What could women do prior to Vatican II in the Tridentine Mass?

[Little_One0307]

I was a practicing Catholic in the “olden days” before Vatican II. What women could and could not do during Mass was:

1. Women were not allowed beyond the altar rails during Mass except when they were married at which time they could carry their wedding bouguet (sp) to Mary’s side altar. We always had 3 altars in a parish church: the main altar, and two side altars one was usually devoted to Our Lady the other to either another saint or to Our Lord (each parish was different).
2. Women were allowed past the altar rails only to clean, put fresh flowers on the altar (we had an Altar Society for women whose job was to keep the altar ready for Mass) and to keep the linens clean. Women were not allowed to wash the corporal and other linens which might have been touched by the consecrated wine or bread. Only the priest could do the initial wash of these altar cloths. Then women were allowed to finish washing and ironing. In some parishes, these jobs were carried out by whatever order of Nuns staffed the Parish elementary school.
3. Women could not touch the host with their hands at any time. They were allowed only to receive on the tongue. This was true of all laity. Men and women alike.
4. We did not have ordained Deacons at any parish I attended. Mass was served by Altar Boys only. All responses were, of course, in Latin and said only by the altar boys.
5. We had mixed gender choirs for High Mass.
6. Women were not ushers for the collection.
7. At the Catholic women’s college I attended, the Nuns and college women in attendance at daily morning Mass gave the Latin responses in place of the (usually) absent altar boy. The priest generally took care of himself by moving the Missal from side to side on the altar. Usually the Nun Sacristan had placed the wine, wafers, bowl, towel and water on the altar to the side so the Priest (the schoool chaplain) could have the offertory items and lavabo available to him – essentially removing the necessity for anyone (as only women were present) to go get them. (They would have had to go inside the altar rails.) On Sundays or Holy days of obligation, the visiting Priest always brought along his own server who made all the responses, moved the Missal, and brought the wafers, wine, water bowl and towel to the altar. Since this was a “private” Mass, there was no “collection.” If it was a High Mass, the choir was composed of only the college women who also served as the choir for a nearby parish.

The laity - me and my family along with the rest of the crowd – either read from the Roman Missal which had the Latin on one page and the English translation on the facing page (not many people usually), said the Rosary (mostly women) or just watched the Mass.

If there were no altar boy, a man would usually assist at Mass. Since many Sunday Masses (especially high Mass) were served by 2 to 4 altar boys, there was rarely a time when a Parish Mass was unattended.

I am embarrassed to say I did not attend daily Mass, other than at College, except for Parish retreats when attendance was high and similar to Sunday low Mass, I cannot say what might have happened at daily Mass.

This is, to the best of my recall, what women could do prior to Vatican II in the Tridentene Mass.

Benay,

Thanks for this wonderfully detailed list of what women could and could not do. This has got to be the best response hands down in the thread thus far.

Thanks for taking your time to write it, I really appreciate it.

God bless.

 

[Little_One0307]

I am really confused as to how abortion got brought up in this thread as it has nothing to do with the Tridentine Mass.

Lemon and Lime I understand why you are responding, in fact I would rather encourage it, but other than that, can we please stick with Tridentine Mass related things.

I have learned quote a bit on extraordinary ministers and such. Thanks for posting guys, it has been informative and a blessing.

 

[ProVobis]

In order, then, that the faithful who are in the state of grace and rightly and devoutly wish to share in the sacred meal may not be deprived of this sacramental aid and solace, Pope Paul VI has decided it opportune to authorize special ministers who will be empowered to give communion to themselves and others of the faithful, under the exact and specified conditions here listed.

I think some of this was revised later, especially the highlighted. This was rescinded in one of the conditions of CITH too, I believe.

 

[Phemie]

I think some of this was revised later, especially the highlighted. This was rescinded in one of the conditions of CITH too, I believe.

At Mass they receive from the priest and don’t take but in ‘no priest’ situations, such as at a Sunday Celebration of the Word, the EMHC takes Communion before he/she gives it to others.

 

[ProVobis]

At Mass they receive from the priest and don’t take but in ‘no priest’ situations, such as at a Sunday Celebration of the Word, the EMHC takes Communion before he/she gives it to others.

That’s interesting. So this type of self-communicating by a non-ordained is legal?

 

[Phemie]

That’s interesting. So this type of self-communicating by a non-ordained is legal?

It’s situational. If there is only one EMHC at a “Communion Service”, and some parishes only have Communion Services for months on end, then if that EMHC can’t ‘take Communion’ he/she doesn’t receive. So the “Sunday Celebration of the Word with Communion” rite for Canada calls for the EMCH to receive before he/she gives Communion to the community.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s situational. If there is only one EMHC at a “Communion Service”, and some parishes only have Communion Services for months on end, then if that EMHC can’t ‘take Communion’ he/she doesn’t receive. So the “Sunday Celebration of the Word with Communion” rite for Canada calls for the EMCH to receive before he/she gives Communion to the community.

Hmmm. This is bothersome. I understand your reasoning but communion should be as the word suggests, communion with the Catholic community. The Poles exchange oplatki at Christmastime. This is communion with unconsecrated wafers and it involves an interpersonal physical exchange. Self-communicating here would defeat the purpose of communion altogether, IMO. Just saying.

 

[Phemie]

Hmmm. This is bothersome. I understand your reasoning but communion should be as the word suggests, communion with the Christian community. The Poles exchange oplatki at Christmastime. This is communion with unconsecrated wafers and it involves an interpersonal physical exchange. Self-communicating here would defeat the purpose of communion altogether. Just saying.

I’m afraid I don’t follow the reasoning. How does one compare with the other?

The EMHC shows the Host, says “This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, happy are those who are called to His supper,” everyone responds “Lord I am not worthy…”, he/she consumes the Host then immediately steps away from the altar to distribute to the community – where’s the disconnect?

 

[ProVobis]

The priest “self-communicates” because it’s part of the Holy Sacrifice. Communion to the faithful involves an actual exchange between two people. That’s where I have a problem with self-communicating of any type, which I believe the church forbids. If you’re saying that someone at communion services serves himself/herself, then yes, I have a problem with that and that’s all I’m going to say on the matter.

 

[Benay]

Do you know if they actually did the readings in the cloister? I was discussing this with a friend and this came up. Thanks for answering this.

God bless.

Prior to Vatican II, the Priest did all the readings and gave a sermon on any topic of his choice, which was usually not on the readings. So the question of cloistered nuns doing the readings is not relevant. Laity of both genders were listeners rather than readers.

 

[Benay]

Benay,

Thanks for this wonderfully detailed list of what women could and could not do. This has got to be the best response hands down in the thread thus far.

Thanks for taking your time to write it, I really appreciate it.

God bless.

You are most welcome. After reading the thread, which seemed to have strayed seriously off topic, I thought someone needed to answer the question posed in the first post. No one seemed to have done so. It was a good question, deserving of a thoughtful answer. Since I had “been there, done that” and no one else seemed to be as old as I am, I thought I should chime in. Glad you found it useful.

Benay

 

[Khalid]

Taking response to Lemon and Lime outside of the thread to PM to respect request to stay on-topic.

 

[MarkThompson]

Prior to Vatican II, the Priest did all the readings and gave a sermon on any topic of his choice, which was usually not on the readings.

Only at low Mass, and then only by necessity. The ideal situation is for the epistle to be read by the subdeacon and the Gospel by the deacon. The priest himself (or bishop, at a pontifical Mass) is not really supposed to be doing the readings. The GIRM, describing practice in the modern form of the Mass, is correct when it points out that "y tradition, the function of proclaiming the readings is ministerial, not presidential."

 

[Little_One0307]

Taking response to Lemon and Lime outside of the thread to PM to respect request to stay on-topic.

Thank you.

 

[Benay]

Only at low Mass, and then only by necessity. The ideal situation is for the epistle to be read by the subdeacon and the Gospel by the deacon. The priest himself (or bishop, at a pontifical Mass) is not really supposed to be doing the readings. The GIRM, describing practice in the modern form of the Mass, is correct when it points out that "y tradition, the function of proclaiming the readings is ministerial, not presidential."

In my parish, pre-Vatican II, we did not have either a Deacon or a Sub-deacon. The presiding Priest did all the reacdings at both High Mass and Low Mass. Our Parish did not have a resident Bishop either.

It has only been in the new milenia that I have been exposed to resident, ordained, married, Deacons in American parishes. We don’t have one in my Canadian parish yet. We only have 3 ordained Priests.

Only when a seminarian (we have a senior seminary in our Diocese), newly ordained a Deacon on the way to Priestly ordination, servies in a parish for his pastoral year, do we have Deacons serving at Mass and then, yes, they do the readings and give the homily.

This was not my experience, pre-Vatican II, in my home parish. It may have occurred in Parishes where there were seminarians studying in their last years and ordained to the Diaconate.

In the “olden days” we did not ordain married men to the Diaconate. There were lots and lots of seminarians and many Priests, so lay Deacons were not needed.

 

[Joannm]

This was not my experience, pre-Vatican II, in my home parish. It may have occurred in Parishes where there were seminarians studying in their last years and ordained to the Diaconate.

In the “olden days” we did not ordain married men to the Diaconate. There were lots and lots of seminarians and many Priests, so lay Deacons were not needed.

There is no such thing as a “lay deacon.” Deacons are clergy.

 

[MarkThompson]

In my parish, pre-Vatican II, we did not have either a Deacon or a Sub-deacon. The presiding Priest did all the reacdings at both High Mass and Low Mass. Our Parish did not have a resident Bishop either.

It has only been in the new milenia that I have been exposed to resident, ordained, married, Deacons in American parishes. We don’t have one in my Canadian parish yet. We only have 3 ordained Priests.

Only when a seminarian (we have a senior seminary in our Diocese), newly ordained a Deacon on the way to Priestly ordination, servies in a parish for his pastoral year, do we have Deacons serving at Mass and then, yes, they do the readings and give the homily.

This was not my experience, pre-Vatican II, in my home parish. It may have occurred in Parishes where there were seminarians studying in their last years and ordained to the Diaconate.

In the “olden days” we did not ordain married men to the Diaconate. There were lots and lots of seminarians and many Priests, so lay Deacons were not needed.

Just as long as you know that your statement “the priest did all the readings” is not because readings are reserved to the priest or anything. If your small parish was not able to offer a high Mass (many weren’t) that’s regrettable, but the fact remains that from a historical liturgical point of view having the priest do the readings himself is an aberration.

 

[Benay]

Mark, I don’t know where you got the idea that my old parish did not offer a high Mass every Sunday. I stated, specifically, that it did. I sang in the choir for that Mass. And it was not a “small” parish. Masses were offered every hour on the hour beginning at 6 AM as they rarely exceeded a 40 minute time which allowed for the parking lot to clear for the next Mass. Except for High mass which was a minimum of 45 minutes. Sermons were not long. Last Mass of the day was at noon. For all those who had been out late the night before.

Most Sunday masses filled the church. (Do I remember the seating capacity? No.) Although we had long lines at the confessional every Saturday afternoon, with 3 priests hearing confessions at the same time, not that many received the Eucharist which we called “communion” at the time.

A parish that is staffed by 3 priests augmented by visiting priests is not, by definition, a small parish.

Joanne, when I was referring to “lay” Deacons, I was using the wrong terminology – granted. Since married men in the Latin rite are not ordained to the priesthood, but can be ordained to the Diaconate, I erronelously referred to them as “lay.” I was thinking of them as “lay” as oppossed to “seminrians” whose diaconate is simply the last step before ordination to the priesthood. I most humbly beg your fogiveness for using incorrect terminology which has obviously upset you.

Pre-Vatican II, I was not exposed to, nor had I heard of, married men ordained to the diaconate in the Latin rite. As I said, in those days we had so many priests, there was little need for lay participation in liturgy. Priests took communion to the sick in homes and hsopitals. Priests were available at all hours of the day and night in the rectory. None lived outside the rectory. Although only one priest served Mass, at least one other priest always came to help with communion. Christmas and Easter there were at least 3 priests to help with communion.

Mark, I don’t know if Pre-Vatican II is part of your personal history, as it is in mine, or if it is just something you have read about or heard about. That makes a difference. Also, I grant you, there were some differences between parishes but they were remarkably similar. When I traveled the country, pre-Vatican II, I always went to Mass wherever I was on Sunday before setting off. Sometimes the parish was “small” with one Priest and one Mass. Sometimes that meant not leaving a town till noon. But the Mass was the same and the presiding Priest did all the readings and gave the sermon.

Remember too, that pre-Vatican II, Priests could say the Mass with no one at all serving at the altar. This was particularly true at Catholic colleges and universities when a church had many altars and many Priests saying many Masses simultaneously. A lay person could “hear” Mass at any altar. If a woman was “hearing” a Mass at a side altar, she might or might not give the Latin responses. Depended upon the Priest.

My pre-Vatican II experiences of Mass, that I have described, are from 1) the Philippines, 2) Southern California, and 3) Washington DC at Catholic University.

I hope this clarifies my remarks.

 

[Phemie]

Mark, I don’t know where you got the idea that my old parish did not offer a high Mass every Sunday. I stated, specifically, that it did. I sang in the choir for that Mass. And it was not a “small” parish. Masses were offered every hour on the hour beginning at 6 AM as they rarely exceeded a 40 minute time which allowed for the parking lot to clear for the next Mass. Except for High mass which was a minimum of 45 minutes. Sermons were not long. Last Mass of the day was at noon. For all those who had been out late the night before.

I think I know where Mark is coming from.

We always referred to the Mass with singing as the “High Mass” but it wasn’t, it was a Missa Cantata, or sung Mass. A High Mass requires a Deacon and Subdeacon and I think my parish only experienced one of those in my memory between 1959 and 1970. It was an uncommon occasion for the average parish and I remember it usually being spoken of in hushed, awed tones: “When Fr. Armand celebrated his first Mass it was a Deacon/Subdeacon Mass!”

 

[ProVobis]

Pope John XXIII’s Code of Rubrics, 271 gave the following definition of the forms of Mass in 1960:

Masses are of two kinds: sung Masses (in cantu) and low Masses (Missa lecta)).
A Mass is called a sung Mass, when the celebrant actually sings those parts which the rubrics require to be sung; otherwise it is called a low Mass.
Moreover, a sung Mass, when celebrated with the assistance of sacred ministers, is called a solemn or High Mass (Missa solemnis); when celebrated without sacred ministers, it is called a Missa cantata.[2]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missa_Cantata

Prior to 1960, I believe it was just Low Mass, High Mass, and Solemn High Mass. (The latter were mostly Solemn High Requiem Masses.)