Low Mass...

During August, the parish choir takes a well-earned break from singing and our Sunday Mass is therefore a simple Low Mass with two servers. I like to think with a mixture of fascination and annoyance about the evolution of Low Mass, as I am fascinated by the history of the Liturgy (I cannot, however, claim to possess anything more than a routine knowledge of its complex history).

The simplicity of the Rite of Low Mass often misleads people into the assumption that it is the normative form of the Roman Rite, that High Mass, with all its beautiful and complex ceremony, is just superfluous Medieval scaffolding and obscurement - running counter to the ''noble simplicity'' (cough) inherent in the Roman Rite. On the contrary, Low Mass is just a curtailed and very simple form of High Mass; as such, the Celebrant himself, alongside his ''apprentice'' (as Evelyn Waugh would put it) server substitutes for the offices of Deacon, Subdeacon and choir all at once. Low Mass, therefore, cannot be understood without reference to High Mass. The so-called Missa Cantata is much the same, with the Master of Ceremonies (so-called for convenience) supplying the offices of Deacon and Subdeacon. The Missa Cantata is, of course, also a Low Mass.

The origins of Low Mass go back to the Middle Ages. In the days before daily Mass, there was no such thing as Low Mass - since the Liturgy was seen as something proper to Sunday. As such, there was a greater turn out of the necessary people, clergy in plenty, choir, servers etc. There would be a High Mass - very proper for a Sunday. This older practice has been retained in the Eastern Liturgies, where daily Mass is quite seldom - restricted to places like cathedral churches and perhaps monasteries. However, during the Middle Ages (probably due to the Scholastics and their syllogistic system of reasoning) there arose the belief that since each Mass has a definite value before God, two Masses were better than one. And so there arose the universal practice of offering one Mass a day by an individual priest. Naturally, many liturgical abuses arose from this practice - I have read of absurd practices such as having three Masses of the Catechumens, for three separate intentions, and then having one Mass of the Faithful. Many priests offered several Masses in one day.

Since the practice of offering Mass daily arose, naturally the necessary parts of choir, Sacred Ministers etc could not be provided. And so there arose the ''compromise'' thing we call Low Mass. The ceremonies were vastly simplified, some things were omitted altogether, the Mass was said mostly inaudibly by the Celebrant, and the Server would make the responses kneeling. There is no record in previous editions of the Roman Missal (to my knowledge, do correct me if I am wrong) of the Rite of Low Mass before the Tridentine Missal of St Pius V - which gives precise directions for its proper conduct. And so, my supposition is that the Rite would be determined by various local customs. Fortescue notes that the liturgical book called the Missal arose because of Low Mass - because before that, each separate Minister had his own liturgical book; the Celebrant had the Sacramentary, containing all that he needed. He had no need of other books, since he was not concerned with them. Since, however, Low Mass required the Celebrant to provide for the absence of the other Ministers, he needed the relevant texts at hand, and a plethora of liturgical books was naturally unsightly.

Although Low Masses are particularly suited to early mornings on weekdays (indeed, J.R.R Tolkien served Low Mass before school at the Birmingham Oratory, and although he served Mass consistently for much of his life, I can only picture him serving Low Mass as a boy!), I think that overall, it is a shame that it came into being. I am not criticising an aspect of the venerable liturgical history of the Roman Church, but I think I generally prefer the practice of the Eastern Churches in this respect - who, as has been said, have no equivalent of Low Mass - that Mass ought to be the focal point of the week in the parish. I much prefer High Mass to Low Mass, for aesthetic as well as liturgical reasons.

A cogent point, though rather odd to relate: to what extent was the curtailment of Mass, from High to Low, the result of the scholastic methods? Was it all because of that? And how has this affected liturgical praxis and theory in the lead up to, and encompassing, the Second Vatican Council? How did the general ignorance about the origin of Low Mass among so-called liturgy experts, and among many sincere Catholics, influence the idea that ceremonies could be dropped as embarrassing embellishments? The idea that some essential part can be omitted, or modified, because of the lack of some essential person; or how, say, the use of incense becomes optional. It all seems to me to subject the Liturgy to one of the many options in the cafeteria of modern Catholicism...