While I was searching for something else, I came across the 2-page article, "Seventy Years of Changing Conditions and Their Effect on Catholic Church Choirs," by James A. Reilly, which makes references to historical conditions in the early 1900's which had an effect on Low Mass vs. High Mass. It can be found on pages 215-216 here: http://media.musicasacra.com/publications/caecilia/1932_07_caecilia.pdf

No document forbids a choir singing Propers and Ordinary while the priest reads Low Mass.

Actually, Chrism, I think t's pretty clear in De musica sacra (Section 31) that the people are only allowed to recite the Ordinary and Propers with the priest at the Low Mass and not sing them.

There is nothing in article 31, which starts with "A...method of participation", or elsewhere which corresponds to your paraphrase. You have added the word "only".

You are correct that this is serious matter. It is much more serious when people invent false rules than when they break them.

I wonder if all this only relates to the EF. In the NO, there is no low or high mass. Just mass with varying degrees of solemnity.

One would think the western church would have had upheavals enough when the Roman Rite was essentially replaced with the Gallican Rite in the 10th century. All that pomp and ceremonial that the traditionalists love came from the Gallican, not the Roman. The Roman Rite was quite austere.

Some historians have noted that private masses were said in monasteries in the 12th and 13th centuries, or thereabouts. These private masses spread beyond the walls and became widespread as "low masses." It seems to me that Trent, for any practical purposes, accepted the low mass as the norm, and the high for celebrations and bigger events. The Fathers of Vatican II seemed to realize the liturgy had gone somewhat off-track in the Middle Ages. They tried to restore items from early church tradition. How successful any of this was, is not clear and certainly is widely debated. The high mass, or mass with greater degrees of solemnity, is not the norm today but the exception. The low mass, or less solemn mass is the norm. In any event, the Church Fathers, east and west, would have been horrified at the concept of either private or low masses.

The Cantius order has produced EF training materials and workshops for priests, and their member Fr. Scott Haynes, SJC, is very knowledgeable on rubrical and ceremonial matters.

CharlesW

Yes, this does only apply to the EF. (I believe you can do any mix of music in the N.O.)

On Bugnini's attempts, it is interesting to compare what he tried to restore, and what he did not restore i.e. fasting rules

Hilluminar

In the Ef communities I have been a member of we always have a list of books to consult, and when we can not find it in those books we have a series of experts to call on.

Yesterday after Mass a number of these experts met up to debate the rubrics of the (Sung) Divine Office on Ferial Fridays!

Julie, you can't just believe what you want, sorry.

The words "A method of participation" simply do not mean "the only approved method of participation", certainly not in the context of De Musica Sacra, where many forms of participation are envisioned. Music, including both instrumental accompaniment, and choral music -- including settings of the text of the Ordinary and Proper -- while the priest says Mass with a server and the people pray private devotions silently is a longstanding custom which is neither evil nor banned for the Universal Church.

"The only thing which may be sung at the Low Mass are hymns, according to this section of the document."

And here again you have added the word "only" to your legislative paraphrase. Do you have a jar of "only"s sitting around to paste in whenever you see the word "may"?

Well, Chrism, far be it from to dictate liturgical law to anyone. I used the word "only" since the matters mentioned were the "only" options mentioned in De Musica Sacra, but I've crossed them off to avoid any misunderstanding.

De Musica Sacra (1958) is the latest and therefore the most authoritative liturgical document dealing in detail with the EF so that is what is commonly used to settle questions like this. I've also consulted B. Andrew Mills' book Psallite Sapienter, A Musician's Practical Guide to the 1962 Roman Missal which says the same: "In Missa Privata, the celebrant is not assisted by deacon or subdeacon, and no part of the Mass is sung."

I don't have access to the 1962 Missale Romanum itself, or I'd give you a citation from that as well. (I'll work on finding it, though, and get back to you.)

Section 30 of De Musica Sacra explains that the faithful at a Low Mass may participate another way at the Eucharistic Sacrifice by saying prayers together or by singing hymns. The prayers and hymns must be chosen appropriately for the respective parts of the Mass, and as indicated in paragraph 14c.

Section 14 says this: "b) At low Mass the faithful who participate directly in the liturgical ceremonies with the celebrant by reciting aloud the parts of the Mass which belong to them must, along with the priest and his server, use Latin exclusively.

But if, in addition to this direct participation in the liturgy, the faithful wish to add some prayers or popular hymns, according to local custom, these may be recited or sung in the vernacular."

So the faithful are permitted to sing hymns at a Low Mass but I hope you'll agree that hymns are not the parts of the Mass. Hymns are not the parts of the Ordinary and the propers.

It would seem to me that if one departs from what is specifically detailed in Section 14, 30 and 31 of De Musica Sacra which is described as the plenior modus "more complete" method of participation at the Low Mass then one is entering very murky ground.

I would re-iterate to you my experience with the elderly priest (85 y/o) who pretty much concocted his own version of the Low Mass where all the priest's parts were recited, the Canon was amplified by a microphone, the readings were read in Latin from the 1962 Missale Romanum and the Sunday readings were read directly afterwards from the Missalette, the Kyrie, Sanctus and Agnus Dei were sung, the Gloria and Credo were recited, and the Introit and Communion were also sung, and any variation thereof could be made at a moment's notice.

It was very confusing, to say the least, and noone could tell if it was a High Mass or a Low Mass, or the Novus Ordo in Latin or the EF, for that matter.

And here's one of the consequences of mixing things up: most of the people in the pews ended up believing that the way Father X said the Latin Mass was the only way it could be done.

Unfortunately, when the aforementioned priest became ill, another priest took over for a few weeks and, being a former Benedictine chantmaster, beautifully sang the readings and prayers of the Missa Cantata exactly according to the 1962 rubrics.

And what did the people do? They practically had a riot after Mass and claimed that the way Fr. Y (the former Benedictine) celebrated the Latin Mass was "wrong" and he and the schola were imposing their own innovations on them. They were literally shouting at Father Y and the schola members in the parking lot (from what I understand; thankfully I wasn't there that day) and they made such a ruckus and fuss that the pastor cancelled the Latin Mass for good in that parish.

A sad but true cautionary tale.

And what did the people do? They practically had a riot after Mass and claimed that the way Fr. Y (the former Benedictine) celebrated the Latin Mass was "wrong" and he and the schola were imposing their own innovations on them. They were literally shouting at Father Y and the schola members in the parking lot (from what I understand; thankfully I wasn't there that day) and they made such a ruckus and fuss that the pastor cancelled the Latin Mass for good in that parish.

"True Catholic Confessions: non-sensus fidelium!"
Equal parts Keystone Kops, Three Stooges and the inevitable Circular Firing Squad = it's all about ME Catholics, from Trads to Rads. Gotta smile and pray.

Bugnini was "complex" and wrong, wrong, wrong.

Never said he wasn't. Keep in mind that Pius XII ran Paul VI out of Rome because he considered him dangerous. Of course, he hadn't become Paul VI at that earlier time.

Thanks so much, tomjaw, for the links to the Missale Romanum. This is a great help with some other questions I had as well.

Thanks also, Arthur, for the further clarifications. As I've said before, I can understand that there are situations where it would make things easier if it were permissible to add some elements of the Missa Cantata to the Missa Lecta. In the situation at my former parish to which I've been referring, the elderly priest in charge wanted to transition from a Low Mass to a High Mass, but he wasn't physically able (because of diminished lung capacity) to sing the priest's parts so he thought it would be fine if he continued reciting his prayers and just added a few elements from the High Mass. He was also concerned about the time factor so he thought he could just mix and match and come up with his own ideal configuration----therein lies the problem of course since if such were the case, the liturgical standards of the EF would all quickly go by the wayside.

We tried to tell him that such a plan is definitely not kosher in the EF, and perhaps a Novus Ordo Latin Mass would have been more suitable because of the possibility of options, but that was a total non-starter.

I've often wondered: is there a dispensation for priests who because of age or health, can't sing the High Mass?

The Messe Basse of Fauré and the opinion of the "Dear Father" section of the Irish Ecclesiastical Record, among others, argue that singing some or all of the Ordinary hymns and Proper verses at Low Mass was not unheard of prior to the Council.

So what? Are you invoking the "my brother did it first" defense?

Chrism, whatever the choir is singing the priest is responsible for it.

tomjaw, here is the Latin, same as the English:

271. Missarum species duae sunt: Missa in cantu et Missa lecta. Missa dicitur in cantu, si sacerdos celebrans partes ab ipso iuxta rubricas cantandas revera cantu profert; secus dicitur lecta.

looking through the references I have posted above their does seem to be a clear consensus that the Sung Propers and Ordinary are banned from being sung over the EF Low Mass.

No there isn't. Other than the Haynes pamphlet, everyone else on your list is silent. Fr. Haynes, for what it is worth, is taking a line of Fortescue out of context. Fr. Fortescue was writing to instruct the servers to not wait for music at Low Mass, but Fr. Haynes uses the same language to instruct the choirs not to sing. The other modern pamphlet writer, Mills, also misconstrues Fortescue. Fortescue cited no legislation nor tradition as authority for his statement, nor would it require any, because it was advice and not law.

On this thread there are three written sources to the contrary: 1) Lawrence Yates for the Latin Mass Society, writing in 2000; 2) the Irish Ecclesiastical Record of 1907, published with Nihil Obstat and Imprimi Potest, and 3) a book called Ceremonies of Low Mass from 1846 - a continuum of 154 years from pre-Vatican I to post-Vatican II.

But is this really a problem, we have the New Rite Mass

The problem I really care about is misinterpretation of law and Tradition into some sort of anti-musical monstrosity. Is a Low Mass the celebration of Mass or a penitential fast? What possible value would Holy Mother Church have in banning its own music only, while allowing violins to play, Rosaries to be said, and Schubert to be sung throughout the rite?

And I don't think that the New Rite Mass with some Latin options is really very close on the spectrum to a Low Mass with lots of chant, even if the Low Mass were fully a Dialogue Mass of Passion Sunday with all the 1961 omissions omitted. A priest friend once confided that the only reason he loved the Tridentine Mass were the extra signs of the Cross over the gifts. The reduction of a rite to whatever aesthetics we happen to notice or value is a common human reaction.

It's only a "hybrid" in your eyes because you are self-legislating your own limited experiences as universal norms, and it can only be admitted as a "hybrid" in argument by question-begging.

Cheers.

Again, question begging. I recognize that there is a deviation from your mental definition of Low Mass.

People are "at Mass" when they attend a low Mass. But (until the advent of the "dialog Mass") they didn't say any of the parts of the low Mass (all of the responses were said by the servers alone). Permission was extended to the people to sing devotional hymns at low Mass as this practice had arisen on its own (i.e., without permission) and seemed a good way for people to stay interested in going to Mass. (Recall that in Europe at this time, Mass attendance was already in serious decline, and the practice of singing hymns during Sunday worship appeared a factor in the relative success of the Protestants.)

In the 1940s and 50s, no one was contemplating that the people would sing the ordinary at low Mass (much less the proper) in as much as the Church couldn't even get the people to sing the ordinary at High Mass. It was not contemplated that the people would sing Gregorian Chant in as much the people hated Gregorian Chant. It was not contemplated that a choir at low Mass would sing Latin motets since this wasn't the practice that had arisen among the faithful, and the relatively few places with choirs sufficiently capable employed them at High Mass.

Chrism

I am not a Latin expert so I cannot tell if there are any nuances in the Latin that are not well rendered into the Translation. I still see no mention of any Rubrics legislating this Hybrid Low Mass, which I would expect if this was a norm.

As for what I will continue to call the 'hybrid' Low Mass with music, they have it almost all the time in Switzerland (my wife is Swiss).

They usually sing the Ordinary, with a few German songs, a few of which are translations of Latin Hymns. It is all rather sad with the Liturgy centred around the whims of the priest, but all the congregation do join in with the singing, but the singing can be very poor at times.

I accept that this aberration has been around for some time but is hardly Traditional! They even have books printed around 1900, with suggestions of German songs to sing instead of the Propers.

I also note that many of the people attending these Hybrid Masses in Switzerland are the sort of people that would not bother with the E.F. in England and would go to the New Rite in Latin / Vernacular (this option is not common in Switzerland but common in England).

I am currently training and advising two Swiss choirs so they will be able to have full Missa Cantata far more often, their Sunday Mass in Zurich is almost a Missa Cantata now with all Propers being sung / psalm toned by the choir. Sadly the Readings are chanted in German, and not in Latin and the odd German song is sung during Mass, but the movement is in the right direction.

Why are they changing, well they have begun to realise that their idea of tradition was about as traditional as Macdonald's is to food!

Here in England our group of choirs sing 4 Missa Cantata on Sundays, 1 on Monday as well as Monthly Masses on Sundays, Fridays, Saturdays, and every 1st Class feast (this is across 7 churches). While we are no doubt lucky to have priests that are happy to sing this many Masses I don't see how a Hybrid Low Mass is of any use to us. If we have enough people to sing anything we have enough people for a Missa Cantata. All our daily Low Masses are of the silent variety and the majority are happy with this arrangement.

Also around a quarter of our Congregations never sing, and will be quite happy to tell people what to do with a proffered hymn book! Hymns to accompany Low Mass will not work here.

You are most welcome to have this Hybrid Low Mass, but don't expect me to attend it much less sing at it. I am quite happy with our silent Low Masses at 7am each morning, and our variety of Missa Cantata several times a week.

tomjaw, at the Masses in Switzerland where the ordinary is sun at EF low Mass, what do they actually sing for the ordinary? Chant, Latin, vernacular? Melodies?

Chrism

Every thing we do in the EF is legislated either by the Rubrics in the Missale Romanum / Liber (I won't say which year!). We have a Ordo that also tells us what we do. This should be the attitude in the E.F.

Perhaps you hark back to pre Trent? but I don't see how a free for all is going to help. It sounds all to much like the N.O.

I still see no reason why we have to sing at the Low Mass!

And thank God it isn't. It seems you are defending some value, and it would be very interesting if you would explain it more fully.

Also apropos, from a 1924 article in the Tablet by Edward A. Maginty:

Sympathizing deeply with priests and congregations who are deprived of Missa Cantata, we take leave to digress briefly on "Low Mass with Music," a rite which is too contemptuously spoken of by many church musicians. At such Masses the choir may sing practically any sacred music they please. It would not be incorrect to perform during the same Low Mass an Ave Maria, an O Salutaris Hostia, an Ave Verum Corpus, an Adoro Te devote, and an Ecce Panis Angelorum, with organ voluntaries between. But (despite many respectable opinions to the contrary) we recommend that the choral parts of the Ordinary should be sung during Low Mass. By avoiding florid settings and using straightforward compositions (such as Seymour's twopart Mass of St. Brigid, which is excellent for a modest choir), the Ordinary can all be got in without scrambling; provided Credo be plainchant. There is no reason why the congregation (now that children are being taught these things) should not sing a simple plainchant Mass either instead of a choir or in alternation with good singers.
http://archive.thetablet.co.uk/article/13th-december-1924/10/voluntary-choirs-and-the-proper-of-the-mass

So there you have it!

The fact that this diocesan legislation applicable to Dublin only was deemed necessary essentially proves that no such law existed at the Papal or Universal level in 1904.

Thanks. We're not dense.

Dublin was not the only Diocese that banned this, I am told there were quite a few others, including a few in Germany.

I do not feel I want to go through all the records to find the legislation.

Anyway it does not effect our choirs!

I had thought, perhaps mistakenly, that the basis for the conclusion that the people are not permitted to sing the propers or ordinary in Latin or the vernacular in a Low Mass in the old form was this language from De musica sacra et sacra liturgia (translation attached):

14. a) In sung Masses only Latin is to be used. This applies not only to the celebrant, and his ministers, but also to the choir or congregation.

"However, popular vernacular hymns may be sung at the solemn Eucharistic Sacrifice (sung Masses), after the liturgical texts have been sung in Latin, in those places where such a centenary or immemorial custom has obtained. Local ordinaries may permit the continuation of this custom 'if they judge that it cannot prudently be discontinued because of the circumstances of the locality or the people' (cf. canon 5)" (Musicæ sacræ disciplina: AAS 48 [1956] 16-17).

b) At low Mass the faithful who participate directly in the liturgical ceremonies with the celebrant by reciting aloud the parts of the Mass which belong to them must, along with the priest and his server, use Latin exclusively.

But if, in addition to this direct participation in the liturgy, the faithful wish to add some prayers or popular hymns, according to local custom, these may be recited or sung in the vernacular.

c) It is strictly forbidden for the faithful in unison or for a commentator to recite aloud with the priest the parts of the Proper, Ordinary, and canon of the Mass. This prohibition extends to both Latin, and a vernacular word-for-word translation. Exceptions will be enumerated in paragraph 31.However, it is desirable that a lector read the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular for the benefit of the faithful at low Masses on Sundays and feast days. Between the Consecration, and the Pater
noster a holy silence is fitting.

Granted, the instruction refers to "reciting" and not singing, but what would be the point in forbidding recitation by the congregation but permitting singing? Plus, consider Section 30, referring to congregational participation at Low Mass:

30. The faithful can participate another way at the Eucharistic Sacrifice by saying prayers together or by singing hymns. The prayers and hymns must be chosen appropriately for the respective parts of the Mass, and as indicated in paragraph 14c.

I had assumed that the phrase "and as indicated in paragraph 14c" refers to the prohibition against reciting the ordinary and proper in Latin or vernacular.

Section 33 somewhat redundantly says:

33. The faithful may sing hymns during low Mass, if they are appropriate to the various parts of the mass.

Interestingly, Section 31 creates an exception to 14c that seems to swallow it:

31. A final method of participation, and the most perfect form, is for the congregation to make the liturgical responses to the prayers of the priest, thus holding a sort of dialogue with him, and reciting aloud the parts which properly belong to them.
There are four degrees or stages of this participation:
a) First, the congregation may make the easier liturgical responses to the prayers of the priest: Amen; Et cum spiritu tuo; Deo gratias; Gloria tibi Domine; Laus tibi, Christe; Habemus ad Dominum; Dignum et justum est; Sed libera nos a malo;
b) Secondly, the congregation may also say prayers, which, according to the rubrics, are said by the server, including the Confiteor, and the triple Domine non sum dignus before the faithful receive Holy Communion;
c) Thirdly, the congregation may say aloud with the celebrant parts of the Ordinary of the Mass: Gloria in excelsis Deo; Credo; Sanctus-Benedictus; Agnus Dei;
d) Fourthly, the congregation may also recite with the priest parts of the Proper of the Mass: Introit, Gradual, Offertory, Communion. Only more advanced groups who have been well trained will be able to participate with becoming dignity in this manner.

So, 14c says this is strictly forbidden, but Section 31c and d says it's permitted, presumably on the condition that the congregation has been well trained--but it would have to be in Latin, not the vernacular (See 14b). So 14c's prohibition would remain as to reciting the propers or ordinary in the vernacular.

So, the general rules seem to be:

1. An express prohibition of congregational recitation of the ordinary or propers in a Low Mass in Latin or vernacular (14c) with an express exception for recitation in Latin by a well trained congregation (14b; 31c and d);

2. An express permission for congregational saying of prayers or singing of hymns in Latin or the vernacular (14b) subject to the prohibition in 14c (30) and a second express permission to sing hymns (33).

What is missing is either an express permission or express prohibition of congregational singing of the ordinary or propers at a Low Mass.

It seems to me the express prohibition of reciting the ordinary and propers in the vernacular implies a prohibition against singing them in the vernacular, and it seems the express authorization to recite them in Latin implies a prohibition against singing them in Latin.

I have to say, though, that I think I am more confused than when I began this post. Fortunately, I never have to deal with Low Masses in the EF, so it's academic for me.

Looking at these documents on EF liturgy, it seems to show that many changes at Vatican II were not really changes so much as recognising what had become an increasingly common practice in many places and extending permission for these practices.

Yes, Mary Ann, but perhaps the greatest tragedy of all is that the carefully delineated plan for a "more perfect" form of participation in the liturgy at both the High Mass and the Low Mass offered (mandated?) in De Musica Sacra was not given much of a chance to be implemented since the reforms of Vatican II were rolled out a few years later.

If I'm not mistaken, the 1962 Missale Romanum was the embodiment of the directives of De Musica Sacra. However, the 1969 Missale Romanum of Pope Paul VI introduced major changes that made the 1962 MR obsolete, and the rest is history. If only the De Musica Sacra and the 1962 MR had been given half a chance, perhaps there wouldn't have been a need for a radical liturgical revolution . . .

I believe Pope Pius XII was doing all he could to promote active participation by the faithful. I think it's fair to say that he and Pope John Paul II who as Cardinal Wojtyla wrote Sources of Renewal were of the same mind on this point at least:

Lack of participation leads to alienation.