Why are there more low masses than high?

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Unfortunately, I get the feeling that some “Traditionalists” Latin Catholics are still wary of “permanent” deacons. Even when it comes to “mainstream” Novus Ordo parishes, some regions simply have no or little experience with them. Vatican II (well Pope Paul) restored the “permanent” diaconate, but as far as I can tell it has thus far only been truly implemented in Italy and the USA - maybe a few other places. Not sure about Latin America. In my home archdiocese in Western Canada, the Archbishop only started a formation program within the last couple years, and I think they are still waiting for the first class of graduates to be ordained. In a diocese within the same province, I remember attending the ordination of a man to the diaconate (transitional) and an elderly lady asked “I don’t understand - what is a deacon?”.

I think “wary” may understate the issue, and not because “traditionalist” parishes are unsure of what to do with permanent deacons. From various postings I’ve seen here, I’ve inferred that “traditionalists” are uncomfortable with the idea of married permanent deacons for possibly several reasons: because they see it as a supposed gateway to a married priesthood; because they are uncomfortable with a non-celibate on the altar as a clergyman; even that they feel the hands of a married man are unfit to touch the Eucharist. And then of course in the minds of some, restoration of the permanent diaconate is all tied-up with Vatican II, Paul VI, and smacks of the Norvus Ordo, and therefore may have the “air of illegitimacy” about it in the minds of some.

 

[Esrb99]

As mentioned earlier in this thread, this is one of the reasons why I believe that TLM oratories and parishes should be more willing to integrate married Deacons into their liturgical life. If a community such as St. Francis de Sales in St. Louis (2000+ strong) had four men ordained to the Diaconate, then it would be more likely that Solemn mass could be offered every Holy Day of Obligation.

I also feel that establishing schools at TLM parishes is necessary, as well as staffing them (partially) with these Deacons. Once you have the men at the church each weekday, along with school children who are learning secular and catholic education, then you can more readily have a set staff available for a daily sung, or even solemn mass-with the choir being a different school grade for each day of the week! Obviously this would not work in all parishes, but I think it would help foster an identity and unity amongst TLM laity, and allow a given parish/oratory the opportunity to offer Solemn Mass as close to daily as possible.

 

[malphono]

I think “wary” may understate the issue, and not because “traditionalist” parishes are unsure of what to do with permanent deacons. From various postings I’ve seen here, I’ve inferred that “traditionalists” are uncomfortable with the idea of married permanent deacons for possibly several reasons: because they see it as a supposed gateway to a married priesthood; because they are uncomfortable with a non-celibate on the altar as a clergyman; even that they feel the hands of a married man are unfit to touch the Eucharist. And then of course in the minds of some, restoration of the permanent diaconate is all tied-up with Vatican II, Paul VI, and smacks of the Norvus Ordo, and therefore may have the “air of illegitimacy” about it in the minds of some.

Yes, I’d agree that’s true for the most part. There does seem to be a rigid resistance from that side. But it’s only half the equation.

The other part is the “permanent” deacons themselves. Very few are interested in the Usus Antiquior, and that, it seems to me, has a lot to do with formation.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, this is one of the reasons why I believe that TLM oratories and parishes should be more willing to integrate married Deacons into their liturgical life. If a community such as St. Francis de Sales in St. Louis (2000+ strong) had four men ordained to the Diaconate, then it would be more likely that Solemn mass could be offered every Holy Day of Obligation.

Or even every Sunday, particularly if a few “straw subdeacons” are trained to function as may be needed.

 

[ProVobis]

And those funeral Masses cut into our school time too, which was why only the better students were allowed to serve.

Yes, but I don’t want to blow horns here.

In fairness, our parish had four priests with frequent visiting priests. No deacons or subdeacons who were not priests. Training for the Solemn High Funeral Mass was more extensive than for regular Masses but once mastered, it was pretty standard. They averaged about once per week. The Solemn High Mass for special occasions was more celebrative and required more rehearsal. And it wasn’t planned by any “liturgical committee” either.

 

[Phemie]

Unfortunately, I get the feeling that some “Traditionalists” Latin Catholics are still wary of “permanent” deacons. Even when it comes to “mainstream” Novus Ordo parishes, some regions simply have no or little experience with them. Vatican II (well Pope Paul) restored the “permanent” diaconate, but as far as I can tell it has thus far only been truly implemented in Italy and the USA - maybe a few other places. Not sure about Latin America. In my home archdiocese in Western Canada, the Archbishop only started a formation program within the last couple years, and I think they are still waiting for the first class of graduates to be ordained. In a diocese within the same province, I remember attending the ordination of a man to the diaconate (transitional) and an elderly lady asked “I don’t understand - what is a deacon?”.

You’re right that they are rare.

I’m from the Atlantic provinces region. AFAIK, Halifax is the only place in Atlantic Canada where men can access the formation for the diaconate. This explains why deacons are fairly common throughout the Halifax-Yarmouth archdiocese but quite rare elsewhere.

In 2010 Halifax-Yarmouth had 34 permanent deacons and Antigonish had 7 (the two dioceses in Nova Scotia.

Compare that to
PEI
Diocese of Charlottetown 1

New Brunswick
Archdiocese of Moncton 1, Dioceses of Saint John 3, Bathurst 0, Edmunston 0.

Newfoundland and Labrador
Archdiocese of St. John’s 2, Dioceses of Corner Brook & Labrador 0, Grand Falls 0.

There is a great misunderstanding of the role of the deacon in the average parish. When we had a transitional deacon in our parish for 6 months the Liturgy Committee didn’t want him to do anything that was proper to his role. I had to fight to have him carry the Gospel Book in procession. The pastor wouldn’t stand up to the committee and they wouldn’t even allow the deacon to proclaim the intentions for the General Intercessions.

Their argument, “He’ll be gone in 6 months so why should we change anything we do now?”
Mine, “Because it’s the right thing to do according to the GIRM???”

 

[floresco]

The Oratorians in Toronto, a community of priests, celebrate a Solemn High Mass weekly throughout the school year. They replace it with a Low Mass over the summer.

Living in a community with multiple priests, they have the manpower to provide the priest, deacon and subdeacon the Solemn High Mass requires. Even so, they did not start doing this until years after they started celebrating the EF (after Summorum Pontificum. I know that they wanted the priests, choir and servers well trained. I have the impression that it was a big commitment for them and not a decision to be made lightly.

I have a lovely Missa Cantata about 10 minutes away from where I live, but about once a month I travel the extra hour to go to Toronto and attend the the Solemn High Mass.

 

[Esrb99]

One more note:monastic communities like Clear Creek have daily Solemn Mass. It exits, I just requires dedication

 

[YoungTradCath]

You’re right that they are rare.

I’m from the Atlantic provinces region. AFAIK, Halifax is the only place in Atlantic Canada where men can access the formation for the diaconate. This explains why deacons are fairly common throughout the Halifax-Yarmouth archdiocese but quite rare elsewhere.

In 2010 Halifax-Yarmouth had 34 permanent deacons and Antigonish had 7 (the two dioceses in Nova Scotia.

Compare that to
PEI
Diocese of Charlottetown 1

New Brunswick
Archdiocese of Moncton 1, Dioceses of Saint John 3, Bathurst 0, Edmunston 0.

Newfoundland and Labrador
Archdiocese of St. John’s 2, Dioceses of Corner Brook & Labrador 0, Grand Falls 0.

There is a great misunderstanding of the role of the deacon in the average parish. When we had a transitional deacon in our parish for 6 months the Liturgy Committee didn’t want him to do anything that was proper to his role. I had to fight to have him carry the Gospel Book in procession. The pastor wouldn’t stand up to the committee and they wouldn’t even allow the deacon to proclaim the intentions for the General Intercessions.

Their argument, “He’ll be gone in 6 months so why should we change anything we do now?”
Mine, “Because it’s the right thing to do according to the GIRM???”

Perhaps the deacon should have kindly told them to get in their places and stop trying to take away what is, in a sense, his right.

 

[otjm]

I think “wary” may understate the issue, and not because “traditionalist” parishes are unsure of what to do with permanent deacons. From various postings I’ve seen here, I’ve inferred that “traditionalists” are uncomfortable with the idea of married permanent deacons for possibly several reasons: because they see it as a supposed gateway to a married priesthood; because they are uncomfortable with a non-celibate on the altar as a clergyman; even that they feel the hands of a married man are unfit to touch the Eucharist. And then of course in the minds of some, restoration of the permanent diaconate is all tied-up with Vatican II, Paul VI, and smacks of the Norvus Ordo, and therefore may have the “air of illegitimacy” about it in the minds of some.

That is probably due to a combination of things; in part, “That is the way we did it” even if that is not the way the Church did it over 2000 year (another term could be myopia); a lack of knowledge of Church history untainted by those who would skew it to their own image and likeness; a lack of understanding of why the Church has brought back the permanent diaconate, and a good bit of form over substance.

I sometimes wonder, if some of those “traditionalists” were to go to the Divine Mysteries, and be blown away with the solemnity and beauty of an Eastern Rite Mass, how they would feel after learning that the priest was married; or if they were to go to Mass in a parish with an excellent priest, rubrics followed meticulously, only later to learn that he had a wife an 5 children and was a convert pastor from a Protestant church and ordained after joining the Church; How many of them would still focus on what a great priest he was, and how may would forget that that married clergy brought Christ to earth on the altar at the Mass they had attended?

 

[floresco]

There are enough traditionalists on this forum who are capable of expressing what traditionalists think and feel that we do not need so many people who are not traditionalists speaking for us. Several posts in this thread are bordering on trad-bashing.

 

[twf]

The Oratorians in Toronto, a community of priests, celebrate a Solemn High Mass weekly throughout the school year. They replace it with a Low Mass over the summer.

Living in a community with multiple priests, they have the manpower to provide the priest, deacon and subdeacon the Solemn High Mass requires. Even so, they did not start doing this until years after they started celebrating the EF (after Summorum Pontificum. I know that they wanted the priests, choir and servers well trained. I have the impression that it was a big commitment for them and not a decision to be made lightly.

I have a lovely Missa Cantata about 10 minutes away from where I live, but about once a month I travel the extra hour to go to Toronto and attend the the Solemn High Mass.

Holy Family on King? I was there this past Easter Sunday morning and on the feast of the Assumption - solemn high masses both times…stunning.

 

[floresco]

Holy Family on King? I was there this past Easter Sunday morning and on the feast of the Assumption - solemn high masses both times…stunning.

Yes. Everything comes together there - holy priests, beautiful church, amazing choir/organist. It is a great blessing to attend such a Mass.

 

[tradcathconvert]

Yes. Everything comes together there - holy priests, beautiful church, amazing choir/organist. It is a great blessing to attend such a Mass.

If this is the church I think it is, I met the organist when he was organist at the Cathedral here in Maine. He does do a great job.

 

[Spudbynight]

Yes it’s mostly because the priest does not have the means to offer a High Mass everyday.

Few parishes have the additional sacred ministers for a High Mass.

 

[Spudbynight]

I think it is easier to say a Low Mass, so it’s a good place to start, IMO.

High Masses are sung and there is much more to do on the altar, which requires training altar boys for the various duties of a High Mass.

Solemn High Mass is a rarity these days (I have been to a handful though) – as it takes 3 well trained priests (or a priest and a deacon minimum, as an altar boy can “pinch hit” for the subdeacon, if need be).

Then there are the cultural mores regarding which Mass to say
(e.g. The Irish seem to prefer Low Masses as High Masses remind them of the High Anglicans they’ve been warring with over the past few centuries).

Unfortunately many seem confused as to what a High Mass is.

A Mass without all three sacred ministers is not a High Mass.

I understand that many in the US refer to a Missa cantata as a High Mass - that is incorrect.

"271 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.

Finally, a solemn Mass celebrated by a bishop, or by others having faculties, with the ceremonies laid down in the liturgical books, is called a Pontificial Mass."

I would be wary of an altar server acting as a subdeacon at a High Mass. The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei said the following in a letter in 1993 “an officially installed acolyte could take the role of the subdeacon”. My understanding is that only seminarians are likely to fulfil this requirement of being officially installed. It isn’t a cut and dry issue and one I would suggest prudent to avoid.

 

[YoungTradCath]

K cool, but Low Mass, High Mass (sung Mass with only a priest) and Solemn Mass are the generally accepted terms most people use, and it doesn’t hurt anything by using them.

It’s not like calling an Extraordinary Minister a “Eucharistic Minister,” which is entirely wrong and confuses very important doctrinal principles.

 

[Spudbynight]

K cool, but Low Mass, High Mass (sung Mass with only a priest) and Solemn Mass are the generally accepted terms most people use, and it doesn’t hurt anything by using them.

It’s not like calling an Extraordinary Minister a “Eucharistic Minister,” which is entirely wrong and confuses very important doctrinal principles.

They are incorrect.

It is the presence of sacred ministers that makes a Mass “high” not music.

That is an important principle which incorrect terminology confuses.

I don’t know of anyone here in the UK who calls a Missa cantata a High Mass so I would challenge your assertion that most people use the incorrect terms.

Many people (I don’t know if most or not) refer to EMHCs as Eucharistic Ministers - it doesn’t make it any less wrong.

 

[malphono]

I don’t know of anyone here in the UK who calls a Missa cantata a High Mass so I would challenge your assertion that most people use the incorrect terms.

That may be the case in the UK, but in the US my long experience is that most people have traditionally referred to a Missa Cantata as “High Mass” albeit that it is technically a misnomer. (I think the word “incorrect” here is a bit too strong.)

 

[Spudbynight]

That may be the case in the UK, but in the US my long experience is that most people have traditionally referred to a Missa Cantata as “High Mass” albeit that it is technically a misnomer. (I think the word “incorrect” here is a bit too strong.)

The rubrics specify what the different types of Mass are called. If there is a correct term for each Mass then there is logically an incorrect term.

It is a small detail (don’t worry I won’t fall out over it) but if something as important as the Mass is worth doing - it is worth doing to the best of best of our ability.

 

[Phemie]

That may be the case in the UK, but in the US my long experience is that most people have traditionally referred to a Missa Cantata as “High Mass” albeit that it is technically a misnomer. (I think the word “incorrect” here is a bit too strong.)

That has been my experience in Canada also, in both French and English, and that since long before Vat. II. The Missa Cantata was always called “Grande Messe” and the Low Mass “Messe basse” (or ‘Basse Messe’ where the term was, wrongly, directly translated from the English).

In French, a Solemn High Mass is 'Messe solennelle" but, as long as I can remember, it was commonly referred to as “Une Messe Diacre/Sous-Diacre”, referring of course to the ministers involved in its celebration. Those were cause for awe and wonder and in parishes around where I grew up were very rare, usually only seen at a priest’s or some other important person’s Funeral Mass.