Types of Masses (am I crazy)
  • ArsMusicaSacra
    Posts: 14
    I was looking through my Liber Usualis and noticed that the classifications for Mass (Low, High, etc.) under the general principles and rules do not match with what is published by many diocese, institutes, etc. And then I noticed that some do not even match with one another? So, I went to check with other resources, and only found the following to corroborate the Liber:

    https://www.divinumofficium.com/www/horas/Help/Rubrics/Missal1960 rubrics.html

    So the question: why and how did the Masses get mislabled or jumbled about? Any ideas?

    In my experience, this does not matter for a vast majority of people, but I simply find it so odd.

    We see this happen quite a bit, but this seems like a particularly odd case. Help?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,261
    Would you like to provide an example or two that shows the inconsistent information? That could help us discuss the matter.
    Thanked by 4SponsaChristi irishtenor Aristotle Esguerra tomjaw
  • ArsMusicaSacra
    Posts: 14
    So I think that I was being daft. My understanding is that the GIRM does not outline explicit titles for Masses as was the same in the GRRM. Instead, the NO applied titles from the celebration of the EF to itself. Hence sources like this:

    https://clusterparishes.org/component/fileman/?view=file&routed=1&name=Types of Catholic Masses.pdf&folder=documents&container=fileman-files

    The question I guess that I am trying to ask, is why there seems to be no confluence of convention? We see this happen quite often,
  • PaxTecum
    Posts: 347
    I believe Musicam Sacram applies the degrees of solemnity to the novus ordo. The former titles "low mass, high mass, solemn mass" are not technically abrogated but don't really apply in a strict sense to how it's been laid out for the novus ordo. Kind of silly if you ask me. I understand the intentions behind it. But it seems that everything in the NO was done with the ideal of "bare minimum" rather than "do the best we possibly can"
    Thanked by 1ArsMusicaSacra
  • ArsMusicaSacra
    Posts: 14
    §§ 27–28 from Musicam Sacram pointed to De musica sacra et sacra liturgia. There, outlined clearly were Solemn, High, and Low. The confluence!
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,683
    But it seems that everything in the NO was done with the ideal of "bare minimum" rather than "do the best we possibly can"
    I read it exactly in the opposite sense. Gone are rules like 'you can't sing anything in group 2 unless you sing everything in group 1'. So on a weekday our priest can sing the Kyrie, the Alleluia & the doxology of the Canon without worrying about anything else. (apart from the response of the people, which in our case will be good)
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,630
    The "Novus Ordo" didn't yet exist when Musicam Sacram was issued; what existed at that point was the combination of interim revisions of the 1962 Roman Missal. The "Novus Ordo" Roman Missal was promulgated just over 2 years after Musicam Sacram.
Add a Comment