Of course the EF has OT “readings.” Introibo (Psalm 42), the Introit, Gradual, Offertory, Psalm 25 (Lavabo), and Communion.I love both the EF and the OF. I know some EF folks who are very critical of the OF. One thing I don’t understand is that the OF has readings from the OT, while the the EF does not. To my eye, that is an advantage of the OF. Or is there something about not including an OT reading that makes the EF special for some folks?
Plenty of EF Masses have OT readings as the first reading! You should actually look in an old missal and see.ProVobis,
Good point. But is there a principled reason that it is better not to include a dedicated reading from the OT? In other words, please explain to me why this is not an advantage of the OF?
More Scripture at liturgy is good, as the Church teaches. This is one of the benefits of the revision to the Roman Missal following Vatican II; Catholics are exposed to more Scripture at Mass than they were before Vatican II.I love both the EF and the OF. I know some EF folks who are very critical of the OF. One thing I don’t understand is that the OF has readings from the OT, while the the EF does not. To my eye, that is an advantage of the OF. Or is there something about not including an OT reading that makes the EF special for some folks?
And that is why Catholics today have such an amazing knowledge of Scripture. Just look at the polls proving it!More Scripture at liturgy is good, as the Church teaches. This is one of the benefits of the revision to the Roman Missal following Vatican II; Catholics are exposed to more Scripture at Mass than they were before Vatican II.
The extended Scriptural readings (3 years cycle, reading the full Gospels, almost full New Testament and significant part of the Old Testament) is definite advantage of the new rite.I love both the EF and the OF. I know some EF folks who are very critical of the OF. One thing I don’t understand is that the OF has readings from the OT, while the the EF does not. To my eye, that is an advantage of the OF. Or is there something about not including an OT reading that makes the EF special for some folks?
I agree. I think it’s more important that we walk away remembering a tiny bit of verse, even from a missal, than hearing a ton of unconnected scripture and remembering nothing. It’s not like we’re cramming for an exam here.And that is why Catholics today have such an amazing knowledge of Scripture. Just look at the polls proving it!
Sorry for the sarcasm … but more readings, longer readings and an almost obsessive avoidance of repetition has not really done what it was supposed to. I think the frequently repeated, fewer readings of the EF actually match the human brain/mind’s abilities for memory and understanding.
It’s more important that the faithful have a familiarity and deepening and repeated exposure to the most crucial texts from Scripture, even if it means not even single passage is read sometime during Mass.
Am I downplaying the importance of all of Scripture? No! That’s what reading the Bible is for, in bible studies, at home, in adoration. We don’t need to have all of it read to us at Mass. Mass is not supposed to replace study of the Scriptures for us, we still have this responsibility ourselves.
There were no additional scripture readings immediately following Vatican II. In fact they cut out Psalm 42 almost entirely and dropped the Last Gospel from the Roman Missal in 1965.This is one of the benefits of the revision to the Roman Missal following Vatican II; Catholics are exposed to more Scripture at Mass than they were before Vatican II.
All of Scripture is not read at Mass. Vatican II never taught such, and the Catholic Church does not practice such.Am I downplaying the importance of all of Scripture? No! That’s what reading the Bible is for, in bible studies, at home, in adoration. We don’t need to have all of it read to us at Mass. Mass is not supposed to replace study of the Scriptures for us, we still have this responsibility ourselves.
In any case, it’s incorrect. There are Masses with OT Readings; they’re called “Lessons” (as opposed to “Epistle” when it’s an NT letter, e.g. from St. Paul to…).ProVobis,
Good point. But is there a principled reason that it is better not to include a dedicated reading from the OT? In other words, please explain to me why this is not an advantage of the OF?
Are you referring to Masses in accordance with the Missal of Paul VI? If so, examples? if not, what Masses are you referring to? Thanks. Sorry, I was unclear what you meant.In any case, it’s incorrect. There are Masses with OT Readings; they’re called “Lessons” (as opposed to “Epistle” when it’s an NT letter, e.g. from St. Paul to…).
I am referring to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Missal. There are Masses with Old Testament readings, although admittedly rare. They are called Lessons rather than Epistles.Are you referring to Masses in accordance with the Missal of Paul VI? If so, examples? if not, what Masses are you referring to? Thanks. Sorry, I was unclear what you meant.
Thanks! As you note, rare. This is one of the reforms Vatican II intended, to make Scripture not “rare” to Catholics at liturgy.I am referring to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Missal. There are Masses with Old Testament readings, although admittedly rare. They are called Lessons rather than Epistles.
Examples:
Missa Os Iusti (Common of a Confessor not a Bishop). Lesson from the book of Wisdom.
Missa Loquebar (Common of a Virgin Martyr). Lesson from the book of Wisdom.
Missa Signum Magnum (Assumption of the BVM). Lesson from Judith.
Missa De Ventre Matris (Nativity of St. John the Baptist). Lesson from Isaiah.
And others.