T
traditional_1
Guest
Are altar servers an absolute necessity in the EF Low Mass?
- Status
E
edward_george1
Guest
No, I offer them privately all the time.
-Fr ACEGC
-Fr ACEGC
M
Maximilian75
Guest
No, but I believe that they’re preferred, especially for making the responses throughout Mass.
O
OmnesBonum
Guest
There are a certain number required for each form of the EF, however private mass can be done with only one server or layperson to respond, or even no one if needed.
Last edited:
G
Gabika50
Guest
All masses are high; there is no one lower than the other
M
Maximilian75
Guest
How do you mean?
D
dshix
Guest
An amusing comment.
Doesn’t sound like you’re familiar with the different levels of solemnity with which the Extraordinary Form of the mass can be offered.
G
Gabika50
Guest
Tha would imply that one form of mass is better than the other; ie “more solemn” whihc is rather subjective.
D
dshix
Guest
What is the problem with observing the fact that some forms of the mass are more solemn than others?
I’m always puzzled by this cultural notion that it is somehow offensive or wrong to observe the excellence of one thing in comparison to another. “All people are equal.” Actually, no, we come with all sorts of different characteristics: tall, short, sanguine, phlegmatic, intelligent, simple. We are not equal in all of our attributes, but we are equal in the sense that we share the same human nature, and the same dignity which comes from the fact that we were made in the image and likeness of God.
In the same way, different forms of the mass have different attributes, and some of them can certainly be said to be more conducive to prayer or more uplifting to the soul, in general. Recognizing the excellence of something does not mean one is denigrating something else, or denigrating the people who may like something else.
I’m always puzzled by this cultural notion that it is somehow offensive or wrong to observe the excellence of one thing in comparison to another. “All people are equal.” Actually, no, we come with all sorts of different characteristics: tall, short, sanguine, phlegmatic, intelligent, simple. We are not equal in all of our attributes, but we are equal in the sense that we share the same human nature, and the same dignity which comes from the fact that we were made in the image and likeness of God.
In the same way, different forms of the mass have different attributes, and some of them can certainly be said to be more conducive to prayer or more uplifting to the soul, in general. Recognizing the excellence of something does not mean one is denigrating something else, or denigrating the people who may like something else.
Last edited:
E
edward_george1
Guest
Actually, it’s not a value judgment, it’s just the terminology that was always used for the older form of the Mass.
Solemn Mass, or High Mass: Priest, deacon, subdeacon, mostly chanted, incense used.
Low Mass: Priest only, all recited. Very simple.
In between was the Missa Cantata, which was basically Low Mass with singing, plus incense.
It’s not to imply that one Mass is better than another, simply that there are varying degrees of ceremony used.
-Fr ACEGC
Solemn Mass, or High Mass: Priest, deacon, subdeacon, mostly chanted, incense used.
Low Mass: Priest only, all recited. Very simple.
In between was the Missa Cantata, which was basically Low Mass with singing, plus incense.
It’s not to imply that one Mass is better than another, simply that there are varying degrees of ceremony used.
-Fr ACEGC
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Actually to be precise- some masses are “higher” and “more solemn” than the others; Pontifical Masses (Masses with Bishop(s)) are considered to be highest and most true form of Mass, because they reflect fullness of Church in her ministry. It is literally true form of Mass. It does not mean sacrifice differs in any way from other Masses, but in what they reflect.
However thing discussed there is terminology. “Solemn” Mass is “solemn” because of ceremony being more “solemn”.
However thing discussed there is terminology. “Solemn” Mass is “solemn” because of ceremony being more “solemn”.
G
Gabika50
Guest
If it is the priest only, a more proper phrase would be missa sine populo.
E
edward_george1
Guest
That’s not at all what I’m talking about.
If it is only a priest offering Mass with no singing in front of a congregation, this obviously wouldn’t be a “Missa sine populo,” since that means “Mass without people.”
If it is only a priest offering Mass with no singing in front of a congregation, this obviously wouldn’t be a “Missa sine populo,” since that means “Mass without people.”
Last edited:
G
Gabika50
Guest
Okay, Missa sine musica…
E
edward_george1
Guest
Actually, it was called a “Missa Lecta” in Latin, a “Read Mass.” But in English we commonly call it Low Mass.
E
edward_george1
Guest
How many are in your parish? How long have you been a priest?
Last edited:
G
Gabika50
Guest
24 years, in the military and it varies from base to base. How about yourself? The largest denomination on paper in the service is listed as “non-denominational” followed by Baptists and in thrid place are Catholics. The last of which have only 25% at the most attend Mass.
Last edited:
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
I believe that there was a code in Canon Law (maybe the 1917) which required a server to respond to the prayers of the Priest. But the absence of a server would not prohibit the offering of a Mass. In the case of an absence of servers, the faithful may also make the responses.
- Status