Short forms of readings

[NPC]

I am just wondering what are your personal opinions on shorter forms of readings which occur sometimes. Occasionally, if there is a particularly long Gospel or other Scripture reading, the missalette will have part of the passage in italics - the italicised parts may be read to give the shorter form.

I personally prefer it if the priest reads the full version - my main reason for this is that I think that we should regard everything which came from the mouth of Christ as important and relevant. Even a longer than usual Gospel would normally last no more that three minutes, and surely for able-bodied persons it is not too much to expect them to stand for this long to hear the Gospel?

I’d also be interested if anyone has links or quotes, in seeing where the Church says that such alterations to readings are permissable - and if there are reasons for allowing shorter forms. Are shorter forms indicated in the lectionary too or is it just missalettes? Are shorter forms just another way of keeping the people happy at Mass by not keeping them too long? I suspect that in many cases this is precisely the reason…

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

I am fine with either version. The priest knows how long to have the mass run based on the parish and the time of week it is done. Catholics in every parish I have been at usually start get fidgety around 45min in and even more so if it goes over an hour. Some of that is taken into account, but also his homily time and content also matter and it is a personal choice by the priest on which one to use (or direct the lectors to use). The extra content is usually extra for length but also it may not directly relate to the theme of the weekend readings and is made optional for those reasons.

 

[Corki]

On a related note, who makes up the two versions (long and short)? Are they part of the universal Chuch cyle of readings or is it a more local adaptation (ie USCCB)?

I don’t usually mind the shorter readings as long as I have had time to read the longer versions before Mass starts. I have noticed, however, that some of the more “controversial” passages are part of the “may be omitted” verses when a shorter form is an option.

 

[acadian]

I’m fine with either one. My former pastor never met a long form that he didn’t like. My current pastor almost always takes the shorter form. Almost as if we can understand it better with less to clutter our minds. Either way!

 

[NPC]

On a related note, who makes up the two versions (long and short)? Are they part of the universal Chuch cyle of readings or is it a more local adaptation (ie USCCB)?

Yes - I don’t know either if there are universal directives on this matter - i.e. whether or not every church in the world has the option of reading shorter forms. However, as far as I know the texts for the missalettes in Ireland is approved by the Archbishop of Dublin - how far his authority goes on Scripture readings, I don’t know…

 

[Joe_5859]

The shorter forms are in the Lectionary, not just the misalettes.

As to whether or not this is practice is universal or has just been granted to the United States, well, if you live in the States, I suppose it doesn’t really matter. Suffice it to say that it is allowed.

As to why there are shorter forms, there are probably several reasons. One is length. Another is pastoral sensitivities. It does seem that many of the “difficult” passages usually fall into the “may be omitted” category (Ephesians 5, for example).

I prefer the longer versions (the more Scripture, the better!) but I have no problem with the shorter ones. If they’ve been approved by the legitimate authority, then who am I to complain? I understand the tendency to think that the shorter versions are there as some sort of nefarious plot to water down the faith. But I really don’t think it’s anything so underhanded. Either way, the full text is still right there in the misalette for people to see as they read along (not to mention that the text of the Scriptures themselves remains unchanged).

 

[Digitonomy]

I personally prefer it if the priest reads the full version - my main reason for this is that I think that we should regard everything which came from the mouth of Christ as important and relevant.

Two things worth keeping in mind: First, most of the Gospels, much less other New Testament scripture, is not “from the mouth of God.” However, I agree with you that the more scripture, the better. Given the choice between a lengthy scripture reading and a lengthy Eucharistic Prayer or Confessional Rite, I’d pick the lengthy scripture.

The other thing you should be aware of is that even the readings that don’t give a longer option are often edited down. For instance, yesterday’s second reading was Romans 8:35, 37-39. Someone didn’t think verse 36 should be included; perhaps it was too much of a downer:

As it is written: “For your sake we are being slain all the day; we are looked upon as sheep to be slaughtered.”

 

[SenorSalsa]

I have also noticed that if the Gospel is a series of parables, all with the same meaning, that some are omitted. The parables of the lost coin, lost sheep, and prodigal son come to mind.

Also,If a Priest omits that part, he clearly sees something in the other part that is worth doing a Homily on, so even if the whole Gospel is proclaimed, he may only preach on part that was in the required section, not the optional. And it always makes me sad when the Homily doesn’t touch on at least the main point(s) of each of the readings. So to read a large chunk of scripture, only to ignore it in the homily, seems useless

 

[Joe_5859]

The other thing you should be aware of is that even the readings that don’t give a longer option are often edited down. For instance, yesterday’s second reading was Romans 8:35, 37-39. Someone didn’t think verse 36 should be included; perhaps it was too much of a downer:

That’s a good point to keep in mind! If they were really trying to water something down, they would not have it available in either form. They’d just edit it out completely.

I think it’s easy for us to get incensed that such things are the result of someone with an agenda and an axe to grind, but that’s not always the case. There are certain parts of Scripture that more easily lend themselves to misinterpretation. If the priest can give a great homily on the longer portions, then great. If the priest either will not adress that passage, or will do so poorly, then it’s inclusion can sometimes lead to greater confusion.