L
larsont7
Guest
I hadn’t heard this before. Do you have a resource for this? I know I have seen Low Masses said without any servers. Perhaps a just cause would be no server showing up?
- Status
C
Chatter163
Guest
site.adw.org/pdfs/Norms_14_Extraordinary.pdf
%between%
1917 CIC can. 813 §1: “A priest should not celebrate Mass without a minister who assists him and responds” (tr. Peters). CIC can. 906: “Except for a just and reasonable cause, a priest is not to celebrate the Eucharistic sacrifice without the participation of at least some member of the faithful” (emphasis added). The former requirement was much more strict, based on the need to have a server present to make the responses on behalf of the congregation. In the common law of the Church it has been a grave obligation to have a server at Mass. John A. Abbo and Jerome D. Hannan, The Sacred Canons, A Concise Presentation of the Disciplinary Norms of the Church (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1952) 1: 807, note 62. Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Mediator Dei (1947): “[O]n account of the dignity of so august a mystery, it is our earnest desire—as Mother Church has always commanded—that no priest should say Mass unless a server is at hand to answer the prayers, as [1917 CIC] canon 813 prescribes” (emphasis added). See also SCS, Instruction Quam plurimum, 1 October 1949: CLD 3: 319, 334-336: “From an ancient practice introduced in the course of many centuries it is the accepted rule that, when Mass is to be celebrated even privately, someone should assist as minister, to serve the priest at the altar and make the responses (cf. [1917 CIC] c. 813 §1]). Except only in certain extraordinary cases, a priest, in order to be able to say Mass without a server, needs an apostolic indult. And the sole judge of the sufficiency of the reason alleged in asking for such an indult is the Holy See itself, which must therefore be approached with a statement of the circumstances of each case… The law of having a server at Mass allows very few exceptions, and authors learned in liturgy and moral theology agree in limiting them to the following cases: a) if Holy Viaticum has to be given to a sick person and there is no server at hand; b) to enable the people to satisfy the precept of hearing Mass; c) in time of pestilence, when it is not easy to find someone to serve, and the priest would otherwise be obliged to abstain from celebrating for a notable time; d) if the server leaves the altar during the Mass, even outside the time of the consecration and the offertory; in which case the reverence due to the Holy Sacrifice requires that it be continued in his absence. Outside of these cases which are allowed by the unanimous consent of the authors, this law is modified only by apostolic indult, which is given especially in mission lands.” See also John M. Huels, in John A. Beal, et al., eds., New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (New York and Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 2000) 1102: “The server in the former law was required not primarily for the material assistance of the priest but because the Eucharist is essentially an action of the whole Church, priest and people. In the words of Thomas Aquinas, the server ‘represents the whole Catholic people, and in that capacity answers the priest in the plural.’” This is also why the priest would address a lone server in the plural, “Dominus vobiscum,” etc. See Summa theologiae, III, q. 83, a. 5, ad 12.
L
larsont7
Guest
Excellent, Chatter…thanks for that! I learn something new every day. 
M
moon1234
Guest
Just so you know the 1917 code is no longer in force. I believe the proper reference would be to the 1983 code:Excellent, Chatter…thanks for that! I learn something new every day.
Can. 906 Except for a just and reasonable cause, a priest is not to celebrate the eucharistic sacrifice without the participation of at least some member of the faithful.
Someone can correct me if this is incorrect.
C
Chatter163
Guest
I am sure that most of us are aware of this. The reference included many other curial documents that had dealt with the EF back in the day, as well, which is why it was included.
E
Elizium23
Guest
E
eamonnroma
Guest
I have always be uncomfortable with these terms, High Mass and Low Mass. The Mass is the greatest possible act of worship and should not be quantified.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Does one consider solemnity a quantity?
However, I do agree with you on the terms “High” and “Low” when the official distinctions are
Missa Lecta
Missa in Cantu
Missa Solemnis
B
BertBlyleven
Guest
You mean qualified.
Mass itself is a word, derived from “ite missa est”: “it” has been sent (“it” referring to another feminine noun), which really has no meaning in itself on what occurs at Mass. From what I’ve been told, the meaning of the phrase was only recently discovered, and was used in legal documents. For a few hundred years this remained unknown, yet remained at the end of Mass. The word itself is probably unfitting for what occurs at the altar, but everyone knows what Mass is and what occurs in it. The words low and high only take away from the glory of Mass as you let them do so.
B
BertBlyleven
Guest
And to make the issue more confusing, “High” Mass in the US refers to a sung Mass without deacon and subdeacon. Elsewhere this is called a Sung Mass, High Mass referring to a Solemn High Mass.
Solemn High Mass being the norm is a fact often ignored. It is the “dialogue” Mass. I consider this to be one of the greatest losses in the new rite (and old rite too), which has less to do with the rites themselves and more the 200 years preceeding it.
G
Gidge
Guest
Yes, the TLM can be said without servers – the priest keeps the cruets, lavabo basin, and finger towel on the altar.
It is better if there is a server, even in convents, nuns/sisters have been known to kneel at the altar rail and say the server’s responses.
E
Elizium23
Guest
There is one Roman Rite and two forms thereof. Neither is “new” or “old”, one is Extraordinary and the other is Ordinary.
G
Gidge
Guest
What does this have to do with the OP ?
Isn’t this posted in the “Traditional Catholicism” section – why remind us that the OF Mass is valid too (I think most here would agree with this) ?
B
BertBlyleven
Guest
The Extraordinary Form is according to the Missal of 1962, and the Ordinary Form is according to the Missal of 1969 (1970). One is in fact newer than the other, there’s nothing offensive, polemical, or false about this. Don’t create an issue where there is none.
F
Filioque
Guest
I’ve tried to reply several times, but the server crashes on my end.
Several good answers. A priest who offers the EF without a server would have to set up the altar a bit differently. Usually he will put the cruets, finger bowl and finger towel next to the labavo card, or on the gradine near it, if there is one. Most will remove the stoppers to make it easier, or at least not replace them but lay the finger towel over the uncovered cruets so he does not need to fiddle with the stoppers after the consecration and before the ablutions and purification of his fingers. He would move the missal himself, and as mentioned make all the responses. If he celebrates without a server habitually he would need an indult do do so.
If there is a male who can move the missal, ring the bells and bring the cruets up but does not know how to make the responses, that is better than nothing. If no male is able to do those things and there are women who know the responses, the women (lay or religious) may make the responses from outside the altar rail, (or sanctuary) and ring the bells at the appropriate time from outside the altar rail.
You can get a copy of the Celebration of the Roman Rite Described (Fortescue and O’Connell) from the FSSP bookstore, and other online resources, which covers everything from this subject to the roles and actions of everyone from the Acolytes to the Celebrant, at Solemn Masses, and Solemn Vespers, as well as Missa in Coro Sctssm. and in the presense of a bishop or other Prelate. It was a standard text for Seminarians, and priests in the English speaking world prior to the promulgation of the OF.
E
Elizium23
Guest
Actually if you look into the history of the Ordinary Form, you will see that some of its parts represent a return to the ancient form of worship found well before Trent came along. So it is not a new invention ex nihilo and the Tridentine Mass underwent many revisions to become the Missal of 1962.
Let us not forget that the Catholic Mass is always the Heavenly Liturgy on Earth. The angels and saints eternally sing God’s praises in exactly the same way as the inspired Church has written them down for mortals to use. I don’t think it is accurate to call either one “new” but it is certainly accurate to call them both “timeless”.
B
BertBlyleven
Guest
You’re mixing substantial and accidental elements of the Mass. All Masses are substantially the same, and all can be called timeless in the sense you described. Not all Masses are accidentally the same, for there are Masses for the Saints, the dead, diverse votive Masses, seasons, etc. The proper prayers for each Mass are accidental. The individual priest, the piety of the laity, the holiness of the Church, and externals like vestments and building are also accidental elements. Accidents are important and do affect the Mass to varying degrees. Not all accidents can be called timeless; for instance if something is objectively novel. A novel introduction into Mass does not change its substance; the Mass is still timeless.
Unfortunately the historical argument of the new rite has become not a matter of fact but of opinion. Much is speculation, and some is genuine pseudo-scholarship (e.g. Canon of Hipolytus). I suppose if you shot in the dark, chose the right options (i.e. not Eucharistic prayer for children), you could get the Mass to resemble more ancient worship; but how would you know? And it also depends on how you view age; is a custom that lasted from 100-400 AD older than one from 1400-1900 AD? I’m not trying to troll, but these are things worth considering.
- Status