Low Mass is NOT the standard

[Cluny]

From Fr. Zhulsdorf’s blog:

“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.”

What do you all think? I agree with him.

 

[The_Prodigal]

I can’t speak to the truth of the statement; however I much prefer the sung EF Mass. Fortunately for me, so does my pastor, so the Mass is sung every Sunday at our parish.

It is my understanding that before the changes of the 1960’s, it was much more common for Mass to be spoken, and the sung Mass was said infrequently. Perhaps this statistical observation led to the misunderstanding among the faithful that the sung Mass was only proper for special feasts, and that the more common spoken Mass was the ‘norm’?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. .

It is my understanding that before the changes of the 1960’s, it was much more common for Mass to be spoken, and the sung Mass was said infrequently. Perhaps this statistical observation led to the misunderstanding among the faithful that the sung Mass was only proper for special feasts, and that the more common spoken Mass was the ‘norm’?

I was there, and that was my experience. I was in college before I ever experienced a Solemn High Mass [with deacon and sub-deacon] and those were all requiems. The first [only] time I attended one that was other than a requiem was my wedding - my wife is a church musician and one of her uncles and two of her cousins are priests - so we did it our way.

 

[JuanCarlos]

From Fr. Zhulsdorf’s blog:

“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.”

What do you all think? I agree with him.

I do too.

 

[lak611]

When my parents were growing up during the 1940s, they only went to High Mass if they were singing in the choir, as the school children were required to do. Otherwise, my grandparents took them to Low Mass. My grandparents and parents preferred the Low Mass, since it was shorter. Low Masses were much more frequent in their parishes back then.

 

[malphono]

From Fr. Zhulsdorf’s blog:

“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.”

What do you all think? I agree with him.

Of course I do too. That is exactly what was taught to me so very many years ago.

 

[Ace86]

This is correct, the Low Mass is more like an abbreviated form of the Solemn High Mass.

 

[Chatter163]

Solemn Masses may have been infrequent in many locales, but Sung Masses were celebrated at least once every Sunday. Granted, they were outnumbered by Low Masses, but I would not call them infrequent.

 

[drforjc]

This is correct, the Low Mass is more like an abbreviated form of the Solemn High Mass.

Fr. Adrian Fortescue makes this very point in his classic book, The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy .

Of course he is speaking historically about the development of Low Mass, not about the relative frequency with which each type occurred in parish settings in his own day; nonetheless, his point stands, as you rightly note.

 

[DavidPalm]

What do you all think? I agree with him.

Yup, I agree. The priests of the ICRSS definitely understand this and try to make sure that their Sunday Masses, at least, are sung High Masses whenever possible. And I think this is every important for the traditionalist movement at large, since the sung High Mass is, IMO, much more inviting and accessible to your average “never been to a Latin Masser” than the Low Mass.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

This is correct, the Low Mass is more like an abbreviated form of the Solemn High Mass.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

This high Mass is the norm; it is only in the complete rite with deacon and subdeacon that the ceremonies can be understood. Thus, the rubrics of the Ordinary of the Mass always suppose that the Mass is high. Low Mass, said by a priest alone with one server, is a shortened and simplified form of the same thing. Its ritual can be explained only by a reference to high Mass.

There is something to be said for taking the pontifical Mass as the standard, and explaining that of the simple priest as a modified form, just as low Mass is a modified form of high Mass. On the other hand historically the case is not parallel throughout; some of the more elaborate pontifical ceremony is an after-thought, an adornment added later.

newadvent.org/cathen/09790b.htm