www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Private Liturgies for Priest

I first heard a few years ago about RC priests having "Mass for one"... I thought at the time it seemed rather odd.
As I understand it the Eastern churches the priests cannot say DL without a congregation present.

Canonically, one can't. That doesn't mean that some don't do it anyway.

The Latin practice of "private Mass" arose from the convergence of two or three factors. The first was the rise in popularity of requiem Masses, which soon overwhelmed the number of altars available. Churches, beginning with monasteries, began installing side altars at which to celebrate these requiem Masses--but there simply weren't enough monks to do a full celebration, so the Mass was radically abbreviated (cut down to the "essentials"), with the priest saying the parts of the people (sometimes an acolyte would assist in this). If you went to a monastery in the high Middle Ages, you would find monastic priests "saying" Mass 24/7 at numerous chapels and side altars throughout the monastery. After all, people paid good money for those Masses, so the monks would fulfill their part of the deal.

The second factor was the Latin practice of encouraging priests to celebrate the Eucharist every day ("exercising his faculties), which conflicted with the Latin bias against concelebration (done only on special occasions). So, a priest had to celebrate every day, but he couldn't just get together with half a dozen other priests and celebrate Mass together.

The form of low Mass that arose out of monks celebrating requiem Masses by themselves fit the bill perfectly, and became very popular--so popular, that the low Mass became the predominant form of public celebration, the so-called "High Mass" being reserved for feasts and other special occasions (indeed, the Tridentine liturgical commission thought the low Mass was the normative form, and cobbled the Tridentine High Mass together by elaborating on the low Mass).

The attitude that a priest had to celebrate every day continued well into our era, with priests actually attending Mass with other priests, then retiring to his own room to celebrate "his" Mass. Fortunately, this abuse seems to be dying out, though the Latins are a long way from "one church, one altar, one Eucharist on any given day".

Confusion on terms between "private Mass" and "Mass without participation of people"

In the Latin rites a "private Mass" is simply a not scheduled Mass, a Mass added to the usual (and binding) schedule of the church. Many times it is "without participation of people", but not necessarily.

Further remark: the Latin priest is not at all obliged to celebrate a Mass every day: he is obliged only to his Liturgy of the Hours and (at least) to attend Masses on Sundays and feasts.
The use of every-day-celebration is very appreciate devotion and sometime a personal-vow.

I've heard but never seen Ukrainian Catholic liturgies being done by a priest or bishop privately. No server, no congregation. This is always done on a weekday and believe it or not is done in the private chapel in some chanceries of Ukrainian Eparchy's.

How is this actually done??? A 'said' liturgy? Silently said by the bishop?? Full vestments? Are censings done? Does the celebrant sing the entire liturgy to himself?? I believe these are done with intentions given to the celebrant to do the liturgy for specific people or intentions.

I am NOT judging this...but it is a fact and is done frequently. Can anyone tell me how these liturgies are done??

I have some reservations:

1. Stuart talks about "monastic priests 'saying' Mass 24/7 at numerous chapels and side altars throughout the monastery." This of course is an exaggeration. These Masses would for the most part have been said very early in the morning, between Prime and Terce (First and Third Hours), and not "24/7."

2. Stuart talks of the "so-called 'High Mass' being reserved for feasts and other special occasions." Here he mixes things up quite a bit. What he says was probably true for your ordinary parish church, but he has just been talking about monastic priests, and in an abbey church, cathedral or collegiate church, the conventual Mass would always be a High Mass. In addition there would be all the Low Masses.

3. Stuart talks of "priests actually attending Mass with other priests, then retiring to his own room to celebrate 'his' Mass." This is inaccurate. In a conventual church, if they were not celebrating the conventual Mass, priests would celebrate Mass (with a server, not alone) in a chapel or at a side altar after Prime. They would then attend (in choir dress) the conventual Mass after Terce. Stuart is exaggerating and also contradicting himself (having mentioned chapels and side altars above). Celebrating Mass in your own room would not normally be allowed.

1. No, they were celebrated around the clock. The number of Masses was determined by bequests to the monasteries, which were, of course, the monasteries' principal source of revenue. This medieval practice is well documented in contemporary sources.

2. Yes, I was speaking of parochial use. Yet by the time of Trent, the best "liturgists" of the Latin Church automatically assumed that the low Mass was the normative form.

3. The practice I described was recounted in writing by Father Robert Taft. One would assume that he would not lie, and also that he knows whereof he speaks. And again, what "normally would not be allowed" and "what was actually done" in the Tridentine Church were two very different things.

A Latin priest ought to have the participation of at the very least a server. This is not always respected.

To Stuart's post, I would only add the sound theological reason supporting the multiplication of Masses, namely the individual and infinite value of each. The math gets a little tough when multiplying infinites, I admit, but this is a bit of mystery we Latins have been willing to embrace.

This sounds more like an ex post facto rationalization of a practice hallowed by time but, nonetheless one which represents a radical discontinuity with the Tradition of the undivided Church and the patristic understanding of liturgy and the sacraments. The result has been a tendency to regard the Mass as existing principally to confect the Eucharist, and of the Eucharist principally as a means of sanctification for the individual. Somewhere or other, the ecclesial and cosmic dimensions of the Mystery have been lost.

I would say, Latin Catholic, that while Stuart's descriptions of Latin Church history do strike me usually as cynical and biased, exaggerating the bad, and often failing to assign charitable or even reasonable motives to the players, his history and facts are substantially correct, if a colourful amalgam of the darker spots.

I try to assume, when reading Stuart, that we are all well familiar with the propensity of man to mess up all the best things and to fail in all times and places and particular churches to reach the high ideals he recognizes he must. Also, that Stuart must be aware that the Latin Church through the middle ages gave rise to the greatest and most enduring Christian civilization, produced countless holy Saints, promoted the cultural ideals of which we are all beneficiaries still, and generally produced monumental amounts of really impressive good fruits, the gathering of figs from thorns being impossible, and all that.

I heard that Bishop John Maximovich did a "private" Liturgy at the shrine of St Martin of Tours in France once.

BINGO! you're (alas) correct - and they are carried out exactly as you said. I know of this from personal experience; except the celebrant had one person present to make the reponses. Guess who that was.

Thanks Sielos but did the priest/bishop sing the liturgy? Say it our loud (read it)...was insence used? Was the liturgy abbreviated?

I assume such private liturgies alone happen daily with all the intentions being given.

The Liturgies were recited in a certain Eastern European language at a v e r y fast clip...no incense..no processions at either Little or Great Entrances...the gifts were just carried a short distance from prothesis to altar...prosphora was pre-cut...I suspected it was bad liturgics but to have said so or questioned this procedure in any way would not have been welcome...I was not going to provide the celebrant with anything like an "A-HA!" moment.

It's an imperfect Church in the midst of an imperfect world and sometimes the most important thing we do (worship) is also imperfect as far as we are concerned. Another mystery to contemplate.

I read that a Georgian Schemahieromonk was celebrating Liturgy by himself when his monastery was overrun by Persians.He had just time to consume the Holy Gifts before being martyred.Maybe he did have the services of a chanter who might have been the witness to his martyrdom.