Dear old Webster says that aberration is a deviation from the normal state.

@chonak: Why not go whole hog, then, and opt for "diabolically-inspired"?

No one has said anything was diabolically inspired. Probably, it was more a case of the breakdown of central authority after the fall of Old Rome. It seems the greater the distance from Rome, the stranger things became. I am not fan of Trent, since I think it had a tendency to go overboard when addressing issues. But can you imagine the craziness the council had to deal with? After several centuries of many doing their own thing, it must have been chaotic. Sounds a little like today, doesn't it?

Does anyone really think that, 1900 years ago, a religious gathering of any kind, by any group of people, would not have included singing?

And that, aside from the notion (which I think is accurate) that the whole concept of formalized-speaking-out-loud (such as from scripture, or prayer) would almost certainly have been wrapped up in a style we would today describe as singing or chanting, but which they wouldn't have associated (necessarily) with the art of music.

Something doesn't have to have explicitly existed at the time of the Apostles for it to be valid, legitimate, or good. (However much I wish that were true every time I see one of those weird cut-away mini-fiddle chasubles.)

Does anyone really think that, 1900 years ago, a religious gathering of any kind, by any group of people, would not have included singing?

Yes, where appropriate.

I was taught by my mentors, and Dom Saulnier, that low mass is valid, fully the mass, and used as a pastoral necessity. However, it is not the normative expression of the mass. Some say it is not the fullest expression of the mass- that ultimately the solemn mass is normative.

That's exactly what I've been taught as well. The Easterns never lost it!

Singing is the language of prayer!

Quakers sing?

There were Quakers in 113?

Is there ANY religion which requires the people to be silent at their worship services?

Just askin'.

P.S. I'm not talking about periods of silence, but being totally silent.

Freddie Mercury sang. He was Zoroastrian.

As far as I know the Low Mass originated in the Middle Ages in monasteries because the numerous altars which flourished then in imitation of the station churches of Rome were to be given due liturgical veneration. The use of incense, ministers and chant would have become impossible when the number of altars reached a certain level.

I think it fair to say it was both reasons. Perhaps at any given time, more one than the other, but essentially both. Money is the root of all evil. Things haven't changed much, have they?

.

MHI, I think you go too far. Does accepting a hermeneutic of continuity require that we cannot make distinctions among elements of the tradition, and consider some liturgical forms more authentic than others, or perhaps more developed or more flourishing?

I'm not sure I would say "more authentic", but certainly "more desirable", in the sense that we desire peace, and wealth, and health, and time, and freedom from the hustle and bustle and toil of daily life, and fine weather, and talent, and learning, and vocations, and generosity, and conversions, and the perseverance of the Baptized...some of the preconditions for high liturgy.

Someone who holds a purely natural view could see Mass itself as the "fruit" of treasonous clerics and a timorous procurator who conspired to kill God. (But I laugh when I think of the motives of monks who preferred to offer Mass themselves each day compared with the motives of Byzantine Emperors.)

As far as "flourishing" I see Low Mass and High Mass both flourishing except where they form crowds loyal to one party or the other and make war with each other. This is usually a dead soil.

We agree on the principle: the low Mass is good; the solemn Mass is better. I'd contend that in some times and places, the good low Mass has predominated over the better solemn Mass to the extent that the latter practically disappeared, which was an impoverishment in those places.

If comparing Low Mass with motets by Couperin & Delalande to Solemn Mass with guitars and/or Rossini, the question should be framed "better for whom?"

Chonak's comment at 8:10 sums up my thinking on the subject of the allowed, though not preferred, low mass.

There are several good reasons to allow for low masses. There are also weaker reasons, such as simply not wanting to spend the necessary resources on a music program or train enough servers.

I would not ever call the low mass an aberration, btw.

Solemn Mass with guitars

http://isitathing.com/Solemn-Mass-with-guitars

http://isitathing.com/Solemn-Mass-with-guitars

Besides missing my point, that's your argument?
I think you want the room marked contradiction.

Besides missing my point, that's your argument?

I didn't miss your point. I have no argument with it.

With perhaps a small degree of "personal preferences," I think (as far as I can tell) that you and I are pretty much on the same page about liturgical ideals, appropriateness, pastoral sensitivity, liberality in instrumentation and styling, etc.

NOTE TO ALL
If I disagree with you for serious, I will write a long post.
If my disagreement comes in the form of a poem, cat-picture, or sarcastic link, I'm probably just trying to make you laugh. Or make myself laugh.

Mary Ann,

I want to be in your parish! Is this an FSSP or traditional order parish or a regular diocesan parish? How long has it been in existence?

I have 4 masses on Sunday morning through early afternoon. They are all sung to some degree. The associate pastor sings nearly everything, and the pastor restricts himself to singing the Ordinary and hymns. The Ordinary is nearly always sung. Now what the "contemporary" crowd does Sunday evening is anybody's guess, since I never attend that one. Contemporary in quotes because they are mostly 70s folks who haven't been contemporary in some years.

I know this gets into the Scholastic mindset of counting things, and I don't want to belabor this. In the west there is a tendency to count, measure, and catalog things that the east doesn't share. For example, Pope Francis mentioned, when offered a listing of X number of rosaries, etc. said for him, "Why didn't they just say they were praying for me", instead of all the counting. I understand exactly what he meant. Is there some merit to saying more masses and doing them less well?

I would rather see a three-hour-long liturgy on Sunday done magnificently, than a hurry-up-get-it-over with recited mass. It wasn't any better before Vatican II, since I witnessed any number of 30-minute liturgies with the priest racing through the mass at breakneck speed. In fact, some of the local priests used to compete to see who could say the fastest mass. I know it is my eastern perspective behind this, but I would rather see fewer liturgies done better. Bring on the high mass and do it extremely well. If it means cancelling a few low masses, so what?

Like Mary Ann, Chonak's view is mine as well. Yes, low Masses should certainly be allowed, but also, it should be kept in mind that they are not ideal.

Certainly, the low Mass has it's purpose: the private Mass. But for public Masses, we should really try to make as many as possible sung Masses.

Bring on the high mass and do it extremely well. If it means cancelling a few low masses, so what?

Yes.

Question: how does one "remember" priests celebrating Mass "at a breakneck speed" when almost everything in those days was -- inaudible?

I was there, and had mastered the art of time-telling quite well. The clock did not lie. Secondly, much to the chagrin of some friends, I rarely forget anything.

Progressive solemnity is good, if we ever decide to follow the concept. Some do, many don't.

Postscript: 30-minute-masses. You know, we had some rotten priests back then, too. That is not a post-Vatican II thing.

.

@Adam: I cannot agree with your interpretation of Musicam sacram. The normative nature of musical liturgy does not apply to the principal Sunday Mass. It applies to all Masses.

I have been a priest for 40 years and I have never presided at a Mass where nothing was sung. Even when I am visiting a parish for the first time at a weekday Mass (where I am substituting for the regular priest) I lead a sung alleluia and always chant the "per ipsum" before the great Amen. I TRY to get in a sung sanctus; sometimes I am not successful in parishes that never do that a weekday Masses and someone or several people cut me off before I can begin.

With a small congregation, say that of an Eastern Catholic church, it may work fine to have few liturgies: but with a larger one, it will be necessary to make greater provision.

Of course you do have to make provision for your own parish. However, what I typically see is a building that seats, say 700? There is one mass with 50 in attendance, another mass with 250, and another with 200. Why not have one grand, well-done mass instead?