Why does low mass exist in the west and not the east?

[Aramis]

The Ruthenians do allow daily liturgies. They do not require them.

The average Ruthenian DL of St. John is about 1 hour… mind you, my experience is with 6 different priests in 4 parishes. Not counting matins (30 min when offered) or vespers (30 min when offered for the vigil).

The DL of St. John IS the “Low Liturgy” of the Ruthenians. Add in all the repeats (labeled optional in the Ruthenian Liturgicon), and it inflates easily to 90-120 minutes.
St Basil’s liturgy, sans repeats, is 75-90 minutes (longer tropari, kontaki, Theotokion, etc), and with the repeats, is 120-180 minutes.

In the eastern mindset, it takes as long as it takes.

And while St. John’s DL couldn’t be pushed down to 20 minutes, it can be down to 40… if the parish lets it, and the nave is small.

The Roman Low Mass was not interactive with the community in its final form (62 missal), and could be as short as 15 minutes with a fast chanting priest, no incense, and no server.

The East has no non-interactive form. It takes as long as it takes.
And that varies by celebrant, building, and the speed at which the people sing.

 

[patrick457]

Think somewhere in the Early Middle Ages. The Monk-priest reason is quite reasonable; these guys had to celebrate a Mass in a day and there were usually only one Altar on smaller Monasteries/Churches, plus if all these guys had to celebrate Solemn Mass, wouldn’t that be kind of distracting for those who attend the main Mass that’s being celebrated?

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

Eastern monasteries always celebrate the liturgy for 2 hours every day. The E. Catholic and Orthodox Bishops celebrate it everyday around noon in their cathedrals as well, just like my friend Archimandrite Constantine Belisaurius does. The west comes up with some strange ideas. Why would all monks be priests? Why would all monk-priests have to con-celebrate on different altars?

I am lost.

If the early middle ages starts about 950 to 1000 A.D. we still have 450 years of penniless Churches that were celebrating only solemn high liturgies. So this idea that they suddenly change is illogical for me.

Ruthenian Churches are sort of latinized so if theyre doing it in an hour they are confused. They only recently changed “mother of God” into “Theotokos” again. I would not hold up the Ruthenians as the standard bearer of correct Eastern tradition for us to learn from. They don’t even have a patriarch.

 

[AJV]

Think somewhere in the Early Middle Ages. The Monk-priest reason is quite reasonable; these guys had to celebrate a Mass in a day and there were usually only one Altar on smaller Monasteries/Churches, plus if all these guys had to celebrate Solemn Mass, wouldn’t that be kind of distracting for those who attend the main Mass that’s being celebrated?

The Indian Orthodox have this type of really solemn liturgy where 3 priests celebrate simultaneously on 3 altars with full compliment of ministers. Only one is aloud and the other 2 are softer.

 

[Aramis]

Ruthenian Churches are sort of latinized so if theyre doing it in an hour they are confused. They only recently changed “mother of God” into “Theotokos” again. I would not hold up the Ruthenians as the standard bearer of correct Eastern tradition for us to learn from. They don’t even have a patriarch.

Well, as to Theotokos, as a term, it’s been in use in the Ruthenian church, in part or in whole, for quite some time, at least in Slavonic.

I’ve also seen 1 hour DL of St John at an orthodox parish (OCA).

Just a fast-singing priest and short communion line.

Perhaps it is a slavic thing.

 

[patrick457]

The point is, there are some things in the West you should not expect to find in the East and vice versa. The Liturgical traditions of the two, though the origin might be the same, had developed in a different manner than the other.

As for the Side Altars and Chapels, they begun to appear during the 6th Century.
I did not intend to say that ALL monks were priests; I should’ve been more clear about that. My fault.

Plus, there were nothing which indicates Low Mass suddenly became universal. Perhaps it spread when Dioceses had begun to have more priests. Perhaps it spread after the Great Schism which is why the East doesn’t have it.

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

I disagree.

The point is that such profound differences between East and West regarding one having a low liturgy and one having high liturgy as the normal celebration on a Sunday should not exist. (whether officially normal or not)

The Liturgical traditions should not have developed this differently from each other.

The Orthodox (catholic) Churches will not be in communion with Papal Latin and Eastern Catholics until these differences are “straightened out”. "Orthodox means “straight belief” literally.

There is no specific Indian Orthodox Church. I’ll assume someone ment either the Jacobite/Malankara or Nestorian/Malabar Churches. I’ll ask the Malankaras about this. Malabars are as latinized as the Maronites so if they did the concelebration at multiple altars it would only be copycatting the west.

It’s nice that Theotokos was kept for Slavonic. Some ruthenians are mad that it is not still in slavonic. I have no opinion either way.

I am done with this topic. I will read Adrian Fortescues book, even though it has some latin biases. I have doubts the origins of this are very strong in the 6th century. Thanks for the thoughts.

 

[Irish_Melkite]

The explanation offered earlier by someone as to the necessity for multiple Masses to be celebrated simultaneously by large numbers of clergy in monastic houses is absolutely accurate as a major factor in the development of the Low Mass. The acceptance of stipends for perpetual memorials was another - it necessitated the ability to accommodate the service of many more Masses than could be offered in the traditional liturgical form.

There is, in fact, an Indian Orthodox Church. It is the terminology by which the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church is styled.

The Orthodox (catholic) Churches will not be in communion with Papal Latin and Eastern Catholics until these differences are “straightened out”. "Orthodox means “straight belief” literally.

This statement is patently absurd. There are many issues involved in the separation of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. The Western usage of a Low Mass is not on anyone’s radar. In four decades as an Eastern Christian, I have never heard this referenced.

Many years,

Neil

 

[patrick457]

It was inevitable that Liturgical traditions develop differently; many factors (i.e. geographical)was involved which is why there are a multitude of Rites and Liturgies among Churches.

 

[AJV]

There is no specific Indian Orthodox Church. I’ll assume someone ment either the Jacobite/Malankara or Nestorian/Malabar Churches. I’ll ask the Malankaras about this. Malabars are as latinized as the Maronites so if they did the concelebration at multiple altars it would only be copycatting the west.

Yes, I did mean the Malakara. In India, when one says “Jacobite”, it is usually taken that they are referring to the ‘faction’ that accepts the Syriac Patriarch and now headed by Mar Baselios Thomas as Catholicos. a.k.a the Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church.

The India Orthodox Church a.k.a the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, which does not accept the jurisdiction of the Syriac Patriarch and consequently has broken away. It’s Catholicos is now Mar Baselios Didimus

When you read the paper, you’ll see that very often they are still arguing over the churches and the property

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I just thought I would chime in that for anyone to celebrate the full office AND have daily Mass, it would have basically been necessary to find a way to abbreviate things at some point. As the Byzantine office stands, it is impossible to chant every bit of every liturgy envisioned for the course of a day - it takes more hours than the day is long.

 

[AJV]

There is no specific Indian Orthodox Church. I’ll assume someone ment either the Jacobite/Malankara or Nestorian/Malabar Churches.

For that matter, I should mention that this munninmel (literally I guess a good translation would be “upon 3”, mun [short er sound at the end] is 3 in Malayalam) is, AFAIK, a peculiarity of the Indian church and (in the case of the Jacobites or MSOC) is not generally followed among the Syrian wing.

I wish I could get a picture, it looks pretty impressive especially during the circuits of the altars. Normally, I suppose it is 3 because they have 3 altars but I have heard of an anchinmel (upon 5) in a church with that many altars. A few years back, on the anniversay of Parumala Thirumeni, their first canonised Indian saint, the Jacobites had 101 priests at 101 altars- though most were without the full compliment of ministers.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Think somewhere in the Early Middle Ages. The Monk-priest reason is quite reasonable; these guys had to celebrate a Mass in a day and there were usually only one Altar on smaller Monasteries/Churches, plus if all these guys had to celebrate Solemn Mass, wouldn’t that be kind of distracting for those who attend the main Mass that’s being celebrated?

We’re all agreed that monasticism exerted a strong pull, but for clarification, the expectation that all priests celebrate Mass every day (or at least almost every day) did not develop until the very late middle ages. As late as the twelve hundreds the actual requirements on monks might only include celebrating Mass on Sundays or even only on a handful of principle feasts. That’s not to say that many priests didn’t already celebrate more often - in fact, 3 times a week was a fairly common average by that time, but it was really only in the 14th and 15th centuries that we saw a quickly growing expectation for numbers of Masses from each individual priest. So monasticism was a big factor, but it’s not entirely accurate to say it was a factor because all the monk-priests had to celebrate a Mass a day.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

it’s ashame that there aren’t any other responses to my question.

This is not about unfavourably comparing rites.

It is about acknowledging mistakes and ending them for the good of mankind.

The reason we have a “low Mass” is so that we can go daily.

and your last statement was pretty smug…

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

I’m going to speculate for a moment…

The Roman liturgies, as a rule, arose in a society of celibate and/or continent (abstaining from sex in marriage despite being married) priests; priests who had no job but being priests.

The Roman liturgies actually developed after the Christian emancipation of Constantine and the Church was freed from the catechombs.

Aramis:

In the east, however, priests often had “day jobs.” Most had a plot to farm, being peasants. Most had children. It was developed that a daily liturgy wasn’t bad, but it wasn’t a major requirement.

Most priests in the West had “day jobs”. However, both in the east and west they weren’t “jobs” per-say as a job was connected with a lower class citizen such as a serf. Monks of both the East and West performed similar duties such as raising animals, farming, etc.

So, given the combinations of social, political, and practical needs, the roman church called for priests to say mass daily.

True. But priests in the east say the Divine Office daily.
Aremis:

In so doing, however, the practical needs of the congregants became a factor: since many were required by civil law to attend

I would love to see this proved… and not only that I doubt it was law to attend daily.

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

Since I recently did stumble upon many answers I will continue this thread for one more message.

catholictradition.org/Eucharist/mass-h10.htm

**From the beginning we read of the liturgy being celebrated with deacons and assistants and in the presence of the people who sing their part. Until the Middle Ages, Mass was not said more than once on the same day. The bishop or senior cleric celebrated, and the rest of the clergy either received Communion or concelebrated. This is still the practice in the Eastern Churches, where there is no equivalent to our Low Mass and where the original practice of one altar in each church is still kept.**By the early Middle Ages in the West, every priest offered his own Mass each day, a practice which had far-reaching effects, not only upon the liturgy, but upon Church architecture and even Canon Law.

half the puzzle is now solved. More to go still

We must remember however that most of the West was NOT using the Roman Rite until after 800 A.D. when Charlemagne imported it. Most of the west was using the Gallican liturgy or derivative of the Gallican, I think this means there is a strong chance that there was no official low mass used before 800 A.D. as there is no surviving example of a low Gallican, low Ambrosian, low Mozarabic or other non-roman western liturgy that I have seen.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

By the early Middle Ages in the West, every priest offered his own Mass each day, a practice which had far-reaching effects, not only upon the liturgy, but upon Church architecture and even Canon Law.

I dispute that assertion. As I said before, based on my recent reading of Archdale King’s three volumes on the Western rites, celebration by every priest every day was not at all the norm even in the 11th - 13th centuries, and those are the high middle ages, centuries after the early middle ages.