While the desire not to label or make generalizations is noble, and the danger inherent in doing so is real, the alternative isn't helpful: not being able to talk about trends, movements, or phenomenon because (you, know, really) they are made up of discrete individual actions and people which should not labelled or dismissed.

There is a growing movement of people who strive for a liturgical praxis that is different than the one typically witnessed in many places currently, and which differs in a cluster of related ways. If you don't want to call it "Traditionalism," that's fine. But that's what most people are choosing to call it.

It's not a club to join. It's a cultural phenomenon worth discussing.

Ok... It's not JUST a club.

But it's definately not about slavishly following history and "turning back the clock."

I think most of the people involved in "the movement" agree with this.

Of course. Did you read my Fourth of July FB post? It's a problem without AND within.

Just a shout out in appreciation of Fr. Chris' posts as well. Really thoughtful writing!!

Julie, agreed about the big majority of people being attracted to a sung mass, with Gregorian chant, in either form.
Detractors to the older mass usually deride the low mass, I've noticed.

Oh well. You broke my resolve not to get involved in this discussion.

First, the Church presumes that the "normal" celebration of Mass is the Pontifical High Mass, but most parishes don't often manage a Solemn High Mass, whether His Grace is present or not. Much more common, and still quite beautiful, is the High Mass, which is distinct from the Missa Cantata. These are both different from the Low Mass or the (in my mind truly bizarre) "Low Mass with hymns".

The "principle Mass" in an ordinary parish - i.e., one in which the bishop is not present -- should be a High Mass. Low Masses are available, and are inherently, intrinsically good, but less good than a High Mass.

Remembering that Mass (in any form, in any rite) MUST, by its nature, be theocentric, I'm now going to make some other distinctions.

Mass can be said, of course, by a priest in a prison camp, even if he has no "congregation". Properly, he should have a server.

"He who sings well, prays twice" shouldn't be used to discourage singing, but the twisted version of "active participation" which seems to have such great currency in our day leads to a wholly unhealthy dichotomy: either we choose music (of our modern idiom) which all the people can sing, or we have no music. Either way, "active participation" is achieved, but in either case, faith is killed.

Now, I say this as a musician. Sometimes I wish to attend a low Mass, such as when I manage to assist at a weekday Mass. This allows me to concentrate more fully on the prayers, which I can't pray while I'm singing or playing. (I can't, for example, pray the prayers at the foot of the altar while I'm singing a polyphonic Kyrie).

On the other hand, I recognize that the finery with which we clothe the Mass is our service to God, which service also helps to raise the hearts and minds of the lay faithful to the things of God.

Even at a High Mass (or Solemn High, or Missa Cantata or Pontifical High....) silence is golden; music can serve to help us, but if music overwhelms the rite, it is no longer performing its duty.

It has been my experience that most parishes which celebrate the Ordinary form seem to believe silence is evil, and microphones are God's gift to (something or the other). This is not (necessarily) the fault of the rite, but results from a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the Mass. Circle back to the beginning of my post, where I assert that the Mass is theocentric.

In defense of the "old Italian grandmothers, fingering their rosaries and hissing at parents with poorly behaved urchins", each of us manages participation at a particular (i.e., individual) level, and Pope Pius XII specifically said that it would be wrong to discourage people from praying the rosary at Mass; furthermore, some of them have been so battle hardened by fighting to keep the good that they lose their patience with those of us whose children had (or have) to learn to behave at Mass.

I think the low mass model has been a mistake from the beginning in the western church. This is a place where I like the eastern model better. One or at most two sung masses which everyone attends instead of half a dozen poorly attended spoken masses largely ignored by the congregation. It is church, not a drive-in, although many would probably like that. Fewer masses done better would be an improvement.

That being said, and back to the original point of the thread, I am not a traditionalist. I don't attend EF masses - have nothing against them, just don't go there - and don't look to them as the ideal or a model. I use traditional hymns, chant, some Latin, decent organ music, etc. at OF masses. Some call me traditional, but I see myself as a middle-of-the-roader trying to follow the liturgical instructions as they exist, not as anyone else would want them to be. I have no agenda here, I just follow the rules. It's the do-as-you-please folks who are the extremists.

St. Google - knows all, tells all - says the low mass originated in the middle ages. Hardly apostolic, in a strict sense of the word. Granted, it has been around long enough that it isn't going anywhere, not to mention that it is highly popular. I think it has been a source of problems, but it is so entrenched I don't see it going anywhere.

First, the Church presumes that the "normal" celebration of Mass is the Pontifical High Mass

What? Where?

Here's a data point for you:

I have a 25 year old friend who grew up traditionalist. The most progressive Mass at any parish she's regularly attended was an English OF Mass with Latin Gregorian chant, celebrated ad orientem. The parish also had a Latin OF and EF Mass.

When I asked her which Mass she preferred, she had a hard time choosing. She finally said she prefers the Latin OF because, "they give you a little book that has all the translations and the order of Mass in it, so you know what's going on." I was shocked by such an ignorant statement! I pointed out that passing out leaflets with translations was NOT a difference in the Masses. But that's what appeals to her most about the Latin OF - she can follow along in the leaflet. She told me she always found the hand missals a burden at the EF Mass, or the dual set of leaflets with the proper and ordinary.

Take that as you will.

I didn't intend to provoke a discussion of the silent Low Mass vs a High Mass; what I meant to say was that if, as Fr. Smith clearly wishes to encourage, there is to be understanding and good will between the advocates of the different forms of the Latin rite, it is essential that a model of the Latin Mass be presented which is most in keeping with the clearly stated desires and mandates of the preconciliar popes.

If those who wish to promote the traditional Latin Mass offer the silent Low Mass or a Missa Cantata where only "specialists" and "elites" are allowed to sing the responses and parts of the Mass as the only two possible models of the TLM, it will make the task of finding common ground between the EF and OF that much more difficult.

I've posted this before but it's worth repeating: Popes Pius X, XI and XII used very harsh language to describe the kind of congregational attitudes they wished to eliminate from the Latin Mass.

“. . . detached and silent spectators”—-Pope Pius XI, Divini cultus

“. . . .outsiders or mute onlookers”—-Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei

“. . . strangers”—-Pope Pius XII, De musica sacra

“. . . mute spectators”—-Pope Pius XII, De musica sacra

“. . . dumb and idle spectators”—-Pope Pius XII, Musicae sacrae disciplina

As they reiterated multiple times in the liturgical documents: the people are to be taught to sing and say in Latin those parts of the mass that belong to them.

In the end, we of course all have and are entitled to our own personal opinions and preferences, and I certainly respect everyone's opinions on this forum. However, the preferences of the Church in regards to the liturgy are what have to be carried out.

As Pope John Paul II used to say, the disciple always has to be able to say with the Lord, "My message is not mine, but His who sent me." That in the end is what matters most.

Don't worry, you can still talk with the cool kids here.

Now haven't we warned you to stay away from PTB? It isn't worthy of you. Listen to your elders. ;-)

@Chrism wrote:

It's not only against the CMAA's mission to attack liturgical norms, it also seems uncouth for musicians to do so.

Please recognize a distinction: "Individuals expressing personal opinions about the historical development of the liturgy" is not the same as "attacking liturgical norms".

As far as we know, Low Mass is part of Apostolic Tradition.

If you're speaking for yourself, better make that "As far as I know..." Some people consider spoken Mass a post-apostolic development.

Some people consider spoken Mass a post-apostolic development.

Some people have baseless opinions on all sorts of things.

Popes Pius X, XI and XII used very harsh language to describe the kind of congregational attitudes they wished to eliminate from the Latin Mass.

I would not describe the language as particularly harsh. The Popes rather gently encourage the people to feel comfortable singing at Mass.

"Individuals expressing personal opinions about the historical development of the liturgy" is not the same as "attacking liturgical norms".

Perhaps @CharlesW can clarify his intent.

There have been so many changes since that time, that the apostles might not recognize much of today's liturgy. Given that liturgies in both east and west were more alike than different in the days of the Church fathers, I express the opinion that the low mass is a Latin church aberration from the Middle Ages. Prior to then, it was not the norm in the west, and still isn't in the east. It seems many differences originated in the Middle Ages. Must have been a crazy time!

Well, there was resistance against the innovation of the silent canon. But silence appears to have gained ground as the gap between the vernacular of the people and Latin grew and as congregations dwindled in tandem with population decline. The parish worship model we are familiar with was not universal (or even widespread) in that time period, but dates from a later era.

Again and again your argument revolves around what people "would have thought" under conjectured circumstances -- if they had thought the way you do.

I assume the first Christians held to what they learned from the Apostles, and that this Tradition has been preserved in the Church throughout time.

But let's get back to the point, would you say that Low Mass is evil is a valid or tenable proposition, or would you agree that it is neither?

Let's get back to the point.

What was the JT quote? Something like "Our movement is not about the past, but about creating a beautiful future."

Yeah, I'd prefer "deviation".
:-)

.