VI was being developed the model was the low Mass since that was the more normal experience of Catholics.

Not according to Fr. Zuhlsdorf:

“The paradigm for Holy Mass is not the ‘low Mass’. This is a common mistake. The template is the most solemn form: the bishop’s solemn celebration. Other Masses of decreasing solemnity imitate the ‘higher’ more solemn forms to the extent they can within the bonds of common sense and resources.”
Where is this quote from?

I’m curious because it’s not clear from what Fr. Zuhlsdorf says whether he’s speaking of the ideal Mass (what should be) or the actual working template used back in the early 1960s (an historical event).
 
When the Mass of Paul VI was being developed the model was the low Mass since that was the more normal experience of Catholics.

Not according to Fr. Zuhlsdorf:

“The paradigm for Holy Mass is not the ‘low Mass’. This is a common mistake. The template is the most solemn form: the bishop’s solemn celebration. Other Masses of decreasing solemnity imitate the ‘higher’ more solemn forms to the extent they can within the bonds of common sense and resources.”
I’d like to know the context for this statement. According to the documents from the experts who were working on the Mass they started from the Low Mass. It is certainly true that the Solemn High Mass is the fullest form or the Mass of Pius V, it is also true that most Catholics never experienced this Mass. Rather, they tended to experience the Missa Cantata – s sung High Mass. But even that wasn’t the normal Mass in any given parish. It would be celebrated once on Sunday while the Low Mass would be multiple time on Sunday and all weekday Masses.

My statement was that the low Mass was the “more normal experience of Catholics” and I stand by that claim.

Deacon Ed
 
Thank you all again, I am learning
I would like to add that I am 79 years old and have I was a Reader, Leader and Minister of the Eucharist from the day these were instituted until health reasons forced me to resign. Also I am bloody old fashioned
Sincerely
John Fitzgerald
 
I am not sure if it makes you old fashioned. You probabl feel like I do - the solemnity and holiness - the gravity of what is happening at the mass are not felt as much nowadays- a Latin mass is more appealing than electric guitars and tambourines(which have their places I guess), gum chewing, walking up and down the aisles during the gospel and homily, etc…hang in there!
 
I am not sure if it makes you old fashioned. You probabl feel like I do - the solemnity and holiness - the gravity of what is happening at the mass are not felt as much nowadays- a Latin mass is more appealing than electric guitars and tambourines(which have their places I guess), gum chewing, walking up and down the aisles during the gospel and homily, etc…hang in there!
I am not certain what it means to reply with a quotation. Beside I do not have one.
What I do want to do is say THANK YOU
We are in agreement
John Fitzgerald
 
I am not certain what it means to reply with a quotation. Beside I do not have one.
What I do want to do is say THANK YOU
We are in agreement
John Fitzgerald
John,
It simply means that the particular message you’ve selected will be quoted in your reply (like you see I’ve done here).

Hang in there. The days of experimentation are over (Cardinal Arinze). The days of restoring holiness and reverence are now upon us. There’s a lot of hope in our new priests and seminarians. It will take time, and there will be a lot of “growing pains” but we’re finally moving in the right direction (the one we never should have left).
 
John,

Hang in there. The days of experimentation are over (Cardinal Arinze). The days of restoring holiness and reverence are now upon us. There’s a lot of hope in our new priests and seminarians. It will take time, and there will be a lot of “growing pains” but we’re finally moving in the right direction (the one we never should have left).
I agree with this statement. FrDavid. While I myself have never experienced any of the crazy stuff that so many on these forums write about, I have noticed over the last few years a subtle shift in the reverence at Mass. It’s hard to explain because as I said, I have been spared the irreverence and abuses. It has always been obvious in the parishes that I have attended that it is the Sacrifice of the Mass and not a community meal. Now it seems that the whole atmosphere has changed somehow. Almost like a lifting of the spirit toward a future of hope.
On Pentecost Sunday in 2004, our Bishop launched a five year pastoral plan for the diocese. In this week’s bulletin, is included a letter from him outlining how well the plan has been implemented. He said he is very encouraged at the results thus far in all areas of the renewal, not only the liturgical renewal. One of the goals of the pastoral plans is to evangelize through the clear proclamation of the Gospel and the constant teaching of the Catholic Faith. This goal is surely resulting in great fruit since the number of Catechumens this year throughout the diocese is a record number.
 
The Low Mass, when celebrated well, is beyond description. The silence, the dignity, and the hallowed nature of the liturgical action provokes awe at what’s happening on the altar and demonstrates the profundity of the Sacrifice. Even though it lacks certain elements of a High Mass, it has a virtue all its own; I highly recommend attending.

http://www.tridentine.tv/quiet_mass.gif
 
My son told me that the Low Mass is obsolete, there is no sich thing.
The distinction between Low Mass, Missa Cantata (technically a sung Low Mass) and Solemn High Mass are still very much with us in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, also known as the Tridentine or Traditional Latin Mass.
There was also a solemn High Mass that required a bishop, priest and deacon.
I believe you are thinking of the Pontifical Mass (said by a bishop, not just the Pope). A Solemn High Mass requires only a priest, deacon and sub-deacon.
 
According the the Catholic Encyclopedia at the back of my Bible which was published in 1952 there were four distinct types of Mass.
  1. Pontifical Mass is celebrated solemnly by a bishop assisted by a priest, a deacon [or deacons], and a sub-deacon. From the Introit to the Offertory the celebrant remains at his throne, and at the end of Mass he says the Last Gospel while returning to his throne or to the vestry.
  2. *Solemn Mass *is sung by a priest assisted by a deacon and sub-deacon, acolytes and a choir. Incense is used after the introductory prayers and before the Lavabo.
  3. Sung Mass or Missa Cantata [commonly called high Mass in the United States] is sung by the priest with the assistance of a choir, but without deacon and sub-deacon. Incense is not used except by special indult.
  4. Low Mass is celebrated without music, the entire Mass being said by the priest instead of being sung. Servers or altar boys are the only assistants.
It is interesting to note that the use of incense was not the universal norm but required a special indult.

I fail to understand how some can say that the same four types of Mass are not celebrated in the OF of the Mass. The first three are celebrated every Sunday at our Cathedral when the Bishop is not visiting another parish in the diocese. It is very obvious what type of Mass is being celebrated. The same in my regular parish. The early Mass on Sunday is most definitely a Low Mass while the later one is a Miss Cantata. Whether said in Latin or in the vernacular, they are still the same types of Mass.
 
I fail to understand how some can say that the same four types of Mass are not celebrated in the OF of the Mass. The first three are celebrated every Sunday at our Cathedral when the Bishop is not visiting another parish in the diocese. It is very obvious what type of Mass is being celebrated. The same in my regular parish. The early Mass on Sunday is most definitely a Low Mass while the later one is a Miss Cantata. Whether said in Latin or in the vernacular, they are still the same types of Mass.
I think what people usually mean is that the precise categories are not defined.

For example in a Sung Mass (cantata), the priest HAD to sing whatever had to be sung. In a Low Mass he could not sing, period. You could not have a Solemn High Mass without 3 sacred ministers. And so forth. .

Whereas, in the OF/NO/Mass of Paul VI/etc., there is great freedom to sing one part of the Mass and not another, to use incense or not, how many ministers will be present- generally a much free-er hand when it comes to the matters of ceremonial.
 
According the the Catholic Encyclopedia at the back of my Bible which was published in 1952 there were four distinct types of Mass.
  1. Pontifical Mass is celebrated solemnly by a bishop assisted by a priest, a deacon [or deacons], and a sub-deacon. From the Introit to the Offertory the celebrant remains at his throne, and at the end of Mass he says the Last Gospel while returning to his throne or to the vestry.
  2. *Solemn Mass *is sung by a priest assisted by a deacon and sub-deacon, acolytes and a choir. Incense is used after the introductory prayers and before the Lavabo.
  3. Sung Mass or Missa Cantata [commonly called high Mass in the United States] is sung by the priest with the assistance of a choir, but without deacon and sub-deacon. Incense is not used except by special indult.
  4. Low Mass is celebrated without music, the entire Mass being said by the priest instead of being sung. Servers or altar boys are the only assistants.
It is interesting to note that the use of incense was not the universal norm but required a special indult.

I fail to understand how some can say that the same four types of Mass are not celebrated in the OF of the Mass. The first three are celebrated every Sunday at our Cathedral when the Bishop is not visiting another parish in the diocese. It is very obvious what type of Mass is being celebrated. The same in my regular parish. The early Mass on Sunday is most definitely a Low Mass while the later one is a Miss Cantata. Whether said in Latin or in the vernacular, they are still the same types of Mass.
 
According the the Catholic Encyclopedia at the back of my Bible which was published in 1952 there were four distinct types of Mass.
  1. Pontifical Mass is celebrated solemnly by a bishop assisted by a priest, a deacon [or deacons], and a sub-deacon. From the Introit to the Offertory the celebrant remains at his throne, and at the end of Mass he says the Last Gospel while returning to his throne or to the vestry.
  2. *Solemn Mass *is sung by a priest assisted by a deacon and sub-deacon, acolytes and a choir. Incense is used after the introductory prayers and before the Lavabo.
  3. Sung Mass or Missa Cantata [commonly called high Mass in the United States] is sung by the priest with the assistance of a choir, but without deacon and sub-deacon. Incense is not used except by special indult.
  4. Low Mass is celebrated without music, the entire Mass being said by the priest instead of being sung. Servers or altar boys are the only assistants.
It is interesting to note that the use of incense was not the universal norm but required a special indult.

I fail to understand how some can say that the same four types of Mass are not celebrated in the OF of the Mass. The first three are celebrated every Sunday at our Cathedral when the Bishop is not visiting another parish in the diocese. It is very obvious what type of Mass is being celebrated. The same in my regular parish. The early Mass on Sunday is most definitely a Low Mass while the later one is a Miss Cantata. Whether said in Latin or in the vernacular, they are still the same types of Mass.
I wish to thank all of you , you have taken the time to help me with my enquiery… I am thankful for it
John Fitzgerald
 
I am grateful to all the persons who have taken the time to help me with my enquiery.Thank you
John Fitzgerald
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top