This is not going to be a complex treatise on Music and Low Mass...I am sorry to disappoint, but I know nothing whatsoever about Liturgy - I merely ask questions. Towards the end of her life, Bl Hildegard of Bingen was placed under ecclesiastical Interdict for having a nobleman, formerly excommunicate, buried with rites within the monastery grounds. Interdict means that she was not allowed to assist at Mass, receive the Sacraments or sing the Office. She was permitted, however, to say the Office in choro. It is likely that there were ''politics'' involved, and some jealousy on the part of the local Ordinary in the decision, but I know too little of the unfortunate circumstances to comment. Anyway, for months of utter silence Hildegard meditated upon the place of Sacred Music in the Divine plan. And so, she sent an appeal to the prelates of Mainz in which she set down her thoughts on the theology of Sacred Music, concluding with a prophetic warning against the enemies of music. She says: ''beware, before you use an interdict to stop the mouth of any church of God's singers...lest you be ensnared in your judgements by Satan, who lured man away from the celestial harmony and the delights of paradise.'' She goes on to warn the erring prelates that if they do not repent ''they will forego the fellowship of the Angelic praise in Heaven, for they have unjustly despoiled God on earth of the beauty of His praise.'' To silence music in Church, therefore, creates an artificial gulf between the celestial harmony in Heaven and the harmony on earth, to put asunder that which God had joined together by His Incarnation.
Music is integral to the Sacred Liturgy. Surely to silence the Liturgy is to put a gag on it? To do some violence or something unnatural to it? You simply cannot get away from the fact that Low Mass is the worst example of a minimalist approach to Liturgy. You should do everything within your means to make the Liturgy as solemn as possible. Anything less is less than litourgia.
I must say again: down with Low Mass, up with sung Office. Low Mass is just horribly wrong, and arguments for it being ''silent,'' ''conducive to private prayer,'' or whatever other nonsense are just stinking red herrings and hot air. This maybe continued...
Daily mass doesn't help the situation, which inevitably means that most masses are going to end up being "low". I would think the fact that the vast majority of ferias in the missal have no mass proper to them should be enough to show that mass was never intended to be said on such days.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, the situation is somewhat different today, for the lack of sacred ministers doesn't help when it comes to problem of minimalist liturgies. So what could be done? Bring back the minor orders for a start and celebrate mass only on high days and certain important ferias; mass said by a priest accompanied by a deacon etc. All these things you have spoken about before and which to me, at least, seem obvious.
I have to admit that sometimes I feel close to dispair when I ponder these things. I doubt there is much chance of such changes occuring anytime soon. I guess we just have to keep on praying. What other choice do we have?
Once the argument has been made that Low Mass is efficaciously the same as High Mass then it really becomes very difficult. I have even heard from the lips of a friend, a former priest, that "Low Mass is the apotheosis and genius of liturgical development."
ReplyDeleteIndeed the argument develops further and I have heard it expressed that three (Low) Masses would be better than a High Mass (assuming that priests are supplying for deacon and subdeacon).
The objection raised by Cardinal Heenan to the 'Missa Normativa' was not because of its theological content but because it was sung. "Our people love the Low Mass..." he dismally responded.
Can there be a way forward without a radical culture change, a change that would be deeply resisted and is indeed in intrinsic opposition to values held by the vast majority of those interested?
The vast majority of Masses advertised in the LMS magazine supplement are Low Masses. It's lamentable...
ReplyDeleteAs regards daily Mass, I think that daily Mass should only be celebrated in Cathedral churches, and conventual churches, in the presence of (or celebrated by) the Bishop, with Pontifical ceremonies, at around 9:00am. Most daily parish Masses are Low Masses with hymns in the New Rite and only the elderly attend them. I am against Mass being celebrated, ordinarily, after Midday, but for Holydays this presents a problem. Most people are at work, and so an evening Mass seems more apt. We never had this problem before Reformation times, when Holydays really were holidays...
The praxis, for a long time, was for the bishop to preside at the capitular Mass in his Cathedral celebrating himself on the greater days. Should a bishop celebrate, pontifically, every day? It would certainly be a lot of work. 9.00am is too early, 10:30 ideal IHMO.
ReplyDeleteI certainly think the Collegiate system works much better yet we don't have any (modern) Collegiate foundations. The attitude has been Low Mass every half-hour in the past even when churches were served by a team of priests.
I would agree Patricius that daily sung Office in churches would be better than Low Mass.
Naturally, Pontifical liturgy requires a lot of time and effort, lots of clergy etc, but then so did High Mass in the Presence of a Greater Prelate - my understanding is that this was the most common at Westminster in the good old days...
ReplyDeleteThe answer: perhaps the Bishop ought to preside at daily Mass in the Cathedral (even on Feriae - they get a generally poor treatment), at the Throne, blessing the incense etc; on Sundays and Holydays he himself would celebrate at the Throne. It would be good also if the auxiliary bishops ''toured'' the Diocese and celebrated Mass in parish churches from time to time more often than they do - with a Faldstool set permanently at the Gospel side of the Sanctuary, veiled daily in the colour of the Office and treated with honour until he comes. This would bind the church closer together in my opinion, and give what St Ignatius of Antioch said some relevance: Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be, even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church.
Your answer seems eminently reasonable on all points although I rather doubt it will happen anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you want a faldstool on the Gospel side rather than its usual place? I agree with the idea you express about the symbolic reminder of the bishop and the church.
Ooops! I meant the Epistle side. When I typed it out, I had the Cathedra in mind.
ReplyDelete