I think that «Psallite sapienter» will answer your questions, if you take the time to read it carefully... You can read it online, download it as a PDF file, or buy the book (printed on real paper, yes).

I'm going out on a limb here, but I think there is a distinction between the music of the Mass, and music AT the Mass. "PS" is very clear about so much, and is drawn on important sources, but I disagree with absolutely no part of the Mass being set to music during a Low Mass. The point here is: who is participating in the singing, and does it constitute the "singing of the Mass". Clearly, if any part of the Ordinary is sung, it would be sung at its appropriate time, with the Priest intoning it, etc. That would actually make the Mass a High Mass. But, if music at a Low Mass is simply background, and does not interrupt the Priest in any way, and the congregation is not asked to participate, there should be nothing wrong with chanting a Proper or two. Now, common sense must come into play here. The music at a Low Mass must never impede the progress of the Mass being said at the Altar. So, trying to squeeze the Gradual and Alleluia in would not be appropriate. But using the Communion Antiphon as background should be OK. And using the Introit as prelude music should also be OK, especially since the prelude is not within the Mass itself, and therefor not legislated.

This is what makes no sense. The music AT a Mass must NOT pertain to that Mass? Is this where the "4 hymn sandwich" came from - that ALL music during a Low Mass must be TOTALLY unrelated to that Mass? So what if the organist played the accompaniment to a Proper? What if a Latin Office Hymn from the day were used? Then why not the text, from the Bible, that would be used at a High Mass? It's simply background music. I think there may be other directives out there, or local traditions, to be investigated. The Ordinary and the Proper have two totally different uses during the Mass. To say that they are both the same or equal, and you cannot have one without the other, simply makes no sense.

Please check Psallite Sapienter again: «During Missa Privata, it is not allowed to sing any portion of the Mass itself.» §188 «...it is not permitted to sing translations of the texts of the Mass itself.» §189

You may find this absurd, but that is indeed what the Church prescribes for the Extraordinary Form.

> Is this where the "4 hymn sandwich" came from - that ALL music during a Low Mass must be TOTALLY unrelated to that Mass?

Yes. When it was allowed for the first time to mix in the same Mass sung parts and said parts, and other suitable songs were allowed to replace some propers (Introit, Offertory, Communion) if needed, the result was that, Low Masses being the prevalent model of Mass celebrated, the un-liturgical music used therein ended up being used in all Masses---and also because vernacular music was sought, and, since you can't set all the translated propers to good music overnight, you had to use what already existed, which was un-liturgical music for Low Mass.

Would it be permissible to sing the Introit as a prelude and perhaps the Communion at the Offertory?

Regarding the alleged ban on singing a Sanctus at Low Mass, I worry that people might fall into the error of reading Psallite Sapienter as if it were not merely a venerable guide but a piece of legislation. My understanding, and I would be happily corrected (although I will take no one's word for it except Mills's, otherwise give me a pre-1962 citation), is that Psallite's #188 refers back to a brief comment in Fortescue which is not itself sourced back to Roman liturgical law.



Lawrence Yates, writing for the Latin Mass Society (UK) in 2000, described the matter thusly:

We cannot pick and choose which parts of the Mass we will sing. This is permitted during a low Mass where the celebrant is in no way involved, and such singing does not disturb the rite of Low Mass. If, however, the celebrant is to sing at all, we are immediately governed by the rubrics pertaining to a solemn Mass. Everything which is sung in a solemn Mass MUST also be sung in a Missa Cantata, including the Proper.

So according to Yates, while the celebrant is forbidden from singing parts of the Mass at "Low Mass", the choir may sing texts of the parts of the Mass as long as they follow the other rubrics for singing at Low Mass. One important distinction: a choir singing the text of the Sanctus at Low Mass would not actually be singing the parts of the Mass, but merely accompanying the Mass, even if the ancient melodies were used. At High Mass, the choir actually does sing the parts of the Mass, like in the Novus Ordo (although the celebrant also says the Proper and Ordinary quietly by himself in the EF).



I have heard that there is a widespread custom of strictly avoiding the singing the text of the parts of the Mass by choir at Low Mass. My question is, is it merely custom (perhaps based on misinterpretation), or is it a real law they are following? (Custom should also be followed, of course.) If it is merely custom, was there a good reason for it to develop? If it is law, can someone post it?



Interestingly, what is commonly called "High Mass" today in the EF, the Missa Cantata with one priest, is a relatively recent "hybrid" development, essentially a Low Mass with the singing (and often the incensations) added from Solemn Mass on top of it. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Cantata was seen as such a hybrid that it used to be customarily indicated by having four altar candles lit, instead of six for Solemn and two for Low. Today I usually see six for an EF Cantata, and the Cantata is now considered a "High" whereas that term was reserved for Solemn Masses only a century ago. But I digress a bit.

Actually, everyone seems to agree that you're allowed to use another week's Offertory or Communion (e.g., Ave Maria, Tollite Hostias) without problem. It's today's proper Offertory that gets everyone upset.

Arthur, because we're musicians and our opinions of what Mass should be celebrated are somewhere in importance to the pastor behind the janitor's and visiting protestants.

Arthur Connick, if there are no rubrics against it and the celebrant is on board and there is no custom to the contrary then there is nothing to go around.



Because Solemn Mass is the perfect form of the EF liturgy, and Low Mass merely an adaptation of convenience, it would seem to make sense for the music at Low Mass to mirror, as much as possible, the music at Solemn Mass. Thus it would seem better to sing the text and music of the Propers and Ordinary appropriate for the Mass being said as near as possible to the times they would be sung in Solemn Mass than to sing, for example, random hymns or random Propers, even if these are also allowed and salutary. Ember Saturday has only a few hours left to run, and music at a Low Mass tomorrow would more appropriately echo the petition Rorate caeli, the angelic salutation Ave Maria, and the prophecy Ecce virgo concipiet said by the priest at that Mass than repeat what Holy Mother Church assigned for the penitential/ordination day previous.



"Chant Low Mass" is a very popular request from priests, BTW. They very much want Gregorian chant, but some are shy singing, some would like a faster Mass, others are under the impression that High Mass requires a full ceremonial or at least the incensations, which means more trained servers who may not be readily available. BTW, the 1962 Rubrics are extremely clear that incensations at a Cantata are only optional: "Incensationes quae in Missa solemni fieri debent, fieri possunt etiam in omnibus Missis cantatis" (#426). And the Catholic Encyclopedia (1910) article written by Fortescue says that "the Sacred Congregation of Rites has on several occasions (9 June, 1884; 7 December, 1888) forbidden the use of incense at a Missa Cantata; nevertheless, exceptions have been made for several dioceses, and the custom of using it is generally tolerated (Le Vavasseur, op. cit., I, 514-5)." Incense at a Cantata is tolerated, not mandated. But some people are not easily convinced.



If I were a priest, I would sing the Mass every day. But I'm not, and so I'm in the position to take orders rather than give them. If the order is invalid, that's one thing. But without a Roman rule, the order seems valid.

Surely, «Psallite Sapienter» is no piece of legislation; just an authoritative guide. But I remember reading the same thing (outright ban of anything liturgical, either from the ordinary of from the proper, even when translated into the vernacular, during Low Masses) in a Portuguese manual of the Roman Rite from the 1920's I have at home, and in some articles in a Journal on Liturgy from the same epoch (that published the said manual sheet by sheet in octavo during five years). I'll take some time to recheck this at home and will post something later. (If someone posts authoritative material settling the question for good you'll save me the trouble.)

BTW: the idea of allowing some parts to be sung and the rest to be said when it is not possible to sing everything decently is one of the major points of Musicam Sacram. Allowing some replacements with other suitable songs when not all propers can be decently sung is another. While experience shows that the latter idea can be much abused, the former idea can also be abused if you settle for some sung+said mixture as the normal «Mass formula» without ever trying to go forward to the full Missa in Cantu... So I guess there is something to be said for the ridigidity of pre-Musicam Sacram legislation.

It's still not the information I promised in my last post, but I believe these comments are pertinent:

> Music could otherwise become a smorgasbord of today's Introit, last week's Offertory and a Communio from a few months back.

In the Ordinary Form this can be done, provided that all the propers switched around belong to the same liturgical season. There's a clear rubric saying that in the 1974 Graduale Romanum. Good sense when using this provision is assumed (perhaps too hopefuly).

> Come to think of it, were the 7 'universal communions' approved under the EF or was that an OF introduction?

As far as I know, they are an innovation from the 1974 Graduale Romanum.

> the issuance of Musicam Sacram (MS)in 1967 seems part of the natural organic development of the Mass. While strictly it is not identical with the rubrics in place in 1962, neither has it been abrogated, rescinded, or otherwise done away with.

Sure: Musicam Sacram applies to the Ordinary Form, is quoted several times in the General Instruction of the Missale Romanum, and it is sad that its contents are not more widely known and followed (especially the list of priorities when singing some parts of the mass and not others). But does it apply to the Extraordinary Form? My uneducated opinion is that, while we may think it might be good that it should apply, it does not.

There's a similar discussion going on at Father John Zuhlsdorf's blog «What does the prayer really say?». Check it here.

It's interesting that the Liber usualis makes no mention of musical items in the "said Mass". One would infer that sung parts of the liturgy were not expected. After reading De musica sacra , I was surprised to see no firm comments on singing at Low Mass. Fortescue is even silent on the matter.

> 2. Simplex/Simple = simpler propers, ordinary, hymns (think Simplex + simple polyphony and hymnody)

If the ordinary is sung AND the propers are sung---even if they are sung using a psalm-tone, or even recto tono---you have a Missa Cantata (and hymns must be in Latin, the priest's parts must be sung, etc.).

Well, we cannot turn to legal documents to support our positions and ignore them when they don't. I would, some others here, to see where singing the Ordinary and Propers for the Low Mass is prohibited. I'm not talking about "discouraged" or not a traditional practice, but outright denied. In our times, if chanting at Low Mass is prohibited, scholas will have few outlets for their talents. I don't want to break any rules, but until we get some priests willing to chant, we need to make use of all licit opportunities.

Additionally, the congregation at this Mass in Madrid, held in a chapel the Cardinal Archbishop refurbished at his own expense, was overwhelmingly young and many families. Only one covered female head was sighted and my sister guessed she was an American by her dress and demeanor. Another reason to question the universality of many of our "traditional community" practices. Not to object to them, but to understand that they may be very local in nature.

I found Fr. Z's blog on this subject very interesting (see above DVALERIO'S entry and click). It states that the Low Mass with
some propers & ordinaries sung is 'popping up' all around the country. This confusion over preference & 'letter of the law' r/t
Low Mass will need some urgent attention by the powers that be. I have vowed to never participate in a Low Mass with the
4-hymn sandwich. That was so very '1962' in 1962. But this is 2008-9. We've already 'been down that road' and look where
it's gotten us. I like Pes' 'sliding scale' idea but as GREGP says, 'the plural of anecdote is not data'. I can't do it without the
document to prove it. So I stick to the PS even though, I wish...

The entry above which quotes Lawrence Yates of the Latin Mass Society ('...We cannot pick and choose which parts of the Mass
we will sing. THAT IS PERMITTED IN THE LOW MASS WHERE THE CELEBRANT IS IN NO WAY INVOLVED...') Still not sure if this
is 'ok' to use to justify a change in the 1962 rubric 'limbo' it feels like we are in.

He has a search light on his roof which projects a bowtie against the clouds of the night.

I found Fr. Z's blog on this subject very interesting (see above DVALERIO'S entry and click). It states that the Low Mass with
some propers & ordinaries sung is 'popping up' all around the country. This confusion over preference & 'letter of the law' r/t
Low Mass will need some urgent attention by the powers that be. I have vowed to never participate in a Low Mass with the
4-hymn sandwich. That was so very '1962' in 1962. But this is 2008-9. We've already 'been down that road' and look where
it's gotten us. I like Pes' 'sliding scale' idea but as GREGP says, 'the plural of anecdote is not data'. I can't do it without the
document to prove it. So I stick to the PS even though, I wish...

The entry above which quotes Lawrence Yates of the Latin Mass Society ('...We cannot pick and choose which parts of the Mass
we will sing. THAT IS PERMITTED IN THE LOW MASS WHERE THE CELEBRANT IS IN NO WAY INVOLVED...') Still not sure if this
is 'ok' to use to justify a change in the 1962 rubric 'limbo' it feels like we are in.

This may sound like a dumb question after the long discussion, but I still need advice. My parish has a Missa Cantata on the first Sunday of every month. And we have been using four Latin and English hymns (from 'The Adoramus Hymnal ' and 'The St. Gregory Hymnal') for Sunday EF Low Masses. Personally, I prefer to keep silent and not to sing at all. Otherwise, I think organ solo is enough for Low Masses. But music director and organist want choir to sing because it is a "Sunday" Low Mass. Would you give practical advices what and when we can sing, if we sing, instead of four (Latin/English) hymn sandwiches?

Thank you for the suggestion. I am amazed how musical setting of EF Mass can be so Novus Ordoish (in spite of the fact that the musical setting of four hymn singing in Novus Ordo came out of that of Low Mass). I wish we could have more Missa Cantata and High Masses than Low Masses on Sundays.

It seems strange to me, too. There's not an equivalent for low mass in the east that I have seen. Maybe somewhere, and I just don't know about it, but the concept of low mass is an aberration that somehow crept into the west. Also, the whole idea of "private masses" seems like a misunderstanding of what liturgy is supposed to be. Let's blame it on either the Scholastics or the Jesuits. ;-)

Well, rather than speculating based on the biases we bring with us, let's look for historical information.

As a start: Jungmann's The Mass of the Roman Rite (vol I, p 218) says that as early as the sixth century, private Masses for the dead were common.

Jungmann's talking about Masses said by a priest alone, even without a server.

In the index to his book, "Low Mass" refers readers to the topic "Private Mass". Understandably, the practice of celebrating Mass without singing is connected with the practice of priests celebrating Mass without a congregation.

The GIRM instructs that Mass should not be said without at least a server or some of the faithful unless there is a good reason, but does allow the priest to celebrate without a server. The rubrics are under the heading "Mass at which only one minister participates" (No. 252-272).

But this is turning into a digression, as in the modern era, the question of spoken Masses is distinct from the question of Masses offered without a congregation.

With specific situations like that, I can't really tell you. Orthodox Canon law is like, one thin book (compared to the encyclopedia set of Roman Canon Law). While the Latin Rite tries to account for every exception in its canon law, and can therefore turn very simple questions into intense quote wars, the Orthodox church isn't like that... I'm sure that if a priest were somehow isolated--say, solitary confinement in a prison or something--and he decided to say the Divine Liturgy, God would hear him just the same.