The Transformation of Traditionalism.... interesting discussion cooking
  • MHIMHI
    Posts: 324
    .
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,092
    Well, progressive solemnity as compared between given celebrations of the same commemoration is only going to make an impression on the ministers who are participating in more than one of those celebrations - it's a shallow meaning of progressive solemnity. Progressive solemnity as compared between iterative celebrations involving roughly the same congregation is a deeper meaning.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    "Bring on the high mass and do it extremely well. If it means cancelling a few low masses, so what?"

    I agree with this. It is always disturbing to me, as Charles describes, to see a parish that seats 700 have 50 people there at 5 Masses a weekend. I can think of few churches that should need more than 2 Masses on a weekend, and fewer that would even need that many.

    But... as MHI pointed out much earlier in the thread, the Mass does more than just fulfill the obligation of and impart graces to those attending. It is also a fruitful sacrifice for the living and dead. Given that, is it truly desirable to have one Mass per weekend or several?
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • Chrism
    Posts: 872
    normative


    I don't think this term is being used correctly. The liturgical law is what is normative, both normative-descriptive (it describes what is normative) and normative-prescriptive (it commands what is normative).

    So is Sung Mass made THE normative Mass by the liturgical law? No. Here is the closest thing to an encouragement to sung Mass that I can find in the latest pre-conciliar legislation:

    It is desirable that on Sundays, and feast days the parish or principal Mass be a sung Mass.


    Can we find others?

    I think this "Sung Mass is THE normative Mass" meme is erroneously derived from reading the rubrics of the EF Mass, which first describe Solemn Mass and then explain the derogations that take place when Mass is offered by one priest, and then when Mass is read. It needs to be understood that the rubrics for all three types of Mass evolved together.

    Likewise, as Low Mass is normative, so is the EF normative as the extraordinary form.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen chonak
  • Protasius
    Posts: 468
    To be exact, the rubrics of the EF missal describe the Low Mass and explain in italics the differences for Solemn High Mass. That Solemn High Mass is the norm is more likely to be derived from e.g. St Thomas of Aquinas' explanation of the Mass which he makes by using the Solemn High Mass.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    http://www.chantcafe.com/2013/07/i-like-chant-for-all-wrong-reasons.html


    Most of you have probably seen this, but I wrote it partially in response to this conversation, particularly the characterization of "traditionalism" that runs rampant both among it's detractors and some of it's more "out-there" supporters.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    FWIW, the Legitimate Liturgist Fr. R. Skeris, Ph.D., has always taught that the sung Mass (solemn, i.e., with deacon/subdeacon) is the normative form and the "low Mass" is an aberration probably developed in monastic communities where several Masses were offered at one time.

    That "low Mass" format was utilized in parishes where the church accomodated ~300-500 faithful, but there were ~1500-2000 members who attended Mass every Sunday. That was the pragmatic solution, even long before "parking lot" considerations.

    The "Missa Cantata" is a step down from the norm, too, but was used because few if any parishes had (ordained) deacons and sub-deacons hanging around, and requiring all the parish's priests to be present for every Mass (not to mention the choir and schola) was also impractical.
    Thanked by 1Arthur Connick
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Maybe I missed someone already mentioning this along the way, but isn't the suppression of the Mass under QE1 in Great Britain, and then in Ireland, germane in that its legacy carried well over into America by the predominant demographic of Irish clergy that emigrated and politically dominated (see Russell Shaw) pastoral assignments and therefore praxis. Tom Day took great pains to point this out in '90.
    Thanked by 4CHGiffen JulieColl Aristotle Esguerra MHI
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    Melo: yes. But the Irish were not dominant everywhere. The Upper Midwest (Chicago, Milwaukee, and the Twin Cities) were largely composed of northern European immigrants and clergy. Regardless, the same praxis was in effect.

    So it was not just "the Irish," pace Tom Day.
Add a Comment