Talk:Solemn Mass

Untitled
The term Solemn Mass was traditionally used in the U.S. just check the Baltimore Ceremonial, or any other guide to the ceremonies of the Mass. The Cathoilic Encyclopedia was primarily a British production with lots of articles from British experts like Adrian Fortescue.. (unsigned contribution by MiguelJoseErnst)

...but, unless I am mistaken, was published and used mainly in the United States of America.

In any case, why choose for Wikipedia a usage that seems to have been limited to one English-speaking country and that appears not to have been without rival even in that country. When and where I grew up and studied and was ordained, before the Second Vatican Council, nobody ever understood by High Mass anything other than what in Latin is called Missa solemnis; and we knew the Missa Cantata, and never imagined that anyone anywhere called it a high Mass. This is true not only of Britain and Ireland, but also of Australia and New Zealand, and no doubt of most if not all English-speaking countries except the United States. Isn't Wikipedia meant to be international, not just American? It seems logical therefore to use the international terms principally, adding a note about the different usage, which you assure me about, in one country.

Lima 20:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yo're right. I probably should write the article to conform to wider English usage. The one point, I simply wanted to stress is that the term does exist and is widely used and is more in conformity with the Latin usage. I have lived most of my life in the Archdioceses of Philadelphia and Los Angeles and have never heard the term High Mass applied to anything but a Missa Cantata. This is still the case among the SSPX churches and indult priets I have known at my parishes and in my travels. The only people I've ever heard use the term High Mass refer to a missa solemnis are the Anglicans.

MiguelJoseErnst

The English-speaking world is wider than Philadelphia and Los Angeles and the whole of the United States of America. And isn't the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia more authoritative than anything else you have at hand? Lima 18:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Term also used in reference to the new rite
This term "Solemn Mass" is also commonly used in reference to Masses celebrated according to the reformed missal of Paul VI - at least it is on this side of the Atlantic (UK). Although small parish churches don't usually use the term, major city churches and cathedral churches often do.

As someone previously mentioned, the term "high Mass" was commonly used in Britain and other English-speaking countries prior to Vatican II. But in Britain that term largely fell into disuse in favour of "Solemn Mass" (a term previously rarely used) or "Sung Mass" after the council.

One should note that it was always the intention of the Liturgical Reform that the principal Eucharist on Sundays and Feastdays be sung and attended by such characteristics of the old high mass as the use of incense, etc. The model of the Reform was the high or solemn mass, not the low mass, which unfortunately seems to become the case in most Roman Catholic parishes. Note that the Byzantine tradition does not have a low mass tradition, each Divine Liturgy is sung and accompanied by the use of incense, etc. Obviously the Byzantine Divine Liturgy is more solemn on Sundays and Feastday and has additional attendant rituals when a bishop is the celebrant. I suspect that the real reason for the present situation is simply that a more solemn celebration requires more preparation and work--i.e., simple human laziness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.239.152.174 (talk) 03:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Examples:


 * Westminster Cathedral
 * Brompton Oratory, London
 * Holy Name, Manchester
 * Clifton Cathedral
 * St Mary's Cathedral, Newcastle
 * Leeds Cathedral
 * Birmingham Cathedral - still uses the term 'high'

Markanthony1980, 10 December 2006

____

OK, but let's recall that "sung Mass" (Missa cantata) and "solen Mass" (Missa solemnis) were two different things: the first referred to Mass chanted by a single priest rather than said, the second to Mass celebrated with the assistance of deacon and subdeacon. The modern GIRM doesn't make this same distinction, preferring a fuzzier set of gradations between Masses celebrated simply, and those celebrated "with more solemnity," -- there is no bright line. For instance, a simple weekday 15 minute "said" Mass might now include the help of a permanent deacon and 10 priests living in a community, while a grand all-parts-sung-with-choir extravaganza might well be celebrated by a single priest alone with many lay people taking various roles. Thus, "high Mass" or "solemn Mass" today usually refers to the degree of hoopla (you'll pardon) surrounding the celebration rather than any specific liturgical definition.HarvardOxon 03:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

____

That's true, but the term is still widely used in reference to the new rite hence the current definition found in this article is inaccurate and misleading.

Markanthony1980 20:19 GMT, 11 December 2006
 * Nowadays, unless I am mistaken, "Solemn Mass" really means no more than "a solemn Mass", a Mass celebrated solemnly, with elements such as participation by a choir, perhaps a deacon, more servers ..., but still a Mass celebrated according to exactly the same rules that apply to any celebration of Mass.
 * In the past, "Solemn Mass" (or "High Mass") was not just a phrase used to describe a Mass celebrated with solemnity It was a technical term referring to a form of Mass that had rigid rules, decisively distinct from the rules that governed "Low Mass". The "Tridentine Missal" printed the distinct rules governing Solemn Mass (in the technical sense it then had) after the rules governing Low Mass and in italics.  The article is about Solemn Mass in that technical sense, not just about a Mass that is solemn.  Lima 14:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As an enyclopedic article it should really consider all common usages of the term it proposes to explain. In my part of the world (quite a seismic portion of the English-speaking world) the term is commonly used in reference to the new mass - certainly much more so than it is in reference to the old, which is now celebrated in only a tiny number of locations. Therefore, it would seem to me that the article should make mention of this or be given a more restrictive title, e.g., "Solemn Mass: Tridentine Rite."
 * Markanthony1980 01:18 GMT, 17 December 2006
 * The examples Markantony gave do not indicate a separate category of Mass, as was the case with "Solemn/High Mass" used as a technical term to distinguish that clearly identified form of Mass from other no less clearly identified forms (Low Mass, and the in-between Missa Cantata or Sung Mass), which were all distinguished by discontinuous rituals, unlike the present form of Mass, which, without changing its identity, can add or remove elements of solemnity to whatever extent is considered appropriate in the concrete pastoral circumstances. "Solemn Mass" (like "Solemn Vespers") in the examples Markanthony gave clearly means just a Mass celebrated with solemnity, a solemn Mass, no more a distinct category of Mass than a quick Mass, a slow Mass, a noisy Mass, a quiet Mass, a Tagalog Mass, an Arabic Mass, a devout Mass, a well-prepared Mass, or any other description you may wish to apply to a celebration of Mass.  Lima 15:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The query is legitimate, and I have made the appropriate edits. The previous definition had no source anyway. natemup (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Image of Rite of Versailles
The lead of the article states: "This article deals with Solemn Mass as celebrated according to the Tridentine use." The illustration of the neo-Gallican rite of Versailles is therefore out of place and must be removed. The description given by the person who put the picture in is "Liturgie neo-gallicane - Messe en rite versaillais". Soidi (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Specific term of art
"Solemn Mass" is a specific liturgical term of art that applies to the Tridentine Mass. If you look in the Roman Missal of Paul VI or the Roman Pontifical, there are no rubrics or reference to a Mass celebrated as a "Solemn Mass". @Natemup's changes have no reliable secondary sources. Elizium23 (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @Natemup, thanks for providing two sources which describe and define the Solemn Mass according to the Tridentine rubrics, exclusive of the Ordinary Form. Elizium23 (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The term is most often used to refer to a form of the liturgy that involves certain special aspects, usually celebrated on a high feast day. If you look on the website of the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate conception, for example, you will see that multiple Solemn Masses were celebrated today in English using the Paul VI missal, including one celebrated by the US apostolic nuncio. The source you and others have attempted to use to say otherwise was written by Adrian Fortescue in 1910, before the new missal existed. natemup (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reliable secondary source which relates it to the Missal of Paul VI. Your previous two sources described the Tridentine Mass. Elizium23 (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not doubt that individual priests and parishes term their celebrations as "Solemn Mass" because they have a particular character of solemnity to them. This is distinct from the Tridentine Solemn Mass which has specific rubrics and a particular set of characteristics that could not be deviated from. Any priest can celebrate a Missal of Paul VI "Solemn Mass" any way he wants, if he simply adds some incense or a special choir or a deacon to it. That doesn't make it an actual thing in the rubrics of the Missal. Don't you see the difference there? Elizium23 (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What I see is that you've deleted two reliable sources that literally didn't say anything about the Tridentine Mass. The rubrics are clear about what a Solemn Mass is today, and it has nothing to do with Latin or the old missal. Moreover, you're staking your claim here in the article on a source that's more than a century old, while I literally just walked out of a self-identified "Solemn Mass" in English in the largest Catholic church in North America, celebrated by the pope's ambassador. I think they know what they're talking about. natemup (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The first source you added is the New Liturgical Movement, which publishes extensively on the Extraordinary Form: "One of our readers wrote in to ask the following: "...would you perhaps be able to describe in layman's terms in a post on The New Liturgical Movement the difference between a Low Mass, a High Mass and a "Missa Cantata" in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite?""


 * The second source you added reads, in part: "The Eucharistic liturgy in which the priest celebrant is assisted by a deacon and/or acolyte. Before the revision of the liturgy, a Solemn Mass was celebrated by a priest, assisted by a deacon and subdeacon; with special music, incense, and ceremonies...The new practice of a concelebrated Mass has fairly replaced what used to be the Solemn Mass."


 * So what's your point? Elizium23 (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are able to produce WP:RS which can quantify and describe what a Solemn Mass consists of in the reformed liturgy, then I would support a new section of this article describing it. You cannot hijack the existing meaning of the term as it applies to the Tridentine Mass and attempt to apply that in a meaningful fashion to the reformed liturgy, because that's a square peg in a round hole. Nobody cares how many candles are lit today; light 7 and make it solemn! Light 200 and make it elaborate! Whatever! Likewise, the number of servers doesn't matter; I've seen four servers at a daily Mass and I've seen no servers on Solemnities. Elizium23 (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ignoring, for a moment, those points, it seems patently ridiculous to say that the "existing meaning" of the term can be adequately sourced from a document published prior to the creation of the missal you say has no "Solemn" rite. At present, there are no sources in the article strictly supporting either of our definitions. natemup (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Peter Elliott, arguably the foremost commentator on the Novus Ordo Missae, and a former consultor of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments lays out a Solemn Mass in the Ordinary Form in chapter 6 of his book "Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite: The Eucharist and the Liturgy of the Hours": "Building upon the normative form set out in the previous chapter, what is described below is a standard model for the full celebration of a sung liturgy on Sundays, solemnities and other major occasions. The celebrant is assisted by one or two deacons. If one deacon assists, he reads the Gospel and ministers at the altar during the Liturgy of the Eucharist.1 If two deacons assist, a rational way of dividing their duties would be to make one “the deacon of the Word” the other “the deacon of the Eucharist”. The first deacon reads the Gospel and the intentions of the General Intercessions, the second deacon ministers at the altar, standing on the celebrant’s right during the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Both assist in distributing Communion." Maximilian775 (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Ignoring, for a moment, the main direction of this debate (if there is such a thing as a "solemn Mass" in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite), Elizium is off in saying the term is exclusive to the Tridentine Mass; the Ambrosian Rite (itself fairly similar to the Tridentine Mass in its pre-VII form and the Ordinary Form in its post-1970 celebration) has solemn Masses (see this Catholic Encyclopedia entry for the best early source I have on that). As for Ordinary Form solemn Masses since Vatican II, my copy of The Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary applies the term to the 1965 Missal–a very frustrating and unhelpful "well, they still had it until at least then" addition to the discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. At least the clear falsehood in the lede is removed. natemup (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)