traditional mass

I’ve been attending a daily traditional mass for a few months now, and I’m just curious as to why the Mass was traditionally silent, or spoken in a low voice. Why did it start out this way? Is there any particular symbolic reason behind this?
Also, is there a significance behind the certain phrases that ARE said aloud? Why these words/sentences and not others?

The Mass is a prayer, first and foremost.

For centuries, the Canon was seen as the priest talking directly to God, hence it being quiet.

Greater men than I, however, have written about this. I will try to find you resources.

There are Missals that Explain the Rubrics. Most of the Mass as you know is Scriptural. The Priest is offereing the Mass to GOD for us. When the Priest raises or lowers his voice there is significance and reasons for it. We are to offer the Mass along with him.

Traditionally there were many priests and many masses. Each priest said his mass every day, and each said in the church, one at the main altar, the rest at the side altars. The Church did not wanted cacophony.

In Missa Cantata the choir was singing while the priest prayed the mass. Synchronizing points are, what the priests says aloud, some Dominus vobiscum, the intonation of the Gloria, intonation of the Credo, the prelude to Prefation, the Pater noster, the Ite Missa est (may be so others)

Ultimately: the Church ordered so.

From the Council of Trent Session 22:

Canon 9. If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only;[28] or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ,[29] let him be anathema.

Does anyone know if this canon was ever officially repealed?

Nope.

However, in the wake of Second Vatican Council, under the “Spirit of Vatican II,” it was ignored - and, even though the Second Vatican Council also said Latin was to be preserved and given pride of place, along with Gregorian Chant - it was flushed down the tubes.

From what I understand of the Council of Trent - is that it came about as a result of the Protestant Revolt. Many of the Heretics were teaching the Faithful their Heresy under the guise of “Catholic Truth” So the Council of Trent defined for the Bishops Priests and Faithful what was and what was not Catholic.

Therefore - what they defined as Catholic then is Catholic today. The Deposit of Faith doesnt change simply because of the passage of time.

Thank you.

Further from the Council of Trent Session 22:

thecounciloftrent.com/ch22.htm

ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS

DOCTRINE

CHAPTER IV

On the Canon of the Mass. And whereas it beseemeth, that holy things be administered in a holy manner, and of all holy things this sacrifice is the most holy; to the end that it might be worthily and reverently offered and received, the Catholic Church instituted, many years ago, the sacred Canon, so pure from every error, that nothing is contained therein which does not in the highest degree savour of a certain holiness and piety, and raise up unto God the minds of those that offer. For it is composed, out of the very words of the Lord, the traditions of the apostles, and the pious institutions also of holy pontiffs.

CHAPTER V.

On the solemn ceremonies of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

And whereas such is the nature of man, that, without external helps, he cannot easily be raised to the meditation of divine things; therefore has holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a low, and others in a louder, tone. She has likewise employed ceremonies, such as mystic benedictions, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind, derived from an apostolical discipline and tradition, whereby both the majesty of so great a sacrifice might be recommended, and the minds of the faithful be excited, by those visible signs of religion and piety, to the contemplation of those most sublime things which are hidden in this sacrifice.

Clearly there is doctrinal basis for the required low tones at Mass.

Absolutely.

The Traditional Mass allows you to accompany Jesus during His Passion. From the Agony in the Garden (Prayers at the foot of the Altar), to his betrayal by Judas (Priest kisses the Altar), to His imprisonment (Priest goes to the Epistle side of Altar)…etc.

catholiceternaltruth.blogspot.com/2010/12/method-of-hearing-mass-in-union-with.html

There is also a nice print out version on.pdf . Just Google “Method of Hearing Mass” and look for the [pdf] symbol next to Method of Hearing Mass"

As a side note, one can not follow Christ’s Passion in the new Mass.:shrug:

This is not so simple. Jesus Christ explicitly gave binding and loosing power to the Magisterium.

Consequently definitions about unchangeable things, like the definition that the Roman Canon has no error (DS 942) are part of the Deposit of Faith today too.

However definitions like “certain things be pronounced in a subdued tone in the Mass, and others in a louder tone;” (DS 943) are changeable, and if the Magisterium changed it under the power given by Jesus Christ to the Magisterium, than no laymen or no one from the lower clergy can deny this right to change and still be full communion with the Catholic Church.

However definitions like “certain things be pronounced in a subdued tone in the Mass, and others in a louder tone;” (DS 943) are changeable, and if the Magisterium changed it under the power given by Jesus Christ to the Magisterium, than no laymen or no one from the lower clergy can deny this right to change and still be full communion with the Catholic Church.

The low tone is doctrinally based, in the particular rite. That should suffice to answer the OP’s question. This cannot be easily dismissed as “changeable.” Wasn’t the Council of Trent given the power of the (eternal) Magisterium when it expressed

ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS

DOCTRINE

Being the sixth under the Sovereign Pontiff, Pius IV., celebrated on the seventeenth day of September, MDLXII.

**The sacred and holy, ecumenical and general Synod of Trent–lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein–to the end that the ancient, complete, and in every part perfect faith and doctrine touching the great mystery of the Eucharist may be retained in the holy Catholic Church; and may, all errors and heresies being repelled, be preserved in its own purity; (the Synod) instructed by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, teaches, declares; and decrees what follows, to be preached to the faithful, on the subject of the Eucharist, considered as being a true and singular sacrifice. **

If things the Council of Trent addressed are changeable, then the Council of Trent had no meaning. But this is impossible since the Council of Trent defined the very unchanging doctrine we are obligated to accept and believe.

"The sacred and holy, ecumenical and general Synod of Trent–lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein–to the end that the ancient, complete, and in every part perfect faith and doctrine touching the great mystery of the Eucharist may be retained in the holy Catholic Church; and may, all errors and heresies being repelled, be preserved in its own purity; (the Synod) instructed by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, teaches, declares; and decrees what follows, to be preached to the faithful, on the subject of the Eucharist, considered as being a true and singular sacrifice. "

Deus vult ! :knight2:

But the EF and the OF today are not "Revisions " of the TLM. thats an assumption on your part.

Since by its nature (concerning actions which changed in the past) it was not ‘dogma’, ‘depository of the faith’, ‘eternal truth’ - a simple regulation otherwise repelled it.

The Mass of Paul VI ordered the laud understandable voice for the Canon; Vatican II allowed the use of vernacular, although ordered to preserve the Latin too, which is still the official definition for the Mass; the wine is still mixed with the water.

Canon 9. If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only;[28] or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ,[29] let him be anathema.

For Catholics in such matter the Church is the judge and not any laymen, member of the lower clergy or even former member of the higher clergy w/o proper jurisdiction. The Magisterium is the judge appointed by our Lord Jesus Christ.

Since by its nature (concerning actions which changed in the past) it was not ‘dogma’, ‘depository of the faith’, ‘eternal truth’ - a simple regulation otherwise repelled it.

I respectfully disagree. Simple regulations and reinterpretations do not “repel” explicitly stated and unchanging doctrine, written carefully under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

But I think I’ve answered the OP’s question on why there are silent parts to the Mass and therefore will leave the thread.

Well Stated. This is exactly what I was taught about it since Change was the order of the Day at that point in history and Holy Mother the Church had to define what could not be changed.

Regulations by the Magisterium should not be contested by laymen, the lower clergy, or former higher clergy w/o jurisdiction.

If such things can change, then they can change back.

Do the Novus Ordo rubrics say that the priest must, or can, say all the Mass out loud? I do not see the benefit of doing this. Saying parts quietly enforces the idea that the words have power and that the rite is humbly directed towards a powerful Deity.

Definitely.

One of the best examples of this is when the Paul VI signed a document which read “Cena dominica sive Missa est sacra synaxis seu congregatio populi Dei in unum convenientis sacerdote praeside personamque Christi gerente, ad memoriale Domini celebrandum”, (“the Lord’s Supper of the holy gathering or assembly of the people of God, as they come together, into one [body], with the priest as presider and taking on the persona of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.”) Article 7, Editio typica, p. 15. There was no mention of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the source was in the Protestant theology of the Abendmahl rite, the commemorative meal. (The Reform of the Liturgy, Monsignor Gamber, 1993, Una Voce Press)

After someone caught the error, it was corrected later to " In missa seu Cena dominca populus Dei in unum convocatur, sacerdote praeside personamque Christi gerente, ad memoriale Domini seu sacrificium eucharisticum celebrandum (“In the Mass, or Supper of the Lord, the people of God are called together into one body, with the priest as presider and taking on the persona of Christ in order to celebrate the Memorial of the Lord, or the Eucharistic Sacrifice” (Article 7, Missale Romanum, Editio typica, Vatican, 1970), p. 29

Also means that the laity does not count, not even to the level to hear the prayer, that their participation is superficial. Our world is always dialectic, between two pillars.

The problem is not that they cannot change back, but who can change back. For Catholics no laymen, no members of the lower clergy not even former members of the higher clergy can make changes against the decision of the hierarchy, or declare that that is wrong for any reason. This is our Catholic faith, and it is different from the Easter Orthodox, protestant, Jewish or other faiths.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.