The “Private” Mass from Its Origins to the Thirteenth Century (Conclusion)

The “Private” Mass from Its Origins to the Thirteenth Century

Canon Gilles Guitard, ICRSP

(Part 1, providing the history of this topic from antiquity to the 13th century, may be found here.)

The Franciscans

Now, there were some who wanted to classify the “private” Mass itself as an abuse and who sought a return to the celebration of a single Mass per day in a given community of priests. This was particularly the case with the Friars Minor.

In the introduction we already noted that in 1226 Saint Francis prescribed that each house of friars should have only one Mass a day, celebrated by one of them and attended [i.e., not concelebrated] by any other priests in the community. It seems that the founder of Assisi wanted to avoid the lure of financial gain for his brothers [1], but we can also see in this choice the desire to emphasise the community aspect of the Mass, since we know the particular importance given to the bond of charity by the saint. Moreover, the rest of the letter mentioned in the introduction says the following: “If there were several priests in this place, let each priest, for the love of charity, be content to hear the celebration of the other” [2]. Celebrating “in private” was clearly considered by him to be a breach of this great virtue. The attendance of all the brothers, whether priests or not, at a single Mass at which they all took communion [3], was the best way of effectively maintaining the bond of charity between the brothers; and this was precisely the priority that the saint of Assisi had set himself. [4]

We know what happened next. The Order of Friars Minor nevertheless adopted in their missal the rubric cited in the introduction [5], inherited from the papal court, which explicitly legitimises “private” celebration. Thus, despite their founder’s encouragement to favour the community Mass, the Friars Minor were free to celebrate “in private” if they so wished. No doubt they did not make use of this possibility every day.

In any case, a balance was eventually found, since around 1240, the General of the Order, Aymon of Faversham, compiled the ordo missæ “Indutus planeta”, which is a highly detailed ceremonial of the “private” Mass and the conventual festive Mass. It seems that the itinerancy required for the mission, combined with the brothers’ life of evangelical poverty, contributed to reducing the liturgical display and the length of community ceremonies on the less solemn days of the year. This ceremonial book is in fact a vademecum for celebrating Masses (community or individual) “deprived of solemnity”.

In this way, the legitimacy of the “private” celebration was confirmed and its ritual process spread from Rome to the whole of Christendom.

To conclude this historical overview, it should be noted that, as is often the case, errors and abuses provide an opportunity for the Church to clarify its doctrine. In this case, their appearance was an opportunity to reaffirm the intrinsically communitarian character of every Eucharistic celebration, even “private” ones.

It should also be noted that these disciplinary clarifications, which were essential for correcting certain abusive practices, were only known within the Latin Church, suggesting that the Eastern Churches did not experience the evolution of the Mass “deprived of solemnity” towards the “private” Mass properly so called, as was the case in the West between the 4th and 6th centuries.

Then, after the Gregorian reform, the growing opposition in practice — especially in the monasteries — between public conventual Mass and “private” Mass provided an opportunity to finally establish the definitive legitimacy of the latter and its complementarity with the former.

15th-century German missal (source)

The ritual form

We present here the results of research carried out on three sources: the Ordo romanus XV [6], the Cluniac customs of the XI century [7] and the Ordo missæ “Indutus planeta” [8]. These sources form a rather happy sequence: they are spread out over time and they have had a major impact in time and space.

Here is the synopsis summarising the study of these sources, which shows us the evolution over time of the ritual of the “private” Mass. N.B. The first two stages predate the sources studied. They were conjectured on the basis of minor contemporary sources, which we came across when drawing up our first historical section.

Early centuries: from the origins to the end of the fourth century

For this period, we have conjectured that the “private” Mass was reduced to the pure sacrificium, according to the hypothesis formulated by M. Righetti. [9] Here are the elements that probably made up the “private” Mass:

- Preparation and offering of the oblata, probably accompanied by improvised prayers,
- Eucharistic anaphora,
- Communion for the priest and any assistants,
- Prayers of thanksgiving, probably improvised.

No liturgical book from this period has survived. It is likely that the celebrant — at least until the fourth century — did not use a written text to celebrate this Mass. The Eucharistic anaphora, like all the eminently sacred texts of this period, is probably known by memory.

From the end of the 4th century to the 7th century (the period of the first libelli and sacramentaries)

We continue with the initial hypothesis of a “private” celebration reduced to the pure sacrificium, which would evolve organically over the centuries and according to the region. [10] It would gradually be enriched by new elements, which were already present in the solemn public Mass but performed by other ministers (cantors, deacon, subdeacon). Since the celebrant was not accustomed to reciting them at public Mass, he began to do so at “private” Mass, with the intervention of the authorities. [11]

The celebrant is provided with a single book: a libellus or sacramentary.

At the beginning of the VII century, the course of the “private” Mass could look like this:

• Kyrie [12], concluded by the Collect. [13].
• Offertory:
  • “Oremus,
  • offering of oblata,
  • prayer super oblata. [14]
• Eucharistic anaphora:
  • Dialogue and preface, [15]
  • Sanctus,
  • Roman canon, [16]
  • Pater.
• Communion rites.
• Final prayer.

From the end of the 8th century (according to the Ordo romanus XV and the Paduensis Gregorian Sacramentary)

We are thus leaving the realm of the probable and the hypothetical to enter into considerations that are virtually certain. With the help of the Ordo Romanus XV, we can give the following details of the course of the “private” Mass: [17] 

• Introit (composed of an antiphon and verses from the psalms, concluded by Gloria Patri).
• The Kyrie consists of nine invocations.
• The Gloria in excelsis Deo (for certain days).
• The Collect is preceded by a greeting (probably “Dominus vobiscum”).
• Epistle and Gospel (if portable missal or lectionary available)
• The sacrificium is unchanged, except for the following:
  • the Roman canon is certainly the one we know (from Te igitur to Per ipsum), and is recited in a low voice,
  • the Pater is certainly followed by the embolism Libera nos.
• Communion rites now certainly include:
  • the Pax domini,
  • commingling,
  • apologies (private priestly prayers),
  • Communion antiphon with psalm verses concluded by Gloria Patri
• Conclusion unchanged, with the oration Ad complendum, and possibly an additional oration Super populum.

From the XI century (according to Cluniac monastic customs)

It is clear from the customary documents analysed that the “private” Mass underwent considerable ritual enrichment between the 8th and 11th centuries, at least in the monasteries dependent on Cluny.

The only book used at the altar was the missal, which occupied two places during the Mass: on the right at the beginning and end, and on the left from the epistle to the ablutions.

A lay brother serves Mass.

The volume of the voice is modest, even secretive for certain parts.

Here is an outline of the elements of the celebration revealed by these traditional practitioners [18]: 

• Washing of hands and preparation of the oblata (placing the host on the paten and pouring the wine and water into the chalice) before Mass, in the sacristy.
• Preparation of the altar on arrival.
• Vesting at the altar.
• Confiteor of the priest, then of the server, at the foot of the altar steps.
• Finger washing and brief prayer after going to the altar.
• Introït, Kyrie, no Gloria.
• “Dominus vobiscum” and Collect (there may be several Collects).
• Epistle, then Gospel (introduced by “Sequentia...”).
• Credo (for Sundays and feast days).
• Offertory:
  • “Dominus vobiscum”,
  • placement of the corporal on the altar,
  • then oblata, brought by the server,
  • washing of hands, then joining the first two fingers of each hand,
  • In spiritu humilitatis prayer,
  • exhortation to pray Orate pro me,
  • “Oremus” and secret (in a low voice), with the conclusion Per omnia in an elevated voice.
• Preface introduced by the dialogue, followed by the Sanctus.
• Roman canon, concluded by the Per Ipsum doxology (during which the celebrant makes signs of the cross with the host on the chalice, then raises the host slightly).
• Communion rites:
  • Pater to “Et ne nos inducas in tentationem”, the server replies “Sed libera nos a malo”, the celebrant “Amen” (in a low voice),
  • Libera nos embolism, with fraction during the doxology,
  • Pax Domini (with signs of the cross made with the host over the chalice),
  • commingling,
  • Agnus Dei,
  • kiss of peace to the minister [19],
  • communion of the priest, then of the server, with the host,
  • communion of the priest, then of the server, with the precious blood, [20]
  • ablutions: purification of the mouth, fingers and chalice,
  • corporal folding,
  • communion antiphon,
  • “Dominus vobiscum” and then the post-communion.
• Concluding rituals:
  • “Ite missa est” (or “Benedicamus Domino”)
  • Placeat prayer,
  • verse Animæ omnium Fidelium (if there was a collect pro defunctis).

To this must be added all the gestural details, of which there are many throughout the text (signs of the cross, bows, kissing the altar and the book, position of the speaker, fingers joined), but which we cannot mention here. Both the manner in which they are to be performed and the moment at which they are to be performed are indicated. The overriding concern seems to be to leave nothing to chance or to the free execution of the celebrant.

In the 13th century (according to the ordo missæ “Indutus planeta”)

The regulars [i.e., the religious bound by rule] were still at work, but this time they were inspired by the ceremonial of the papal court. The fruit of their labours would be used by all priests, regular and secular, sedentary (like monks and canons) and itinerant (like the Friars Minor).

The gestural prescriptions for the celebrant found in the Cluniac customs are largely to be found in this ordo missæ, with a few additions that we will describe below. It should also be noted that these prescriptions are now codified by the Indutus, to make them clearer, more universal and more permanent.

Let us see, then, in the order of execution, the elements of the Indutus that change in relation to the Cluniac rite:

• Codification of gestures that are repeated several times during the Mass:
  • two types of inclination (deep and medium),
  • a kiss from the altar,
  • how to join hands,
  • how to hold them apart and elevated (the modest and measured attitude of the speaker was already described in the course of the Cluniac Mass),
  • how to bless the host and chalice together,
  • very little indication of voice volume.
• No washbasin at the beginning of Mass.
• No genuflection on arriving at or leaving the altar. In fact, there is no prescribed genuflection during the entire Mass. [Custom, of course, may have dictated such.]
• Bow to the altar (in the middle) before moving away from it, during Mass, but not at the beginning or end.
• Recitation of the proper pieces between the epistle and the Gospel (gradual, tract, alleluia).
• The missal was moved to the left later: for the gospel and not for the epistle.
• The chalice is prepared during the Mass (the wine is poured into it before the offertory, the water — after it has been blessed — during the offertory).
• The offertory has more prayers:
  • the offertory antiphon after the initial “Oremus”,
  • a different one for each of the two oblations (Suscipe sancte Pater and Offerimus tibi),
  • another for the blessing and infusion of the water in the chalice (Deus qui humane),
  • an epiclesis prayer (Veni sanctificator),
  • one in honour of the Holy Trinity (Suscipe sancta trinitas).
• The position of the host on the corporal in relation to the chalice is planned: the chalice is on the right, the host on the left.
• Elevation of the host after consecration.
• The joining of the fingers begins later (after the consecration of the chalice).
• Beginning of reverence (bowing) before the holy species.
• The chalice is uncovered/covered more frequently, which is more convenient thanks to the second corporal (folded), which serves only this purpose.
• Bow while reciting the Agnus Dei.
• Prayers in preparation for the kiss of peace and communion.
• More precise mode of communion:
  • prayers, taking the paten and the chalice,
  • he prepares himself with Domine non sum dignus,
  • he signs himself with the paten or chalice before taking communion with the body and blood,
  • he communes with the body through language.
• Only the celebrant receives communion.
• Two ablutions only (the first for the chalice and mouth, the second for the fingers).
• Washbasin after ablutions.
• Final blessing.

Conclusion

At the end of this study, we can establish that the Mass celebrated “in private” could date back to the first centuries of the Church, even if we have no irrefutable evidence at our disposal dating from before the eighth century. Its existence in the VI century is highly probable; it is of the order of very suitable to very likely for the first centuries. It was practised above all by sedentary priests living in communities (monks and canons) and by hermits, as well as by itinerant missionary priests. A certain development took place in the monasteries, at the time of the Carolingian reform, in particular when the foundations of Masses celebrated for the souls of the deceased appeared.

The ritual form of the “private” Mass has evolved over time and according to circumstances.

a) Over time, we have seen that its content has expanded. As the priest was the only liturgist, he did not provide the elements that were the responsibility of the ministers of the solemn Mass. This is why it was most likely reduced to pure sacrificium in the early days. It then gradually acquired the elements of the public Mass, from the 6th century onwards, and eventually became aligned with the latter. This was already the case, apart from a few elements, at the end of the XI century in the monasteries of the Cluniac order in France and the Empire.

Another development over time can be observed in the customs of these places: the considerable progress in the precision required of the celebrant in the sequence of gestures and words. So much so that by the end of the 11th century, in Cluny, the ritual of the “private” Mass — which was much more detailed than that of the solemn conventual Mass in terms of the celebrant’s gestures and attitudes — began to supplant it in its normative prerogative. This trend was confirmed in the ordo missæ “Indutus planeta”, in which the “private” Mass is clearly presented as the norm for all celebrations, even solemn ones. This ordo is the direct ancestor of the Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae of the 1570 missal, which clearly presents the “private” Mass as the basis on which the actions prescribed for the deacon and subdeacon of the solemn Mass are grafted from time to time.

b) We can also deduce from our study that the form of the “private” Mass may have varied according to circumstances.

A sedentary priest living in a community (particularly a monk), because he has little time to celebrate (he may have to celebrate several Masses a day) and also attends the conventual Mass, may be content with a more restrained ritual form, beginning directly at the start of the offertory. [21]

On the other hand, an itinerant priest, who may not have a server and who does not attend conventual Mass, will more naturally follow a more complete ritual.

A true organic development

In retrospect, it seems logical that the ritual of the “private” Mass should necessarily have become closer to that of the solemn Mass over time, in order to show outwardly that it was identical in nature to the solemn Mass. We have just emphasised that this is precisely what happened.

However, our analysis also shows that this rapprochement was not without its difficulties. For example, it seems that the more the “private” Mass ritually resembled the public Mass, the more it distracted the faithful from the latter. There were certainly other reasons for the decline in interest in the solemn public Mass between the 10th and 13th centuries, but competition from the “private” Mass was certainly one of them. A certain balance was found, notably by allowing monk-priests the option of not taking communion at conventual Mass[22]. Apart from this question of communion, the priest was entirely free to celebrate “privately” or not. Clearly, there was never any obligation to celebrate it, nor, conversely, any lasting and general prohibition. The rare prohibitions related to the abusive use made of the “private” Mass (solitary Masses, domestic Masses, multiple daily celebrations or others) and not to the principle itself; the judgment of Saint Francis, which did not last, was advice rather than an obligation.

We can therefore reasonably affirm that this ritual development took place organically: slowly, progressively, with interventions by the authorities — both in terms of the conditions to be met in order to celebrate “in private” and the ritual form to be followed — which remained discreet and limited to cases of manifest abuse[23]. Consequently, the “private” Mass is indeed traditional in the Roman Church.

A morning in Fontgombault, like the one Card. Ratzinger would have seen

Replies to objections

Allow us to respond to a legitimate objection to “private” celebrations.

Many rightly point out the risk of losing the communal dimension of the Eucharistic sacrifice by attending or celebrating “private” Mass. This is the case of Vogel, who points out that in the past the fermentum made it possible not to isolate one Mass from another. [24] This rite manifested outwardly the unity of all celebrations with that of the pope and, through it, with the paschal mystery that it makes present. Each Mass is therefore linked to Christ’s redemptive action, performed “once and for all” [25], and is thus united with all the other Masses. Moreover, this rite of fermentum also shows that the Mass is not a simple ascetic exercise or private devotion [26]: the Mass is not an action of the celebrant and the assistants, but is truly the action of Christ and the Church.

It seems to us that the rubrics, which have developed considerably and reached such a degree of precision that nothing seems to have been left to chance, providentially play the role that the fermentum once played. They ensure that all the Masses are united by the observance of common rules. They also show the communion of the priest with his hierarchy, by asking him to obey the rules emanating from it. Finally, by obeying, the priest imitates the example of the Son, the High Priest, who did not come to do his own will, but that of his Father.

After recalling that “priestly spirituality is intrinsically Eucharistic”, Benedict XVI, in the apostolic exhortation Sacramentum caritatis, recommends that priests “celebrate Mass daily, even without the participation of the faithful” [27]. He added:

This recommendation corresponds first and foremost to the objectively infinite value of each Eucharistic celebration; it then draws from it a reason for particular spiritual effectiveness, because, if it is lived attentively and with faith, the Mass is formative in the deepest sense of the term, in that it promotes conformation to Christ and strengthens the priest in his vocation. [28]

I’ll leave the last word to Benedict XVI. When he was still Cardinal Ratzinger and visiting Notre-Dame de Fontgombault Abbey in 2001 for the Liturgical Days, he confided something to Dom Antoine Forgeot, the Abbot. During his stay, the cardinal had been able to celebrate the conventual Mass alone, which all the monks — including priests — had attended. At dawn on the morning of his departure, the Father Abbot invited him to walk through the abbey church one last time before returning to his car. This was precisely the moment when nine monk-priests were offering the holy sacrifice, as they did every morning, at the same time, “in private”, each on his own altar. The cardinal admired this timeless spectacle in silence for a few moments; then, as he left the car, he whispered in his host’s ear: “Now that’s the Catholic Church!” [29]

NOTES

[1] Cf. S.J.P. Van Dijk — J.H. Walker The Origins 51-52. We were unable to investigate this question further.

[2] Quoted in: G. Derville (2011) La concélébration eucharistique. Du symbole à la réalité Wilson & Lafleur Ltée, Montréal, 15.

[3] It is clear that for a brother priest, the “private” celebration can be compatible — with a little organisation — with attending community Mass. On the other hand, it prevents him from taking Communion. The same can be said for the non-priest brother who serves “private” Mass. Cf. in particular: R. Grégoire (1967-1968) La communion des moines-prêtres à la messe d’après les coutumiers monastiques médiévaux: “Sacris Erudiri” 18, 524-549, and more particularly the first point of the conclusion on page 547.

[4] This way of doing things was also in force for cardinals during conclaves until 1922: a single Mass celebrated by just one, at which all attended and received communion, without being able to celebrate “in private”, let alone concelebrate sacramentally as we understand it today.

[5] “Si sunt plures sacerdotes in loco secrete possunt cantare missam quam volunt.

[6] Ordo romanus XV, 121-156: M. Andrieu Les Ordines III, 120-125. We have added the Paduensis Gregorian Sacramentary: A. Catella — F. dell’Oro — A. Martini Liber Sacramentorum Paduensis 375-383.

[7] We studied four customs: the Cluniac customs of Bernard (Bernardus Ordo Cluniacensis 72: M. Herrgott Vetus disciplina monastica 263-265), the Cluniac customs of Ulrich (Udalricus Cluniacensis Antiquiores Consuetudines Cluniacensis Monasterii II, 30: PL 149, 724A-725A), the customs of Hirsau (Wilhelmus Constitutiones Hirsaugienses I, 86: PL 150, 1015C-1020C) and the customs of Farfa (Odilo Abbas Liber tramitis aevi II, 24: Corpus Consuetudinum Monasticarum 10, 232-233).

[8] It can be consulted here: S.J.P. Van Dijk [edr] (1963) Sources of the Modern Roman Liturgy. The Ordinals by Haymo of Faversham and related documents (1243-1307), II: Texts, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1-14.

[9] Cf. M. Righetti La Messa 148-149. The hypothesis is based first and foremost on common sense: deprived of the assistance of the faithful and the presence of several ministers, the celebrant — from the moment the existence of Masses “deprived of solemnity” is admitted — reproduces in these celebrations the essentials of the rite of the Mass (which he usually celebrates in public), but suppresses the parts that are properly communal (such as the psalmodic chants, the readings and the homily). Righetti bases this hypothesis on a passage by Tertullian in which he evokes the alternative between offering the (Eucharistic) sacrifice and serving the Word of God: “aut sacrificium offertur, aut Dei verbum administratur” (Tertullianus De cultu fœminarum II, 11: PL 1, 1329B), one excluding the other, and vice versa. Let us acknowledge that this written proof is far from incontestable, but that it nevertheless enjoys a certain degree of probability.

[10] We can identify five main regions in which the Roman liturgy developed from around 375 AD: Africa, Gaul, Spain, Italy (outside Rome) and Rome (cf. C. Vogel Introduction 20-30).

[11] This is the case for the Sanctus, the recitation of which is explicitly requested at “private” Mass (since it is recited at public Masses) by a canon of the Second Council of Vaison (529).

[12] The Kyrie consists of the simple invocations “Kyrie eleison” and “Christe eleison”. It is both a penitential rite, preparing the priest inwardly for the sacrifice that is to follow, and a prayer of intercession. Indeed, it is the probable descendent of the Deprecatio gelasiana, which was itself a prayer of intercession, and its concluding oration (the collect) is precisely the descendent of the oration concluding the Deprecatio gelasiana.

[13] The formula for the Collect is given in the libellus or sacramentary.

[14] The formula for the oration super oblata is given in the libellus or sacramentary.

[15] The formula for the preface is given in the libellus or sacramentary.

[16] We know that at least the central part of the Roman canon was already in force in the Roman rite at the time of Ambrose of Milan. He quoted entire passages from it in his De sacramentis in 390 (cf. Ambrose of Milan Des Sacrements: Botte, B. [edr] (1961) (SCh 25 bis), Cerf, Paris, 114-116).

[17] Additional elements from the previous stage are marked in bold.

[18] Additional elements from the previous stage are marked in bold.

[19] The kiss of peace does not take place at Masses for the dead.

[20] The celebrant alone receives communion at Masses for the deceased.

[21] This seems to have been the case in Rome, for the solemn Mass on Holy Thursday, in the seventh century.

[22] It was precisely the communion of all priests at the same conventual Mass that Saint Francis of Assisi wanted to restore to honour.

[23] Cf. the criteria for the organic development of the liturgy put forward by A. Reid and mentioned in the introduction.

[24] Cf. C. Vogel Une mutation 246.

[25] Hb 9, 12.

[26] C. Vogel seems to contrast the individual opus bonum dimension of the Mass with its dimension as a community act (cf. C. Vogel Une mutation 247-248). Yet the two are complementary and not opposed.

[27] Benedict XVI Sacramentum Caritatis 80.

[28] Id. 80.

[29] Dom Antoine Forgeot, mb, confirmed these facts on oath in a handwritten letter dated 14/02/2014 addressed to the author.

The “Private” Mass from Its Origins to the Thirteenth Century — Guest Article by Canon Gilles Guitard, ICRSP

NLM is deeply grateful to the International Centre for Liturgical Studies (CIEL) for permission to publish a translation of an extremely important paper that was given by Canon Guitard at the XIIIth colloquium of the CIEL, Rome, January 25, 2024. The text will be definitively published in the proceedings, scheduled to appear in January 2025.

The “Private” Mass from Its Origins to the Thirteenth Century

Canon Gilles Guitard, ICRSP

Introduction and terminology

The “private” Mass is specific to the Latin Church; it is not present in the Eastern liturgies, and when it is, we note that it has appeared recently, on the occasion of renewed relations with the Roman Church.[1]

Let us make it clear from the outset that by “private” we mean Mass formally celebrated for its own sake, without taking into account the physical presence of servers or a group of the faithful. “The latter may or may not be present, either individually or as a group, but their presence is neither required nor indispensable to the celebration [...]. [The ‘missa privata’ is in this sense [i.e. formally speaking] a ‘missa solitaria’“ [2], even though it is often materially different. Indeed, while a solitary Mass is necessarily “private”, a “private” Mass is not always solitary.

It is also worth recalling here the ontologically public nature of the Mass. Indeed, as Pius XII taught, the “sacrifice [of the Eucharist], everywhere and always, necessarily and by its very nature, has a public and social role”. [3] This is why we use inverted commas for the adjective “private” to describe the Mass.

The adjective “private” therefore does not qualify the intrinsic nature of the Mass, but the way in which it is celebrated.

Having established this, it should be borne in mind that the expression “private Mass” has prevailed throughout the history of the Church, and that it corresponds to a tradition dating back several centuries. [4] We find it, for example, in the Cluniac Customs of Ulrich, abbot of Cluny, in the second half of the eleventh century. [5] Finally, it was used in the various editions of the Missale Romanum, from 1570 to 1960, with a fluctuating meaning: Sometimes “missa privata” (or “privatim celebrata”) refers to a low Mass, as opposed to a solemn or sung Mass [6] sometimes it refers to a Mass where no one would respond or serve, as opposed to a public Mass; [7] sometimes it refers to the Mass celebrated individually by priests attached to a collegiate church, as opposed to the main Mass of a community (the parish or conventual Mass). [8]

These last two cases are clearly those of a “private” Mass. The first, on the other hand, is at least that of a Mass “deprived of solemnity”, but there is no guarantee that it is purely “private”; for this, we would need to know the inner workings of the celebrant: only the context will help us to know this, or at least to assume it. This is often why it is so difficult for the historian of the liturgy to identify a “private” Mass in the multitude of ecclesiastical writings and disciplinary decrees at his disposal.

The best clue for him is the Mass “deprived of solemnity”, since this is most often — if not almost always — the ritual form of the “private” Mass. Once such a ceremony has been spotted, it is its context that will reveal whether it can be considered with certainty or with a certain probability to be a formally ‘private’ Mass.

Historically, the “private” Mass can be traced back without a shadow of a doubt to the 13th century. In the Franciscan missal Regula — published around 1230 and inherited almost word for word from the now extinct missal of Honorius III (1216-1227) — we find the following heading: “Sed si sunt plures sacerdotes in loco, secrete possunt cantare missam quam volunt”. [9] Then, in 1243, an ordo missæ was for the first time devoted solely to the materially “private” Mass: this was the Ordo “Indutus planeta”, written by the Franciscan general Aymon de Faversham. [10] This document marked a turning point in the history of the liturgy: for the first time, the Mass “deprived of solemnity” — which can be considered the most frequent ritual form of the “private” Mass — became the norm for the Eucharistic liturgy to the detriment of the solemn public liturgy, which then appeared to be the result of additions made to the basic model. This ceremonial was the direct ancestor of the Ritus servandus in celebratione Missæ of the 1570 missal.

Paradoxically, only a few years before the publication of the Regula missal, in 1226, Saint Francis of Assisi emphatically recommended to his brothers that, if several priests were in the same place, only one Mass should be celebrated per day, and that all should attend. [11] The “private” Mass was therefore clearly and firmly discouraged by the holy founder from his brother priests, in order to favour the bonds of charity.

The question then must be posed: Was the “private” celebration of Mass something new that appeared in the 13th century? Could its appearance in communities of priests be the cause of the cooling of charity?

The aim of this paper is to show the deep roots of the “private” Mass in the Roman liturgical tradition. We believe that an overview of the history of its existence, and then of its ritual form, will suffice to show its organic development, as Alcuin Reid has been able to establish its criteria: slow, gradual growth, controlled — though not imposed — by authority. [12]

Evidence of its existence

As the Acts of the Apostles testifies, the Mass — then known as the “breaking of bread” — was celebrated from apostolic times onwards in private homes, which were the only places of public worship available at the time. It was celebrated on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7) and sometimes even every day in Jerusalem, as the description of the life of the first Christians in that city seems to indicate (Acts 2:46).

It is clear, then, that for the first Christians, the Mass was more than a simple act of devotion: from the outset, it was considered to be the centre of all Christian life.

With this in mind, although scriptural evidence is lacking, it does not seem absurd to us to suppose that Saint Paul and the first missionaries who accompanied him celebrated the “breaking of bread” “in private” when they stayed for a while in places where the natives, not (yet) converted to the Christian faith, did not therefore attend the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice. [13]

Finally, on a more general level, we think it reasonable to agree with Jungmann that it is highly probable that there was a “private” celebration on weekdays from apostolic times onwards. [14] Although we lack explicit proof, there are no serious objections to this possibility.

The persecutions of the first centuries also favoured celebrations attended by a small group of the faithful. Various sources show us the existence of Masses celebrated for a small group, during the week and on Sundays, in secret places or even in prison. [15] The local community, because of the hardships imposed by persecution, was far from being present as a whole. However, even in these cases, the priest would say Mass, because he saw the whole Church in this small audience. [16] This did not mean — at least in most cases — that these were strictly “private” Masses, but it is nevertheless certain that this type of situation necessarily limited the external ceremonial of the celebrations, which were therefore often “deprived of solemnity”.

Subsequently, the religious peace introduced by the Edict of Milan in 313 gave Christians official places of worship, but it did not bring about the disappearance of these particular Masses for small groups of worshippers. On the contrary, they continued to multiply on the fringes of official assemblies, to such an extent that the authorities were forced to legislate on the subject: it was at the beginning of the 6th century^e that a ban was introduced on celebrations in private homes on feast days, outside official places of worship (extra parochias& [17], in villa [18]). This proves that these private Masses were growing in number, especially in Gaul. It should be noted that it was not the “private” Mass as such that was targeted by these disciplinary decrees, [19] but rather the fact that Christians were turning away from the official public services of the local Church, celebrated by the bishop or his delegates. [20]

The reliquary of St Augustine

Reasons for its existence

Why did private Masses persist despite the move from the domus ecclesiae to the basilica? In our opinion, mainly because of

1. Christians’ attachment to votive Masses [21]

Let us quote here — among many others — the anecdote recounted by Saint Augustine: one of his priests celebrated Mass in the house of a Roman officer whose servants and livestock were being subjected to demonic vexations, with the intention of asking for an end to these torments; at the end of this votive Mass, everything stopped [22]

2. …combined with the rise of the cultus of relics.

Inherited from ancient pagan funeral banquets, which were held near or even on tombs, the practice spread — at the time when Christians were granted freedom of worship — of building shrines over the tombs of martyrs (martyria). [23] From this point onwards, it is clear that “veneration of the shrine, relics and celebration of the memoria passionis domini form a single whole” [24] in the minds of Christians of this period. Numerous testimonies testify to the popularity of pilgrimages among the martyrias.

It is therefore not surprising to find in the Sacramentary of Verona numerous Mass forms intended to be celebrated in honour of the martyrs. [25] Some libelli (in the month of April, in section VIII) are even “without indication of names”; [26] the priest therefore had at his disposal this kind of “Common of Martyrs” before its time, applicable to any altar.

Under these conditions, the presence of pilgrims attending the celebration — while remaining a very important reason for celebrating Mass — may nevertheless remain secondary to the honour paid to the Lord through his martyrs. In the long term, therefore, the rise of the cult of relics will be a not inconsiderable cause of the appearance and development of the celebration of Mass “for its own sake”, i.e. the “private” Mass.

One of the consequences of this was the proliferation of secondary places of worship: sanctuaries, oratories and even — probably from the time of Pope Symmachus (†514) and attested to in increasing numbers during the VIth century — secondary altars built in churches. [27]

Low Mass at Prinknash Abbey

Exponential growth

Taking advantage of these favourable conditions, as well as the increase in the number of priests with no specific pastoral responsibilities, [28] the “private” Mass enjoyed considerable growth between the 7th and 11th centuries, particularly under the impetus of the Carolingian reform and in monastic circles. Ecclesiastical documents bear witness to this in great numbers.

The Ordo romanus XV, in particular, provides clear and irrefutable proof of the existence of the “private” Mass. This liturgical book of a purely ceremonial nature, which was compiled in monastic circles between 750 and 775 [29] and addressed to all ecclesiastics — both regular and secular [30] — refers in particular to the different types of celebration, among which it explicitly mentions that of the solitary Mass (which is undoubtedly a “private” Mass. [31]) There can be no doubt, therefore, that this type of celebration was — as early as the third quarter of the eighth century — sufficiently well known and widespread in Frankish lands for it to be officially mentioned.

The consequences of this boom are clear to see. These include the exponential growth in the number of secondary altars in abbey and collegiate churches, and the gradual formation of the plenary missal.

Let us consider for a moment the appearance of this type of missal in the ninth century^e and its gradual development, which culminated in the replacement of the sacramentary in its favour during the twelfth century. [32] The celebration of “private” Mass appeared well before the plenary missal; it was then probably celebrated with the sacramentary alone. Then gradually came the obligation on the celebrant, initiated according to our sources by the Ordo romanus XV, not to omit the recitation of the parts performed at solemn Masses by the singers and sacred ministers. The celebrant is therefore no longer obliged to celebrate with the sacramentary alone, but also with a lectionary and an antiphonary. This is why it became urgent — for the twin reasons of ritual integrity and practical convenience — to design a Euchological book containing all these parts of the Mass; this was the plenary missal. [33] Conversely, as we shall see below, the development of liturgical books had an impact on the development of the ritual form of the “private” Mass.

In addition, the growth of “private” celebration made it necessary for the hierarchy to correct certain abuses, which never fail to occur when a phenomenon spreads. In addition to the restrictions still imposed on domestic Masses, we should mention the case of multiple daily celebrations and solitary Masses.

1. In some places as early as the 8th century, we find decrees recommending that priests celebrate only one Mass per day; [34] this is hardly surprising, given that the number of daily celebrations by a single priest was as high as twenty or thirty in some cases. It was not until Alexander II (†1073) that there was a universal prescription on this point: binating was forbidden, with the exception of the pastoral need for a Mass pro defunctis. [35]

2. As for solitary Mass, it was prohibited from the ninth century [36] in explicit terms; the reason given by the legislator was that the social nature of the Mass should be manifested externally by the presence of at least one assistant who responded and took communion. If the practice of solitary Mass was subsequently conceded on an occasional basis to certain monks or hermits, it was — it would seem — by special indult. [37] It should nevertheless be added that Saint Peter Damian (†1072), in his famous opuscule Dominus vobiscum, [38] was at pains to justify this practice of solitary Mass theologically. Here is the doctor’s main argument. The priest is a part of the body that is the Church; [39] and the office of a single member of the body involves and concerns the whole body (as the analogy with the human body, which is an organic whole, shows); [40] and moreover, the Church is both simple in a multiplicity of members (through the unity of faith) and whole in each of its members (through the bond of charity and the gifts of the Holy Spirit). [41] Consequently, the words of the priest at Mass (the priestly greetings, and possibly the responses) are said in the name of the whole Church; [42] as a result, the priest, if he is alone, can provide the plural greetings and the corresponding responses. [43] Moreover,” adds Pierre Damien, “if this were not so, there is no reason why the priest could also say, when he is alone, the plural passages of the Divine Office, such as: ‘Venite, exsultemus Domino’, ‘Venite adoremus’, ‘Oremus’, ‘Benedicamus Domino’. [44]

It should be noted that, although abuses were reprimanded by the hierarchy, “private” celebration itself was not banned at any time or in any region of Christianity. On the contrary, it appears officially in the monastic constitutions of the eleventh century as a monk’s daily practice. [45]

(To be concluded next week.)

Monastic private Masses

NOTES

[1] This presentation is a summary of the author’s own licentiate thesis, presented at the University of the Holy Cross in 2019, the title of which was: La “célébration privée” de la messe dans le rit romain: des origines au XIII^e siècle.

[2] C. Vogel (1980) Une mutation cultuelle inexpliquée : le passage de l’eucharistie communautaire à la messe privée : “ Revue des Sciences Religieuses “54, 234.

[3] Pius XII (20 November 1947) Encyclical Letter Mediator Dei: “Documentation Catholique” 45, 222. Here is the complete passage: “This sacrifice [the Eucharistic sacrifice], everywhere and always, in a necessary way and by its very nature, has a public and social role, since the one who immolates it acts in the name of Christ and of Christians, of whom the divine Redeemer is the head, offering it to God for the holy Catholic Church, for the living and for the dead (Missale Rom., Canon Missae)”. And also: “The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an act of public worship, rendered to God in the name of Christ and of the Church, whatever the place and manner of celebration. The expression ‘private Mass’ should therefore be avoided” (Sacred Congregation of Rites (3 September 1958) Instruction De Musica Sacra 2: DC 55, 1429).

[4] Cf. V. Raffa (2003) Liturgia eucaristica. Mistagogia della Messa: dalla storia e dalla teologia alla pastorale pratica, CLV-Edizioni liturgiche, Roma, 872.

[5] Cf. Udalricus Cluniacensis Antiquiores Consuetudines Cluniacensis Monasterii 2, 30: PL 149, 719A.

[6] Cf. M. Sodi — A.M. Triacca [edr] (1998) Missale Romanum, Editio Princeps (1570), Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Città del Vaticano, 8*. 33*.

[7] See Ibid. 23*. 25*. 29*.

[8] Cf. Ibid. 8*. 34*. This type of ‘private’ Mass is directly opposed to sacramental concelebration, which is still unknown in the Tridentine Missale Romanum.

[9] M. Przeczewski [edr] (2003) Missale Franciscanum Regulæ (Codicis VI.G.38 Bibliothecæ Nationalis Neapolinensis), Libreria Editrice Vaticiana, Città del Vaticano, 37.

[10] Its full name is Ordo agendorum et dicendorum a sacerdote in missa privata et feriali iuxta consuetudinem ecclesie romane.

[11] Cf. Francis of Assisi, Epistola toti ordini missa una cum oratione: omnipotens, æterne, 30-31: Th. Desbonnets [edr] (1981) Ecrits, (SCh 285), Cerf-Editions franciscaines, Paris 2003, 250-251. We read: “ut in locis, in quibus fratres morantur, una tantum missa celebretur in die secundum formam sanctae Ecclesiae. Si vero plures in loco fuerint sacerdotes, sit per amorem caritatis alter contentus auditu celebrationis alterius sacerdotis.” Quoted in: G. Derville (2011) La concélébration eucharistique. Du symbole à la réalité, Wilson & Lafleur Ltée, Montréal, 15, note 38.

[12] Cf. A. Reid (2004) The Organic Development of the Liturgy. The Principles of Liturgical Reform and Their Relation to the Twentieth-century Liturgical Movement Prior to the Second Vatican Council, Ignatius Press, San Francisco 2005, 307-308.

[13] Cf. S.J.P. Van Dijk — J.H. Walker (1960) The Origins of the Modern Roman Liturgy. The Liturgy of the Papal Court and the Franciscan Order in the Thirteenth Century, The Newman Press, Westminster MD & Darton-Longman-Todd, London,45, note 2. The following cases are also cited: Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey; Paul, Timothy and Silas in Thessalonica; Paul alone in Athens (cf. Acts 13-14 and Acts 17). The same thesis is expounded by Righetti (M. Righetti (1966) Manuale di Storia Liturgica, III: La Messa. Commento storico-liturgico alla luce del concilio Vaticano II, Ancora, Milano 2005, 148).

[14] “Since, at the outset, public celebrations bringing the community together were planned only on Sundays and feast days, it could easily follow that, on the intervening days, the bishop or the priest himself would offer a sacrifice in his own name, prompted by a desire for personal thanksgiving and prayer” (J.A. Jungmann, Missarum Sollemnia, 1952). (J.A. Jungmann (1952) Missarum Sollemnia. Genetic Explanation of the Roman Mass. Tome premier, Traduction revue et mise à jour d’après la 3^e édition allemande, Aubier-éditions Montaigne, Paris 1956, 266-267).

[15] Saint Augustine attests that Christians celebrated Mass in prison during the persecutions (cf. Augustinus Breviculus collationis cum donatistis III, 17, 33: PL 43, 644).

[16] For example, Tertullian mentions the case of Sunday celebrations in times of persecution. When asked how this should be done, he replies that if it is not possible to gather the community together during the day, there is still the possibility of celebrating at night, and that if it is not possible to gather all the brothers together, the Eucharist should be celebrated, even if only three people are present; the Church is then represented by them (“sit tibi et in tribus Ecclesia”). Tertullian concludes by saying that it is better for the priest not to see his faithful at times than to compromise them: “melius est turbas tuas aliquando non videas, quam addicas” (Tertullianus De fuga in persecutione XIV: PL 2, 120).

[17] Canon 21 of the Council of Adge (506) : Mansi 8, 328.

[18] Canon 25 of the Council of Orleans (511) : MGH Conc. I, 8.

[19] Especially as these domestic masses, although “deprived of solemnity”, were not necessarily “private”.

[20] Cf. C. Vogel (1980) Une mutation cultuelle inexpliquée : le passage de l’eucharistie communautaire à la messe privée : RSR 54, 235. The subsequent history of canon law shows that the authorities have always urged the faithful to attend cathedral or parish masses on Sundays.

[21] From the Latin “votum: wish”, these Masses are celebrated to obtain spiritual or temporal goods, public or private. There are many examples of this, and they often take place in the very place where the special grace is requested: for example, in the home of the sick person whose recovery is hoped for, or at the grave of the deceased for whom eternal rest is requested.

[22] Cf. Augustinus De Civitate Dei XXII, 8, 6: PL 41, 764.

[23] Cf. A.A. Häussling (1965) Ursprünge der Privatmesse: “Stimmen der Zeit” 176, 24. We do not always agree with this author’s theological conclusions, but let us simply quote his historical observation. Already in the time of Saint Cyprian of Carthage (†258), Christians celebrated the torments of the martyrs and their anniversary feasts, i.e. the anniversary of their martyrdom, with sacrifices (cf. Cyprianus Carthaginensis Epistola XXXIV, 3: PL 4, 323A).

[24] A.A. Häussling Ursprünge 24.

[25] Cf. C. Vogel (1966) Introduction aux sources de l’histoire du culte chrétien au Moyen-Age, Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, Spoleto, 40-42. It should be remembered here that the Verona Sacramentary, as a collection, is commonly dated to the VI^e century (cf. C. Vogel Introduction 33), but that certain formularies may date from the middle of the V^e century (cf. C. Vogel Introduction 39).

[26] Cf. C. Vogel Introduction 40.

[27] See O. Nussbaum (1961) Kloster, Priestermönch und Privatmesse, Peter Hanstein Verlag GmbH, Bonn, 186 and J. Braun (1924) Der christliche Altar in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung, I: Arten, Bestandtelle, Altargrab, Weihe, Symbolik, Alte Meister Guenther Koch & Co, München, 369. The original custom, which still exists in the East, was to build only one altar per church (cf. J. Braun Arten 373).

[28] At the synod held in Rome in 610, Pope Boniface IV declared himself in favour of the priestly ordination of monks (Cf. Mansi 10, 504-505). Until then, the disciples of Saint Benedict had been content with their status as monks. More often than not, there were only a tiny number of priests in each monastery — or even just one — who celebrated Mass for the community (Cf. P. Delatte Commentaire sur la Règle de saint Benoît, Solesmes 1985, 484 (on chapter 62 of the Rule of Saint Benedict: “Des prêtres du monastère”). Between the eighth^e and tenth^e centuries, the proportion of monk-priests to non-priest monks increased significantly in the monasteries of France and Germany, rising from an average of 26% around the year 800 to an average of 55% a century and a half later (see the statistics provided by Nussbaum (Kloster 78-80)).

[29] M. Andrieu (1951) Les Ordines Romani du Haut Moyen-Age. III: Les textes (suite) (Ordines XIV-XXXIV), Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, Louvain, 18-20.

[30] Cf. C. Vogel Introduction 143.

[31] In n. 121 : “Hoc tamen sciendum est [...] in cenubiis, sive in civitatibus, [...] aut ubicumque sacerdus missas celebraverit, sive dominicis seu cottidianis diebus, vel in aliis solemnitatibus tam sanctorum quam et reliquorum martirum, sive cum clero puplice, vel etiam cum duabus aut unum ministrum, vel etiam si singolorum sacrificium Deo obtulerit, observare debit [...]” (Ordo romanus XV, 121 : M. Andrieu Les Ordines III, 120). And in n. 123: “Et sic incurvati contra altare ad orientem adornant, dicentes Kyriaeleison prolexe unusquisque chorus per novem vicibus. Si autem singolus fuerit sacerdos, novem tantum vicibus inclinatus adornando dicit Kyriaeleison” (Ordo romanus XV, 123: M. Andrieu Les Ordines III, 121). The bold characters are our own.

[32] Cf. C. Vogel Introduction 87-88.

[33] Of the four most popular theories to explain the birth of the plenary missal, Dom Folsom sets out the one we have just described (C. Folsom (1998) I libri liturgici romani : A.J. Chupungco [edr] (1998) Scientia liturgica. Manuale di liturgia. I: Introduzione alla liturgia, Piemme, Casale Monferrato, 285)

[34] Thus Egbert, Bishop of York: “Et sufficit sacerdoti unam missam in una die celebrare, quia Christus semel passus est, et totum mundum redemit; in Levitico quoque scriptum est non debere Aaron ingredi assidue interius in sancta” (Egbertus Eboracensis Archiepiscopus Excerptiones e dictis et canonibus sanctorum patrum concinnatae, et ad ecclesiasticae politiae institutionem conducentes 54: PL 89, 386B).

[35] Cf. Decretum Gratiani III, 1, 53: A.L. Richter — A. Friedberg. [edr] (1955) Corpus Iuris Canonici, I : Decretum magistri gratiani, Akademische Druck-U. Verlagsanstalt, Graz, 1308.

[36] In particular with Théodulfe d’Orléans (†821) and the canons of the Council of Mainz (813) and Paris (829).

[37] Cf. J. Bona (1671) De la liturgie, ou Traité sur le saint sacrifice de la messe (tome premier), Louis Vivès, Paris 1874, 154; Sacra Congregatio de Disciplina Sacramentorum (1949) Instructio Quam plurimum III, 1-2: AAS 41, 506-507. We also know the famous case of Saint Charles de Foucauld (1858-1916) who, when he lived as a hermit in the Saharan desert, did not celebrate Mass — until he had received the long-awaited indult from Rome — on the (many) days when he was alone.

[38] Cf. Petrus Damianus Liber qui appellatur Dominus vobiscum ad Leonem eremitam: PL 145, 231B-252B. Others followed him, including Odon de Cambrai (†1113) and Etienne de Baugé, bishop of Autun (†1136).

[39] Cf. Petrus Damianus Dominus vobiscum 10: PL 145, 238D-239A.

[40] Cf. Petrus Damianus Dominus vobiscum 9: PL 145, 238C-238D.

[41] Cf. Petrus Damianus Dominus vobiscum 5: PL 145, 235A-235C.

[42] Cf. Petrus Damianus Dominus vobiscum 10: PL 145, 239A-240A.

[43] Cf. Petrus Damianus Dominus vobiscum 13: PL 145, 241D-242C.

[44] Cf. Petrus Damianus Dominus vobiscum 7: PL 145, 236C-237C.

[45] In this respect, it is interesting to consult the Cluniac monastic customs, and in particular the analysis made by Dom Tirot in this article: P. Tirot (1981) Un Ordo Missæ monastique : Cluny, Cîteaux, La Chartreuse : EphL 95, 44-120.220-251.

Can a Bishop Restrict a “Private Mass” in the Usus Antiquior to a Priest and a Server?

In certain dioceses, Traditionis Custodes is being “applied” in ways that go well beyond what would be required by the letter of the law (such as it is; Fr. Réginald-Marie Rivoire in his masterful canonical tract has shown that it is bad law and worse theology; see also my article on newly-ordained priests and permission to offer the usus antiquior). One such way is when bishops attempt to redefine “private Mass” as a Mass at which only a priest and a server are present, and no one else.

Let’s begin with a preliminary canonical matter. If a bishop merely tells his priests that this will be his policy, or has it communicated to them in an informal way, then it is neither valid nor legally enforceable, the reason being given in a series of canons:

Can. 49. A singular precept is a decree which directly and legitimately enjoins a specific person or persons to do or omit something, especially in order to urge the observance of law.

Can. 51. A decree is to be issued in writing, with the reasons at least summarily expressed if it is a decision.

Can. 54. §1. A singular decree whose application is entrusted to an executor takes effect from the moment of execution; otherwise, from the moment it is made known to the person by the authority of the one who issued it. §2. To be enforced, a singular decree must be made known by a legitimate document according to the norm of law.

Can. 55. Without prejudice to the prescripts of cann. 37 and 51, when a very grave reason prevents the handing over of the written text of a decree, the decree is considered to have been made known if it is read to the person to whom it is destined in the presence of a notary or two witnesses. After a written record of what has occurred has been prepared, all those present must sign it.

What is to be gathered from these canons is that the bishop would have had to present such a limitation on the rights of a priest in writing and properly promulgate it. If a bishop intends to ban something that a priest is otherwise entitled to, he must issue it in writing, because it has to be the sort of thing capable of being challenged by those affected by it. Otherwise, it would just be a form of bullying: “You gotta do this because I say so,” with no paper trail. Now, in the case at hand (where a bishop attempts to redefine a private Mass), what right of a priest would be being infringed?

Can. 906. Except for a just and reasonable cause, a priest is not to celebrate the Eucharistic sacrifice without the participation of at least some member of the faithful.

Note that Can. 906 normally requires that there be “at least some member of the faithful,” which is deliberately open-ended: it could logically and legally include several people, indeed it could include a large church packed to the rafters. This remains true for a Mass that an unimpeded priest offers on any day of the week in any legitimate place for any legitimate reason. That would include a Mass held, for appropriate reason, in a side chapel, at a school or a retreat center, in a rectory chapel, at a house, etc.

Now, Pope John XXIII in the 1960 Code of Rubrics, n. 269 (and after him, Paul VI in the encyclical Mysterium Fidei, nn. 32–33) rejected the term “private Mass” because a Mass of its very nature is a social act—even when said by a priest with a server and no one else. Historically and juridically, a “Missa privata” meant a Mass “deprived” of solemnity or ceremonial—a low Mass at a side altar in contrast with a solemn conventual Mass. Only later and colloquially did it acquire the sense of “unofficial, unscheduled, unadvertised.” Nevertheless, we can reasonably describe a Mass that is said on private property (not in a diocesan property) and not advertised to the public, and without pomp and circumstance, as a “private Mass.”[1] There is no canonical rule against doing this, nor, for the reasons given, could a merely verbal instruction from a bishop suffice.

(Let us be clear about this point: Any implementation of Traditionis Custodes that is not formally committed to writing in such a way that it might be canonically evaluated and challenged is invalid on the face of it and cannot be enforced.)

It is arbitrary to limit servers to a single one. There is no canonical basis for such a limit. A priest could have one, two, or three servers, or as many as seemed conveniens. Similarly, it is arbitrary to specify that a server can be present but not, say, three lay people who are simply attending and praying. Unless the server is ordained to the minor order of acolyte or installed in the “ministry” of acolyte, the server is simply a layman wearing a cassock and surplice and offering some assistance. There would be no objective basis for the aforementioned limit. Indeed, since the very term “private Mass” is to be avoided as per the 1960 Code of Rubrics (n. 269), one might consider any policy couched in terms of “private Mass” to be theologically unsound, and therefore deserving to be ignored.

Prior to 1958, the term “missa privata,” when used by the Holy See, carried with it various valences of meaning: conditions of privacy, lack of solemnity or music, etc.[2] I can only assume that a bishop today might use it in the sense of Mass “sine populo,” as the distinction exists in the Novus Ordo texts.[3] This concept does not, however, exist for the usus antiquior, and is therefore inapplicable.

Since current legislation does not define “private Mass,” a bishop could argue that it’s up to him to make distinctions (using the oft misquoted notion of the bishop as the “chief liturgist” of his diocese), though the counter-argument would be that such distinctions are praeter legem and beyond the authority of the bishop. A bishop who prohibits the Old Mass simply needs to be resisted. Priests should continue to offer the Mass. If need be, state that “Father will be offering a private Mass at 8:30 a.m. in the school chapel. The doors of the chapel will be unlocked during this private offering of the Mass.”

Incidentally, if a bishop dared to prohibit priests from saying the TLM by themselves, their prohibition would be utterly null and void. Pursuant to Can. 906 (and this is a change from Can. 813 in the 1917 Code), a priest is permitted to celebrate Mass without a server or anyone else for a “just and reasonable cause.”[4] This has long been understood canonically to include simply the great good, for himself and for the Church, of the priest saying daily Mass.

Thus, taking all the forgoing into consideration, hypothetically in a diocese where a bishop attempted to limit “private Masses” to a priest and one server, it would be permissible for a priest to celebrate a Missa sine populo without a server (i.e., a Missa solitaria) for a “just cause” as per Can. 906 (what more just cause than pursuing sanctity and the honoring of God according to the sound ritual tradition of the Church?), but in such a way that some of the faithful happened to be there at the same time for an unrelated reason (say, for instance, they gathered to pray the Rosary). In this case, everything would be canonically correct and the bishop’s ruling—already incorrect for other reasons—would not even find matter to which it could apply.


NOTES

[1] O’Connell lists several kinds of private Masses.

[2] Cf. McManus, Handbook for the New Rubrics (Baltimore: Helicon, 1960), 106.

[3] “The revised edition of the Roman Missal that was promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1969 presented two forms of the Order of Mass: Ordo Missae cum populo and Ordo Missae sine populo…. The 1970 General Instruction of the Roman Missal dealt with the first of these forms of celebrating Mass under the numbers 77–152, and with the second under the numbers 209–231. The latter section began with the explanation: ‘This section gives the norms for Mass celebrated by a priest with only one server to assist him and to make the responses.’ In the revised and expanded 2002 edition of the General Instruction, the term Missa cum populo remains as the heading for the information given under numbers 115–198, but the other section (numbers 252–272) speaks of Missa cuius unus tantum minister participat (Mass in which only one server participates). Corresponding to the latter form, the Missal presents the Ordo Missae cuius unus tantum minister participat (Order of Mass in which only one server participates)” (source).

[4] Fr Zuhlsdorf has a bit more on that here: https://wdtprs.com/2016/12/ask-father-can-priests-say-the-tridentine-mass-alone-without-a-server/.

In Uncertain Times, House Chapels Proliferate

In Western history, house chapels are a phenomenon associated mostly with aristocrats who lived on large estates and could afford to employ a resident chaplain. In times of persecution, these chapels often became important places of refuge, since their remoteness, together with the status of the family owners, introduced a kind of safety buffer between the outside world and the services that took place within. This safety was not always enough, alas, to prevent priests from being surprised and captured by hostile state forces.

While some house chapels of the aforementioned sort are still in existence and functional, it is becoming more common to see modest chapels being built in the homes of ordinary Catholic laity. A basement renovation, a small spare room, an attic, all offer possibilities for building an altar and setting up a space that is appropriate for the Mass and other devotions in a time of necessity. Some families simply wish to create a prayerful space where they can gather for individual or group prayer, in an environment that reminds them of and connects them with the parish or chapel where they usually go for Mass. Others, keenly aware of the grave and deteriorating situation in which the Church finds itself in the West, have decided to “plan ahead” by making a suitable space for eventual underground or “canceled” priests. One diocese has already outlawed private traditional Masses altogether, and there may be more that follow suit. Priests in such dioceses will benefit from having places of refuge where they can bypass the unjust restrictions and offer Mass to God, in the presence of grateful laity.

In January, I published an article at NLM called “Building a Home Altar,” which offered practical advice about specs that could be used for an altar, as well as some other desiderata. Afterwards I received some interesting photographs, a selection of which I wish to share for the edification and inspiration of readers who may be thinking along similar lines.

The first set of photos is of a lovely chapel in a basement. The family has plans for further decoration.

The second set of photos shows another basement chapel. The owner is friends with a woodworker who built for her, out of spare parts, a shrine to the Sacred Heart, located in the same room. One notes the Stations of the Cross as well: it seems that this space is well appointed for personal and family prayer. We all know of families who have to drive long distances to get to a traditional Mass. For such families, having the Stations at home, set up along the perimeter of a sufficiently large room, would be a boon, especially during the season of Lent.
 

Continue Reading this Article. . .

Restoring Liturgical Tradition after the Pandemic

Even as Catholics continue to suffer from the difficult situation in which we find ourselves, with an absence of public liturgies and restricted sacramental access, the virtue of supernatural hope already prompts us to see many ways in which God may bring forth great good from this evil — or, to speak more truthfully, may be calling us to collaborate in bringing forth great good by a prudent response to circumstances. In particular, we can envision several ways in which the liturgical life of the Church could be improved by far-seeing pastors.

1. Increase frequency of private TLMs. With a large number of priests now consigned to the private celebration of Mass (which is legitimate and praiseworthy according to the mind of the Church), priests will be free to offer the traditional Latin Mass on a daily basis. For priests relatively new at it, this makes possible the perfecting of the celebration through frequent practice. For priests who have been wanting to learn it, now would be a God-sent opportunity to put in the time and practice necessary. For all priests, it could be viewed as an enforced “retreat” at which they can pray freely and fervently for the needs of the Church and the world.

2. Offer Masses ad orientem. Even priests who are not offering or not planning to offer Mass in its traditional form can begin to offer their Masses ad orientem, as is just and right. After several weeks (potentially) of saying Mass facing geographical or liturgical east, these priests will have a perfect excuse to say to their congregations: “In these weeks of the pandemic, when I have been praying Mass for you and your needs every day, I have grown accustomed to offering it facing east, in accord with the long tradition of the Church. I have discovered how much more prayerful it is, how it enables me to pray more fervently to God and for all the intentions for which the Mass is offered. As a result, I would like to keep doing this now that our public celebrations are permitted again.”

With the chaos of paperwork and re-planning that will be engulfing chanceries everywhere, and the sheer gratitude of the faithful who will have returned to church, there could never be a more opportune moment to introduce ad orientem. A simple explanation will put it in context, and Catholic life will go on — only better than it was before.

3. Enrich or tweak the parish Mass schedule. When the public Mass schedule is re-announced, priests will have an ideal opportunity to add to the parish schedule a TLM if it has not been present before, or shift around times to give the TLM a better time slot, or add more TLMs during the week or month. Again, this expansion of sacramental access will be appreciated on its own terms after a long period of instability and inaccessibility, and the Catholics who come back will be prepared for new terrain.

4. Abolish bad custom and abuse. Dubious liturgical customs and liturgical abuses, which have already de facto come to an end with the coronavirus shutdown, could be stopped indefinitely. This has been proposed by an anonymous priest who noted that, even after bishops had banned the sign of peace, holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer, and Communion from the chalice, the Mass still went on and people still attended. In other words, the faithful — or at least the most faithful of the faithful — are more interested in going to Mass than they are in shaking hands, holding hands, or receiving “the cup.” It is more important to go to Mass, period, than to “get” to be an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion. Now is a truly God-given moment to start afresh with better customs:

• discontinuation of the multiplication of chalices for distributing the Precious Blood (with all the problems this creates);
• discontinuation of the habitual use of extraordinary lay ministers, as per the constant instructions (hitherto always ignored) of the Holy See;
• discontinuation of the use of female altar servers in favor of well-trained male altar servers;
• discontinuation of the distracting and theological incoherent “sign (or kiss) of peace” as practiced in the Novus Ordo;
• encouragement of kneeling for Holy Communion — which could be encouraged still further by the installation of a communion rail during this down time;
• exclusion of the laity handling or washing the sacred vessels of the altar, whether during the liturgy or before or after it.

Together with “turning over a new leaf,” priests can preach about:

• the fullness of Christ’s presence under each species — thereby defending the traditional reception of the host alone;
• the essential difference between the ordained priesthood and the common priesthood of the faithful, and thus, why it is appropriate for only the clergy to distribute Communion;
• why Communion in the hand was a mistake (not, as some try to argue, the revival of ancient practice) that we have many reasons to regret, and why it is best to follow the tradition of the Church, reaffirmed by Paul VI, of receiving on the tongue while kneeling — a posture not only palpably reverent and hallowed by centuries of Catholic custom, but also more efficient and convenient for the minister who is distributing the hosts.

5. Rework the parish music program. Choirs will have been disbanded for weeks. It would therefore be an opportune moment for reassigning responsibilities. A newly-formed schola that sings Gregorian chant could be assigned to a Mass to provide truly sacred music. Another group might be allowed to remain disbanded because of “new pastoral exigencies and priorities.”

It may seem strange to be thinking ahead when we don’t even know what each new day will bring, but we must follow Our Lord’s advice to be “wise as serpents and simple as doves” (Mt 10:16) as we reconquer lost territory for the Kingdom of God. The Lord is gesturing at rich harvests to be reaped. Let us put our hands to the plough and not look back (cf. Lk 9:62).

All of us are being stretched by Divine Providence, so let’s take advantage of the newfound elasticity!

Visit Dr. Kwasniewski’s website, SoundCloud page, and YouTube videos.