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

[Phemie]

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

The Solemn High Masses I’ve heard of where I lived were either First Masses or Requiem Masses, usually the Requiem Mass of priests or their parents.

 

[MarkThompson]

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!”

Right, thanks! Yes, the Missa cantata is actually a low Mass, but with many of the trapping of high Mass added back in. It was a post-Trent innovation, demanded by one-cleric parishes who were tired of always being stuck with silent low Masses, and only begrudgingly permitted in stages by the Vatican. Even something like incense was forbidden at a Missa cantata until into the 20th century.

 

[FAB]

They did what St Paul instructed. Women is to remain quiet in teh Church. If they have a question let them ask the husbands. They are to dress modestly and and have their heads covered. Many seem to think that God has changed His mind over the years. Many are measuring their worthiness as to what they are allowed to do in the Sanctuary. Disobedience comes from the enemy of God and not from God Himself. we have lost this sense of disobedience instead many of us decided it best to fight for our rights without any concern for what God has established from the beginning.

I don’t take Eucharist from a women’s hand, only from a priest. I will not support their disobedience to God.

This section of Paul has badly beed interpeted down through the centuries. It needs to be taken in context of the times and who he was speaking to. Women ran many of Paul’s church’s so we know he was speakinf to a specific intance.
There is no disaobediance on the part of women who serve as lectors and EMHC.

 

[FAB]

or from a deacon. .

Even though I found trouble with most of your post, but waht is your reasoning for not recieving from a deacon. the deacon is ordained clergy with many of the same facilitites of the priest and deacons were the first established clergy in the church only after the apostoles and implamented by the apostles. Serveral through history became popes.

 

[FAB]

I would add “transitional deacon” as a qualifier, not “permanent deacon”, or, alternately, “celibate clergy”.

Beyond that, agreed.

You thinking is in error. At one time priest were allowed to marry, those who are converting from other faiths are today.

 

[ProVobis]

The Solemn High Masses I’ve heard of where I lived were either First Masses or Requiem Masses, usually the Requiem Mass of priests or their parents.

At our parish, eight of us had been cross-trained to MC, thurifer, and acolyte the Solemn High Requiem Masses. (We had our own little fraternity, so to speak.) This was in 1960-61. It seemed like every other week or so four of us would get time-off from class to serve such Masses, black collar, black saches, et all, and take turns at each position. At the end of Mass, of course, were incensing and blessings over the caskets. It was much more intricate than the regular Sunday Masses. Three priests were normally used, one to celebrate, one to deacon, and one to subdeacon the event.

I think we only had one or two Sunday Solemn Masses during that period. (One might have been a First Mass.) I just remember the amount of practice that was necessary for these events.

 

[Benay]

Seems to me this thread has wandered off-topic again. Also, please identyify your gender when you talk about what you could or could not do pre-vatican II. As a woman, for example, I could not be a thurifer.

Re High versus Low Mass. To quote from my Missal in Latin and English, published in 1958 by the Newman Press (Maryland) The table of Contents lists the Order of High Mass (p. 654) and the Order of Low mass.(p.676).

Quoting from page 654, The Order of High Mass (printed in red) reads: “The order which follows is that of Solemn Mass in which the celebrant is assisted by deacon and subdeacon. In some places, Mass is sung without deacon and subdeacon; and the parts allotted to them are then divided between celebrant and servers.” All subsequent insructions on who does what and when are in red.

In my experience, as a female, and as a lay person, I never attended a Hhigh Mass with a deacon and subdeacon except at Catholic University, and in those cases, it was often Priests who served as deacons and subdeacons. Or at least the ones I recognized. Since there were many seminarians studying theology and philosophy at Catholic U at that time, seminarians may also have served. My usual experience of High Mass was at local parishes. This, however, does not relate to the question as to what women could or could not do during Mass. We could sing in the choir (Gregorian chant or other standard Latin Masses) during what we called High Mass. Not being able to serve at the altar at any time, I was not privy to the rubrics.

 

[FAB]

Seems to me this thread has wandered off-topic again. Also, please identyify your gender when you talk about what you could or could not do pre-vatican II. As a woman, for example, I could not be a thurifer.

Re High versus Low Mass. To quote from my Missal in Latin and English, published in 1958 by the Newman Press (Maryland) The table of Contents lists the Order of High Mass (p. 654) and the Order of Low mass.(p.676).

Quoting from page 654, The Order of High Mass (printed in red) reads: “The order which follows is that of Solemn Mass in which the celebrant is assisted by deacon and subdeacon. In some places, Mass is sung without deacon and subdeacon; and the parts allotted to them are then divided between celebrant and servers.” All subsequent insructions on who does what and when are in red.

In my experience, as a female, and as a lay person, I never attended a Hhigh Mass with a deacon and subdeacon except at Catholic University, and in those cases, it was often Priests who served as deacons and subdeacons. Or at least the ones I recognized. Since there were many seminarians studying theology and philosophy at Catholic U at that time, seminarians may also have served. My usual experience of High Mass was at local parishes. This, however, does not relate to the question as to what women could or could not do during Mass. We could sing in the choir (Gregorian chant or other standard Latin Masses) during what we called High Mass. Not being able to serve at the altar at any time, I was not privy to the rubrics.

The answer is simple, in theTridentine mass, even now there is no role for women, except say to sing in the choir. Pre Vatican II women were only allowed in the sanctuary during a liturgy when they married.

 

[ProVobis]

Seems to me this thread has wandered off-topic again. Also, please identyify your gender when you talk about what you could or could not do pre-vatican II. As a woman, for example, I could not be a thurifer.

I think I might have triggered some negative emotions by mentioning that the altar servers might have had their own unchartered fraternities (fraternities means males) back then. For that I apologize. I only tried to follow the topic.

 

[Roman_Catechism]

The more I learn and the more I ponder this subject, the more I become convinced I don’t want to be an Extraordinary Minister or Reader as a layman, and the more I recognize abuses in the parishes around me. I really can’t object to the idea that priests and deacons should be the ones reading and distributing Communion under almost all circumstances, yet I see all around me men and women reading everything but the Gospel and distributing Communion to small groups of people, “blessing” non-communicates all the while.

Men and women everywhere are not being “Extraordinary” Ministers, they’re becoming “Ordinary” ministers, even though they are not priests. And to what end? To save a few seconds or minutes of time? Shouldn’t Mass be the very focus and center of our lives, so we shouldn’t be worrying about taking, at most, a few more minutes while those ordained by the Sacrament of Holy Orders distribute Communion exclusively? If I recall, the Catechism calls for Extraordinary Ministers when there is a good reason for them. I can’t in good conscience say there’s much of a “good reason” for their use in most of the parishes I’ve ever attended, with relatively small congregations; certainly there have been no “dire” situations.

Ah, sorry if I wandered farther off-topic, I was just sort of agreeing with the posters here who have indicated that laity should be doing less, whether they are women or not.

I can delete this post if it’s too off-topic.

 

[Phemie]

The more I learn and the more I ponder this subject, the more I become convinced I don’t want to be an Extraordinary Minister or Reader as a layman, and the more I recognize abuses in the parishes around me. I really can’t object to the idea that priests and deacons should be the ones reading

Wait, deacons are the readers of the Gospel and priests read it if no deacon is present.

OTOH, it is the role of instituted lectors (lay men) to read the 1st and 2nd readings and, in their absence, their role is properly filled by deputized lay persons, yes, male or female.

 

[Roman_Catechism]

Wait, deacons are the readers of the Gospel and priests read it if no deacon is present.

OTOH, it is the role of instituted lectors (lay men) to read the 1st and 2nd readings and, in their absence, their role is properly filled by deputized lay persons, yes, male or female.

What are you saying here? I know that deacons read the gospel, and I know that lay people can read the other readings. I never said they couldn’t?

 

[Phemie]

What are you saying here? I know that deacons read the gospel, and I know that lay people can read the other readings. I never said they couldn’t?

Sorry if I misunderstood but it seemed that you were saying that you didn’t want to be reader because deacons and priests should be doing the readings.

 

[Roman_Catechism]

Sorry if I misunderstood but it seemed that you were saying that you didn’t want to be reader because deacons and priests should be doing the readings.

That is what I’m saying. I’m completely aware that lay readers are valid and licit but I don’t think they should be doing the readings or distributing Communion except for a “grave reason.” I don’t think “grave reasons” normally exist, and yet I see lay readers and extraordinary ministers at every OF Mass.

 

[JamestheOlder]

That is what I’m saying. I’m completely aware that lay readers are valid and licit but I don’t think they should be doing the readings or distributing Communion except for a “grave reason.” I don’t think “grave reasons” normally exist, and yet I see lay readers and extraordinary ministers at every OF Mass.

You should really separate Lectors from Eucharistic Ministers. EMHC’s are to be used sparingly, if at all. The Lector, on the other hand is NORMALLY not to be the priest or deacon. From the GIRM (current):

1. By tradition, the function of proclaiming the readings is ministerial, not presidential. The readings, therefore, should be proclaimed by a lector, and the Gospel by a deacon or, in his absence, a priest other than the celebrant. If, however, a deacon or another priest is not present, the priest celebrant himself should read the Gospel. Further, if another suitable lector is also not present, then the priest celebrant should also proclaim the other readings.

 

[Little_One0307]

The more I learn and the more I ponder this subject, the more I become convinced I don’t want to be an Extraordinary Minister or Reader as a layman, and the more I recognize abuses in the parishes around me. I really can’t object to the idea that priests and deacons should be the ones reading and distributing Communion under almost all circumstances, yet I see all around me men and women reading everything but the Gospel and distributing Communion to small groups of people, “blessing” non-communicates all the while.

Men and women everywhere are not being “Extraordinary” Ministers, they’re becoming “Ordinary” ministers, even though they are not priests. And to what end? To save a few seconds or minutes of time? Shouldn’t Mass be the very focus and center of our lives, so we shouldn’t be worrying about taking, at most, a few more minutes while those ordained by the Sacrament of Holy Orders distribute Communion exclusively? If I recall, the Catechism calls for Extraordinary Ministers when there is a good reason for them. I can’t in good conscience say there’s much of a “good reason” for their use in most of the parishes I’ve ever attended, with relatively small congregations; certainly there have been no “dire” situations.

Ah, sorry if I wandered farther off-topic, I was just sort of agreeing with the posters here who have indicated that laity should be doing less, whether they are women or not.

I can delete this post if it’s too off-topic.

Hi,

Nope no need to apologize for this post. I am in agreement with you. Thanks for posting.

God bless.

 

[Planty_Pall]

At the Traditional Mass, we have a couple of male ushers who occasionally tire of being involved with seating people, taking the offering, and helping the frail to the Communion Rail. They have been instructed rightly that they are “participating” in the Mass, even though they would rather be silently kneeling, observing, and praying. That seems to reassure them that the needed activity is pleasing to God and in its unique way “worshipful”. Aside from ushering, prior to Vatican II men and women could fully participate in every Mass without having to do any activity.

The question in the opening post seems to assume a debatable value to increased activity at Mass that cannot be granted.

 

[Roman_Catechism]

You should really separate Lectors from Eucharistic Ministers. EMHC’s are to be used sparingly, if at all. The Lector, on the other hand is NORMALLY not to be the priest or deacon. From the GIRM (current):

1. By tradition, the function of proclaiming the readings is ministerial, not presidential. The readings, therefore, should be proclaimed by a lector, and the Gospel by a deacon or, in his absence, a priest other than the celebrant. If, however, a deacon or another priest is not present, the priest celebrant himself should read the Gospel. Further, if another suitable lector is also not present, then the priest celebrant should also proclaim the other readings.

That’s fair. I guess in that regard, I was recalling that the ambo is the “monstrance” for the word of God. I reasoned that since the celebrant is the one “proclaiming the word of God to the people,” he might as well be the one reading it, if that makes sense. Nevertheless I concede your point; I can’t contradict the GIRM.

 

[Benay]

This thread has wandered off topic again. Perhaps someone could start a new thread for this disucssion?

 

[Little_One0307]

This thread has wandered off topic again. Perhaps someone could start a new thread for this disucssion?

I thought of doing that, but I have a bad feeling that that topic would be merged with this one, if I started it.

God bless.