Priest Discourages Reading

[chicago]

Yes, in the ideal situation, you are to read and reflect prior to Mass and listen during the Liturgy.

I keep hearing this suggested. But I don’t know that I necessarilly agree. Many people like to read and reflect upon the readings before attending Mass and find it helpful. Good! But I don’t see why such is necessarily “the ideal” that many people seem to think it is. Afterall, if what we are REALLY supposed to do is check out the prescribed texts BEFORE Mass, then why bother proclaiming them at all?

 

[chicago]

I once saw a lectionary where every time the words “man” or “mankind” appeared, someone had crossed them out in pencil and wrote in “humans” and “humankind.”

In reading along during Mass one Sunday several years back, I recall the phrase “man of God” being printed. But what the lector changed this to (in order to be “nonoffensive”) was “person of God”. That changed the entire meaning of the passage, as it was referring to the average Christian’s ideal, not someone in the Trinity.

 

[Victorious]

Sorry to disagree with Struggling, but your priest is essentially correct.

I dunno. I can’t help suspecting it’s so nobody will notice that the priest is using his own translation (inclusive language, of questionable accuracy) of the readings.

 

[Vox_Borealis]

See, this is precisely why I DON’T like to read through before Mass. If I do that, I come in with my own prejudices whereas if I simply read along during Mass and allow the Word to hit me for the first time during the Liturgy, I’m having a different experience. I prefer to let it come to be at Mass rather than before.

Thisseems to assume that Catholics have no (or should have no) biblical knowledge before coming to Mass. Moreover, I am not convinced that you don’t ‘have your own prejusdices’ whether you read at home or hear the Word ‘for the first time’ at Mass–rather, it’s just when you impose those prejudices on the text.

 

[Vox_Borealis]

That’s a ridiculous response.

“all now understand the words spoken at Mass” only when the mass is in the VERNACULAR. Even then there might be people who don’t speak that particular vernacular…

But Latin is still the NORMATIVE language, even for the NO. The Vernacular is still, technically I believe, an “exception”…and if hand missals are acceptable for the Normative (as they certainly must be as it is in a language the people couldnt understand without a missal) then it must be acceptable for the Exception.

If hand missals are okay for the Rule (Latin), they must be okay for the Exception (the vernacular)

Not exactly true. In the normative Latin NO, the readings are still to be proclaimed in the vernacular–only the Ordinary is in Latin. So, again, you would not need to follow along in your missal to understand the Word.

Missals should not be necessary for Ordinary in Latin, at least after one has been to mass a couple of times.

 

[Vox_Borealis]

I keep hearing this suggested. But I don’t know that I necessarilly agree. Many people like to read and reflect upon the readings before attending Mass and find it helpful. Good! But I don’t see why such is necessarily “the ideal” that many people seem to think it is. Afterall, if what we are REALLY supposed to do is check out the prescribed texts BEFORE Mass, then why bother proclaiming them at all?

By that logic, we all know what the Eucharistic prayers say, so why say them? We proclaim the Word because that is part of the liturgy.

 

[Vox_Borealis]

I dunno. I can’t help suspecting it’s so nobody will notice that the priest is using his own translation (inclusive language, of questionable accuracy) of the readings.

Well, you can agree or not, and maybe that is this priest’s personal motive. But the GIRM, approved by Rome (with no special American exception for the relevant passages) says the priest is right. The relevant sections of the GIRM were cited above.

 

[Vanessa]

I didn’t realize that I’m a unique genius.

After attending mass for 46 years, I already know those scripture readings pretty well. They’re already in my mind and heart. I don’t need to read along. I notice when there’s a change or something didn’t sound right. I notice when something stands out too.

I don’t really believe I’m all that unique. Anyone else who has regularly gone to mass knows scripture too. If hearing it over and over for years didn’t burn it into your mind. Why would hearing it read wrong once suddenly sink in and stick?

 

[lak611]

I never need to read along with the Gospel, because the priests in my parish speak loudly and clearly into the microphone. However, with the readers, frequently they speak so softly or mumble so bad that if I did not read along, I would have no clue what they said. This is not the case with all of them. The majority of the readers do a good job, but when I encounter a Mass with an unintelligible reader, the missal definitely comes in handy. In fact, during the weekday Masses, where there is no missal available, most people don’t actually respond to the Responsorial Psalm because they have no idea what response the reader told them to say.

 

[chicago]

Thisseems to assume that Catholics have no (or should have no) biblical knowledge before coming to Mass.

Well, the majority of Catholics probably don’t, really.

Moreover, I am not convinced that you don’t ‘have your own prejusdices’ whether you read at home or hear the Word ‘for the first time’ at Mass–rather, it’s just when you impose those prejudices on the text.

That may be fair enough. Yet it doesn’t argue against reading along. In my case, I want to hear/read the prescribed scripture of the day once and let that be when things start working for me right there in the context of the Mass, ideally, rather than going over them however many times before, during, and after.

 

[chicago]

By that logic, we all know what the Eucharistic prayers say, so why say them? We proclaim the Word because that is part of the liturgy.

How do I know what the Eucharistic prayers say? Because I have heard them at Mass over and over and over. (And maybe read along in the misselette). Do I have to read them BEFORE I go to Mass and meditate upon them coming in? Well, it’s a fine thing to do, but no I don’t really need to in order for it to meet an ideal. Similarly with the readings, I get them at Mass. Which is enough. Over time, I even know what’s coming when I hear part of it start. Now if I want to spend some time with these readings outside of Mass, is that a good thing? Certainly. But is it necessarily an “ideal” that I approach Mass first having read them over and meditating upon them? Well, I don’t see why such should be considered the case.

 

[chicago]

Well, you can agree or not, and maybe that is this priest’s personal motive. But the GIRM, approved by Rome (with no special American exception for the relevant passages) says the priest is right. The relevant sections of the GIRM were cited above.

And yet the GIRM really doesn’t in any way preclude reading along, it just states the obvious in that the Scripture is proclaimed and the people listen to the proclamation.

Gee, in grade school and high school, sometimes the teacher or a student read from the textbook aloud. Everyone else read along. Does that mean that they weren’t listening? Now, perhaps, if they were ONLY reading silently to themselves, you’d have a point.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

In reference to this post, near the beginning by Verbum Caro (which I cannot “quote” with the quotes without losing them), I am actually quite surprised that the USCCB would come up with a statement such as the first one listed, in which they say:

The key word in all of this is listening. We are called to listen attentively as the reader, deacon or priest proclaims God’s Word. Unless one is unable to hear, one should not be reading along with a text from a missal or missalette. Rather, taking our cue from the General Instruction itself, we should listen as we would if Christ himself were standing at the ambo, for in fact it is God who speaks when the Scriptures are proclaimed. Carefully following along with the printed word can cause us to miss the gentle voice of the Holy Spirit, the message that the Spirit may have for us in one of the passages because we are anxious to ‘keep up,’ to move along with the reader.

I truly wonder if this would hold up, if it were submitted to the Congregatin for Divine Worship. The GIRM is being misinterpreted, imho. The lack of philosophical study in many theology programs is really rearing it’s head with this argument.

It is well known that some people have better cognitive skills when “seeing”, rather than hearing. Such a statement assumes that all have equal cognitive skills with hearing. It’s why the best educational programs blend visual and audio.

Case in point: If I need to get from point A to point B, you can explain to my friend in words, how to get there. He has no difficulty recalling it from memory throughout the ride, after one explanation. Give him a map and he’s all confused and needs someone to give him verbal directions based on the map. I on the other hand, cannot recall well what is told to me verbally. Give me a map and the directions are “burned” or “etched” into my memory. I can “see” it long after I’ve looked at the map.

All through school, I had difficulty with verbal instructions, but never with written instructions. Years later, while being trained to teach, I learned it is as normal as being left or right-handed. It’s why the best educational programs blend visual and audio.

This having been said, it strikes me as silly, that any bishop, or priest, would deny someone this basic aid if they fall in the same category as do I. In fact, for all the talk about orthodox minded and devout Catholics being rigid, that statement in the USCCB’s document on “Hearing the word of God” is purely rigid.

Furthermore, the opening statement of that paragraph which says: *The key word in all of this is **listening, ***isodd. If the deaf can “hear” the word of God by reading, then does it not stand to reason that anyone can “hear” the word of God by reading? It goes to show that some are more concerned with physical appearances. “Hearing” the word of God is an interior thing, not an outward thing. A significant segment of the population may “hear” better interiorly, if reading along. In fact, I would suggest that no person, who is not in need of reading along, would likely even do so. Hence, why would anyone want to prevent someone from doing what they personally think is best for themselves to fully comprehend the word of God during Mass?

I am hearing impaired, and purchased Magnificat to read along during Mass so I would not miss anything. But, even when the priest is reading loud enough for me to hear, I have noticed I absorb more by having followed along. In fact, one of my confessors encouraged me to get the Magnificat after I confessed inattentiveness during the readings - a common problem I have dealt with from childhood when “listening”. When I have my booklet, there is no problem with my attentiveness. Hence, I am being more reverent while reading along, than while not.

If someone else finds it distracting for someone else reading, then they need to reassess their real motive for being distracted. If a priest feels it disrupts some “unity” ideal at Mass, he needs to consider that the Mystical Body is just that - mystical. It is not a physical thing.

Is one any less in in union with the angels and saints during Mass when we cannot “hold their hand”?

BTW - I’m sure the priest meant well, given that document by the USCCB.

 

[ChemicalBean]

Having the good fortune of attending a catholic student center’s masses at college, where good liturgy and training of lectors is emphasized, I appreciate being able to just sit back and listen to the proclaimed word without thumbing through a missalette. Not having them just sitting there for the whole congregation makes the whole parish work harder to be engaged in the liturgy and to do liturgy well.

That said, I grew up in a parish where quite often, mass was boring and banal. I never knew it until I went elsewhere, though, and so I relied on the missalette a lot. It was probably a blessing in disguise. When I was a child, I had something to “do” during mass - following along in the missalette. My parents encouraged it, and I think it helped accelerate my reading skills, my vocabulary (for the longest time I wondered what a “recompense” was!), and my page/number/ordering skills. Later on, it would help me be a better altar server by providing a “road map” for the mass, and help me to pay attention to the details.

So parents, I would encourage to you get your children missalettes, use one yourself during mass, and help them follow along, especially if they are within 2-3 years of their first communion. It beats cheerios and coloring books, hands down! (or should I say, palms up…in the orans position…)

 

[estesbob]

Gee I guess the best part of holding hands at the Our Father is it forces me to put my Missal down…

 

[Vox_Borealis]

And yet the GIRM really doesn’t in any way preclude reading along, it just states the obvious in that the Scripture is proclaimed and the people listen to the proclamation.

Gee, in grade school and high school, sometimes the teacher or a student read from the textbook aloud. Everyone else read along. Does that mean that they weren’t listening? Now, perhaps, if they were ONLY reading silently to themselves, you’d have a point.

I would counter that this is very poor pedagogy, but that’s probably a different argument. if you are making the analogy that Catholics in mass should be treated as grammar school students, well…

However, you will note that in my first post I actually agree with you, that the GIRM does technically poreclude reading (like it does not preclude handholding during the Our Father), and the best we can hope to do is tease a reasonable interpretation from the text.

 

[Vox_Borealis]

Furthermore, the opening statement of that paragraph which says: *The key word in all of this is **listening, ***isodd. If the deaf can “hear” the word of God by reading, then does it not stand to reason that anyone can “hear” the word of God by reading? It goes to show that some are more concerned with physical appearances. “Hearing” the word of God is an interior thing, not an outward thing. A significant segment of the population may “hear” better interiorly, if reading along. In fact, I would suggest that no person, who is not in need of reading along, would likely even do so. Hence, why would anyone want to prevent someone from doing what they personally think is best for themselves to fully comprehend the word of God during Mass?

You make many good points, but this argument is flawed. Clearly a hearing impaired inddividual is the exception, and the norrms are not really based on their experience. One could pose an infinite number of extreme examples. This is the same logic that the Church uses to counter the pro-gay marriage argument that ‘if marriage is about procreation, what about old people and infertile people who marry? shouldn’t that be outlawed as well?’ No, counters the Church, because the exceptions should form the basis for the normative rules.

So, if you are hearing impaired, clearly a priest should never force you not to read from the missal. And, if you are one of the many posters here who seem only to be able to learn by holding a missal, who don’t know any scriptural passages ahead of time, who understand better by listening and reading, etc., then it is probably the case that they too should not be discouraged. But I figure that the Church assumes most adults have normal hearing and comprehension abilities so that they can listen without having to follow along in the missal.

 

[estesbob]

I got ot Mass everyday and always sit in either the frst or second pew. Because of my schedule I regularly attend mass in 5 different Parishses. The only time my missal became an issue was when the Priest borrowed it because he had left the lectionary at home.

I always look at the Threds on holdng hands at the Our father or whether one can read along at Mass with great humor. I can not BELIEVE people get so hung up on such mundane deatils when we are talking about preparing ourselves to recieve the Body and Blood of Our Lord and Savior. The key is that people be at the Mass-if they want to hold hands, read their missal or for that matter belch and fart i say have at it. I am going to receive the Eucharist regadless.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I. . . always sit in either the frst or second pew. . . .The key is that people be at the Mass-if they want to hold hands, read their missal or for that matter belch

please, by all means sit in the first pew

estesbob:

and fart

please, by all means DON’T sit in the first pew

estesbob:

i say have at it.

 

[jmcrae]

But I figure that the Church assumes most adults have normal hearing and comprehension abilities so that they can listen without having to follow along in the missal.

True. Personally, I find it amazing how many people come down with LD, or deafness (or both!) as soon as there is an opportunity to be lazy.