This is probably one of the most distressing photos I have ever seen (courtesy of Tradwatch). What do you think?
Had I stayed on at University reading Divinity, I would have written my dissertation on the effects of Low Mass on Protestant theology (I doubt this would have been approved of though - the College is not that traditional); a veritable tour-de-force I reckon. Any comments as to a title?
If things go as I hope they do, however, I am going to read Classics - something infinitely more agreeable (and suitable for an Undergraduate degree) than Theology. In hindsight, the only things I was interested in were Church History, Historical Theology and Latin.
Perhaps an appropriate title would be, "Grace Multiplied--Four Holy Sacrifices of the Mass Being Offered in Reparation for Our Sins and the Sins of the World."
ReplyDeleteGo to St Peter's for a 7 am Mass, and you'll understand.
ReplyDeleteaffects?? Am I misunderstanding something here...? Did you mean effects? I didn't think a ceremony could have affects, but there might be some other meaning of which I am unaware...
ReplyDeleteI suppose if they think that if they continue to get a ten-bob note (or whatever) for a shot each morning then there is no reason to stop this. With the minimalist theology that says the above is equal in its effect to a Pontifical service with all the canons etc assisting what is the incentive to even try?
ReplyDeleteI agree it is rather revolting, one is almost tempted to say thank God for Paul VI and concelebration - at least that is liturgical.
Rubricarius, concelebration is alien to the Roman Rite (other than at ordinations) and I have never seen a concelebrated Mass ''work'' properly. I just think it looks ridiculous with a host of priests standing around a table with their arms out...
ReplyDelete...although I agree that in theory concelebration is more liturgical than Low Mass.
"more liturgical"? !
ReplyDeleteRubricarius: the equality of what effect do you have in mind?
Give me low mass anyday over concelebration. Wasn't there a certain Msgr who rightly said that such a practice looked a like a sea of Nazi salutes?
ReplyDeleteAs to whether the theology that the efficacy of a low mass is qual to a high mass, anyone would agree that this is strictly true. Is the sacrifice of Calvary less present at low mass than high mass?
As to whether a low mass gives the same glory to God as a high mass...
I cannot agree with you Patricius, I fear.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day there can hardly be anything more aliturgical and unpleasant than said, i.e., Low Mass
The Mass is the Mass. Finis.
ReplyDeleteObviously it would be preferable to have the same number of High Masses; but that has never, in the entire history of the Church, been possible : all one can do is to hope that this community, wherever it was (an American Seminary, by the look of it) had a Conventual High Mass every day - but that is no reason to deny each and every priest the grace that flows from his own personal celebration of Mass - concelebration is not the same.
Wasn't it S. Anselm who said that the priest who, without good cause, omits to say Mass each day, 'depriveth the Trinity of glory, the angels of joy, the souls in Purgatory of remedy, and himself of a saving grace' ?
And on a separate point, Rubricarius, if you wish to say that Low Mass is - in your opinion - unpleasant, that is your right; but to suggest that it is 'aliturgical' is simply nonsensical.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I'd choose a quiet, private, Low Mass in a side chapel over High Mass at the High Altar pretty much any time. More chance to pray, for one thing.
As someone old enough to have been an altar boy who served Mass at a side altar when two or three other Masses were being celebrated at other altars at the same time (in a religious order church), I can't understand what is 'distressing' about the photograph, as it was my daily experience during my boyhood years. In those days, all side altar Masses were celebrated 'sotto voce' and it was, as Dominic Mary suggested, a much more prayerful and less stressful and distracted experience than the Sunday High Mass.
ReplyDeleteBTW Patricius, you didn't answer my question about the affects/effects thing...
ReplyDelete;-)
On the Mass question, High Mass is wonderful, but one doesn't always have time for High Mass. Each of the priests in the picture would have to celebrate Mass, that would take close on five hours in total. That doesn't leave much time for saying the Office...
Oh, and as far as I'm concerned, better Low Mass than no Mass.
Thank you, Dominic Mary, for injecting a bit of sense into this thread.
ReplyDeleteNaturally the more times Mass is celebrated, the more the four aims of the Mass can be enacted. This is, of course, much of the reasoning behind Low Mass - it allows priests to celebrate Mass when constraints exist (such as limited time, non-availability of choir, servers, etc.). It is also the reason for my own dislike of concelebration, which I find confusing. For example, is a concelebrated Mass a single Mass or multiple Masses (as many as there are concelebrants) happening simultaneously? Is each concelebrant himself saying Mass, or is he merely 'sharing' the duties with other priests? I feel that concelebrated Masses tend to 'muddy the waters', and guess that many priests are probably not entirely clear on these issues - at least in the picture it is clear who is celebrating which Mass, even if it does have something of the look of a production line about it.
Dominic Mary and Matthaeus - You are both entitled to your views and I respect your right to hold them but cannot share them.
ReplyDeleteLow Mass, as deliberate praxis, is both aliturgical and nonsensical from a liturgical perspective. It is a priest reading from a book witnessed, possibly, a group of spectators. Its origins, due to a mixture of piety and greed, have resulted in the idea of corporate worship being reduced to little more than the ‘magic’ essentials. As the erudite commenter 'Moretben' wrote, on another thread, words which seem apposite to quote here: “…– a reduction of ‘liturgy’ to little more than a regulated, decorous rigmarole surrounding the Magic Words. This mentality remains fully operative not least among neo-conservative apologists for the Novus Ordo, but in the greater part of the Trad archipelago too.”
If Low Mass has the same value as a sung service, or sung Pontifical service or sung papal service even why go to the extra bother? Surely it would be better to scrap the elaborate structure of Papal Mass (which of course is precisely what happened!) why have all the silver trumpets, the plethora of personnel involved if Low Mass has the same result? Why have the Ordinary celebrating with the assistance of his Cathedral Canons and beneficiati when those could all be saying Low Masses rather than spending two hours just to have one?
Why, if Low Mass, is so important does not Canon Law insist that a priest celebrate at least one daily? Why stop at one even, surely if so important then the pope should grant universal faculties to trinate as at Christmas and on All Souls Day – three Masses per priest per day –how many more graces would that bring down to the world? Why have sung liturgy at all if Low Mass is in all essentials the same – and why bother with the Office (hang on, almost nobody does) if that gets in the way of more Masses…
In happier pre-Reformation times the idea of fulfilling one's duties by attending a read Mass would have been considered risible. Sunday duties meant going to Mattins, Mass and Vespers - all sung of course. Minimalism and reductionism strikes again.