Latin Mass Readings

[AJB328]

I’ve just come back to the Church after a long absence and have spent the last couple months soaking up as much as I can and this week I started attending Latin Mass in addition to the Ordinary Mass.

As someone new and learning I don’t want to step on any toes or have someone think my comments are meant to start an argument. I’m just looking for someone to tell me where my logic is flawed and point me in the right direction.

That said, there are aspects of the Ordinary Mass that are criticized and I totally understand (one example is not kneeling during communion. You genuflect, bow or kneel when walking by the Real Presence but not when receiving it???).

One criticism I don’t understand is the expanded readings. How could having more scripture during Mass be a bad thing?

 

[Chatter163]

I’ve just come back to the Church after a long absence and have spent the last couple months soaking up as much as I can and this week I started attending Latin Mass in addition to the Ordinary Mass.

As someone new and learning I don’t want to step on any toes or have someone think my comments are meant to start an argument. I’m just looking for someone to tell me where my logic is flawed and point me in the right direction.

That said, there are aspects of the Ordinary Mass that are criticized and I totally understand (one example is not kneeling during communion. You genuflect, bow or kneel when walking by the Real Presence but not when receiving it???).

One criticism I don’t understand is the expanded readings. How could having more scripture during Mass be a bad thing?

Did someone say that is was a bad thing? I must have missed that.

Having said that, I can say that once upon the time I thought that the OF lectionary was a good thing, because surely it exposed the faithful to more scripture. And it does indeed do this. However, as one who attends primarily the EF now, over time I cam to realize that one of the reasons that I knew the scriptures that I did (and I am including the antiphons which tend to be omitted from OF Masses) was because I hear them more frequently. In the case of Sunday Mass, hearing the same readings annually caused me to internalize them more deeply. In the case of weekday readings, the repetition of various sets of readings on the saints’ days (martyrs, martyr bishops, confessors, doctors, virgins, etc.) rather than the daily OF lectionary made the same internalization take place. The OF uses a daily two-year cycle during ordinary time that is only interrupted by an occasional solemnity. The EF does not have a daily cycle, but with more saints’ days on the kalendar, the above-mentioned sets of readings appear semi-regularly, causing me to learn them more thoroughly.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I’ve heard two main complaints:

1. Too many readings in a relatively short amount of time isn’t good because the priest tends to only focus on one reading in his homily with the one he preaches about being the only one absorbed. When you go to a Protestant church (I was a Baptist before I was Catholic), the preacher might go over three or four verses at one service, whilst crafting a “web of scripture,” so to speak, in that he will very clearly relate the reading to all sorts of other readings from the recent past and so after going to that church for a few years, you are exposed to vast amounts of scripture. The difference is that the Protestant approach actually makes you remember scripture, while I’ve found that I can’t really remember much scripture and preaching on it since becoming Catholic because the approach is contrary in reality to its theoretical goal. Less is better when it comes to scriptures. It’s a noble goal for Catholics to know more scripture and the hierarchy will often point to Protestants to make a point. What they don’t see, however, is that Protestants teach scripture and preach in a very different way.
2. The readings at Mass are often ambiguously related. This is further hurt by the fact that, as I said above, priests tend to focus on one reading, most commonly the Gospel, and so the other two readings tend to mush together and disappear after only a moment or so.

Please read this wonderful article by a priest of my diocese, Fr. Christopher Smith. He explains what I am talking about.

chantcafe.com/2011/09/word-of-god-in-liturgy-and-church.html

 

[James924]

I’ve just come back to the Church after a long absence and have spent the last couple months soaking up as much as I can and this week I started attending Latin Mass in addition to the Ordinary Mass.

As someone new and learning I don’t want to step on any toes or have someone think my comments are meant to start an argument. I’m just looking for someone to tell me where my logic is flawed and point me in the right direction.

That said, there are aspects of the Ordinary Mass that are criticized and I totally understand (one example is not kneeling during communion. You genuflect, bow or kneel when walking by the Real Presence but not when receiving it???).

One criticism I don’t understand is the expanded readings. How could having more scripture during Mass be a bad thing?

Well, realistically, the mass never “didn’t have enough scripture” in it. Many people weren’t opposed to an extra scripture reading in and of itself, but rather thought it was part of the general calls for emphasizing the “teaching aspect” over the “worship of the Divine Majesty through sacrifice” aspect (which is what the reformers did, and what many liberal catholic theologians wanted). And I think if we look at many NO parishes today, this is exactly what we see happening. These days you’d think “The mass is a teaching opportunity, and a meal, and a time for fellowship…hmm?..what’s that?.. oh, oh yes, [in a low voice] and its a sacrifice too…” Bottom line, there never wasn’t enough scripture at mass in the first place, it wasn’t broken, it wasn’t lacking. And another angle would be that the goals of that change have failed to be met…miserably. Do catholics treasure scripture more today? Last I checked 70% don’t even go to mass. Thats not to say the mass exodus was caused by the extra scripture reading, but bottom line was the goals set forth have failed to be met (as was the case with most conciliar/immediate-post-conciliar goals).

As for the 3 year cycle, well thats much more easily criticized from simply a practical standpoint. The point behind an anual cycle was for certain, very important scripture passages to be associated with days of the year and be remembered by the faithful. If this year’s advent reading was the same as last year’s, and the year before, ect etc, then you’ll remember it. If you haven’t heard this one in 3 years, then you won’t (usually). Let people who want to thoroughly study larger amounts of scripture (unquestionably a good thing) do so during scripture study. Let the church maintain its one year cycle so that catholics, young and old (even those who don’t study the bible at home), have at least a year’s worth of important readings of salvation history burned into their memories by annual repetition.

In other words, it wasn’t broken and since the fix (perhaps not “because of”, but certainly "since) the scripture situation (and every other situation in Catholic life) has done little but go down hill.

Another point: the Catholic mass in 1960 was already the most scriptural form of worship on earth by virtue of the fact that it was the Catholic mass, the sacrifice instituted by God. Shoving more lines of scripture into something does not make it more scriptural.

 

[MissRose73]

I am glad there is more emphasis on scripture now in both forms of the Mass. With the EF, I am sure people may retain a bit more as they know that a certain Sunday of Lent they will always hear the same readings as an example. With the OF, we have the 3 year cycle. But, priests should be discussing a bit more of all readings done in their homilies compared to emphasis on the weekly Gospel reading. I do like that many church bulletins will also list the readings for the week, and I have taken time to sit down, look them up, read them and reflect on them.

I do think we get more scripture in the Mass than people realize. Beyond the 1st reading, the Psalm, the Epistle and the Gospel we do get a fair amount of scripture in the prayers that the priest reads and the responses of the congregation.

 

[RedSoxWife]

The FSSP priest who usually says the Mass at the EF we attend told my husband that he thinks that the readings are the one improvement in the OF, so it’s not necessarily looked at as a bad thing.

 

[mattkubes]

This is my take on it.

I’m not opposed to the idea of having Old Testament readings at Mass, but the Old Covenant is gone, fulfilled in the New. That’s not to say the Old Testament is useless-far from it-but I think it’s safe to assume that the average Catholic isn’t equipped to properly interpret these readings. To make them meaningful to most people, the priest would have to spend the entire homily explaining the relevance of the passage or make his homily a lot longer (which never happened in my 20+ years at the NO) - and then I’m sure people would just start to tune him out. If that’s the addition we’re talking about, then there’s not a huge benefit from the faithful realising that it was actually Malaleel who begat Jared, not Mathusala.

Besides, the TLM existed alongside an expanded breviary with a 1-week psalter. Check out the office of Matins if you’re interested in Old Testament readings.

Plus I’d happily give up the expanded readings in the NO if it was offered as a trade for the multiple TLM prayers asking the Angels and Saints for their intercession.

 

[YoungTradCath]

More scripture does NOT mean a greater emphasis on scripture. Greater emphasis on scripture is an admirable goal, one which I fully agree with. But Protestants are the most scripture-educated people on earth–notwithstanding their interpretations of it are very often wrong, but still–and at an average Bible-hardcore Southern Baptist church, their preacher might read and talk about 3-4 VERSES of scripture. At an average Sunday Mass, we have something like an entire page of scripture in some form or another. That is too much and does not promote retaining of the scripture.

Perhaps the Church wants us all to be scripture scholars. That’s a wonderful goal, but it is not really attainable. Like I said, most Protestant preachers will read about maybe 5-10% of the amount that we Catholics read on a Sunday, yet they retain more of it and know more of it (again, as I said, conceding that their interpretations are often wrong). I can personally attest that I have learned very little scripture since becoming a Catholic. I’m not necessarily complaining, but informing.

Church: Less. Is. More.

 

[James924]

This is my take on it.

I’m not opposed to the idea of having Old Testament readings at Mass, but the Old Covenant is gone, fulfilled in the New. That’s not to say the Old Testament is useless-far from it-but I think it’s safe to assume that the average Catholic isn’t equipped to properly interpret these readings. To make them meaningful to most people, the priest would have to spend the entire homily explaining the relevance of the passage or make his homily a lot longer (which never happened in my 20+ years at the NO) - and then I’m sure people would just start to tune him out. If that’s the addition we’re talking about, then there’s not a huge benefit from the faithful realising that it was actually Malaleel who begat Jared, not Mathusala.

Besides, the TLM existed alongside an expanded breviary with a 1-week psalter. Check out the office of Matins if you’re interested in Old Testament readings.

The TLM calendar of readings is full of Old Testament readings… Yesterday was Deuteronomy, the day before was Ezekial, tomorrow will be Daniel

Plus I’d happily give up the expanded readings in the NO if it was offered as a trade for the multiple TLM prayers asking the Angels and Saints for their intercession.

 

[corsair]

To Matt and James;

 

[AJB328]

Thanks for all the responses I understand things much better now especially as it pertains to the sacrifice at Mass and how important individual readings can be for individual days.

 

[ProVobis]

The TLM calendar of readings is full of Old Testament readings… Yesterday was Deuteronomy, the day before was Ezekial, tomorrow will be Daniel

Don’t forget Psalm 42, Psalm 25, and Psalm 50 if Asperges Me, and Psalm 117 if Vidi Aquam is used.

 

[James924]

Don’t forget Psalm 42, Psalm 25, and Psalm 50 if Asperges Me, and Psalm 117 if Vidi Aquam is used.

An excellent point. I don’t want to go on a rant here, but since we’re on the subject of making the mass more scriptural: If that was the intention, then why yank all of that scripture out of it? The mass once started with a beautiful psalm about God judging the priest and him going up to the altar to sacrifice (theocentric) and now it begins with no scripture, rather just a greeting (usually) and the sign of the cross. What on earth was going through people’s minds when they said out of one side of their face, hey, lets yank that psalm (and many other very scriptural things), too much reference to God judging our sins, too much reference to going up to an altar, and sacrificing, and too much clarity in the distinction between the priest and the faithful…while out the other side of their face they argued for “more scripture” at mass!

And the fact that they just yanked that prayer and replaced it with the sign of the cross boggles my mind too because, if they like the sign of the cross so much, why did they yank so many instances of the priest making the sign of the cross from the mass? We went from, what, 50 times to who knows what, but far less.

Didn’t Vatican 2 state clearly: “there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them.”

Oh boy, I better stop before I get too excited.

Since we’re on CAF, let me make the following disclaimer: I hereby affirm that the Novus Ordo is a sacramentally valid rite of mass.