Why are the gospels different in exf

[Vince85]

I was wondering if anyone can tell me why the gospels are different in the Traditional Extradinary Form Mass vs the Ordinary Mass?
The Church i belong to does a Solemn HIgh Mass every Sunday and i noticed that sometimes , like for exsample the Mass for Holy Thursday that there is no episitle ? Instead theres a , lesson. What does a lesson mean ? Is it just something thats taking the place of the episitle ? Why is it called a Lesson ??
Also i noticed that in the Solemn High Mass that when the three priests approach the alter and they kneel , that they seem to twist there bodies a little bit. I was wondering what this means and if anyone knows why they do it. I never seen that in the ordinary mass, or maybe i did and just never noticed ?

 

[JReducation]

I was wondering if anyone can tell me why the gospels are different in the Traditional Extradinary Form Mass vs the Ordinary Mass?
The Church i belong to does a Solemn HIgh Mass every Sunday and i noticed that sometimes , like for exsample the Mass for Holy Thursday that there is no episitle ? Instead theres a , lesson. What does a lesson mean ? Is it just something thats taking the place of the episitle ? Why is it called a Lesson ??
Also i noticed that in the Solemn High Mass that when the three priests approach the alter and they kneel , that they seem to twist there bodies a little bit. I was wondering what this means and if anyone knows why they do it. I never seen that in the ordinary mass, or maybe i did and just never noticed ?

The Gospels and other readings are going to depend on which liturgical calendar you use. There are at least six liturgical calendars in the Latin Rite. Two of them are for the Roman Missal, one for the Ordinary Form and one for the Extraordinary Form. That will cause the differences in readings.

The same thing happens if you watch EWTN and then you to mass at your local diocesan parish. On some days, the readings will be different, because the Franciscans do not follow the Church’s liturgical calendar as it is. We alter it to fit the demands of the Franciscan Liturgical Commission. The same is true of Jesuits, Dominicans, Carmelites, Carthusians and Benedictines.

The gestures, which you call twisting, are gestures that were part of the Tridentine form of the Roman Missal. They were not part of the Tridentine Form in other missals. Since most priests who celebrate the Tridentine form are secular priests, they follow the rubrics in that particular edition of the missal. If you attended a Tridentine Form in a Franciscan house, those gestures would not be there. They were taken out by St.Francis, because they make the priest stand apart from the laity. On the flip side, if you attend a mass at a Jesuit house that uses the Tridentine Form, you’ll find more gestures, because they are highly clerical. They place a much greater stress on the role of the priest than do Franciscans or secular priests.

It’s not going to be consistent around the Church. In the Latin Church, we have never had such uniformity. We have had what is commonly called, dominance. That is, there is a form that the majority uses, because the majority belongs to the same group. Most laymen and priests belong to the secular world. They will use the Roman Missal in either the EF or the OF. Non seculars do not use that missal. But non seculars are not the majority.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[patrick457]

I was wondering if anyone can tell me why the gospels are different in the Traditional Extradinary Form Mass vs the Ordinary Mass?
The Church i belong to does a Solemn HIgh Mass every Sunday and i noticed that sometimes , like for exsample the Mass for Holy Thursday that there is no episitle ?

That’s because the EF and the OF have different lectionaries. The EF uses the old Roman liturgical readings which was officially promulgated by Pope Pius V in the 1570 edition of the Roman Missal, but which has already been used in the liturgy way before that.

When the structure of the Mass was revised after Vatican II, the order of readings was also modified. The Holy See, even before producing an actual lectionary, promulgated the Ordo Lectionum Missae (Order of the Readings for Mass), which gave indications of the revised structure and the references to the passages chosen for inclusion in the new official lectionary.

The difference between the order of readings in the Tridentine Roman Missal and the new Lectionary are as follows. The old order recurred after a single year, and had two readings, namely the Lesson (which could be from any book of the Bible other than the Gospels, though the NT epistles are read in most Masses - which sometimes led to people referring to them simply as, ‘Epistle’) and the Gospel. The new Lectionary introduced an arrangement by which the readings on Sundays and on some principal feasts recur in a three-year cycle (each year focused on one of the Synoptic Gospels), with four passages from Scripture (including one from the Psalms) being used in each celebration, while on weekdays only three passages (again including one from the Psalms) are used, with the first reading and the Psalm recurring in a two-year cycle, while the Gospel reading recurs after a single year.

To be more specific, here’s how the basic structure of the Mass readings appear in the EF, compared to the OF:

Extraordinary Form

Lesson, aka Epistle
Gradual / Tract / Alleluia / Sequence
Gospel

===

Ordinary Form

First Reading
Psalm
(Second Reading)
Alleluia / Acclamation
Gospel

Instead theres a , lesson. What does a lesson mean ? Is it just something thats taking the place of the episitle ? Why is it called a Lesson ??

‘Lesson’ is from the Latin word lectio, meaning ‘reading’, via French leçon.

Also i noticed that in the Solemn High Mass that when the three priests approach the alter and they kneel , that they seem to twist there bodies a little bit. I was wondering what this means and if anyone knows why they do it. I never seen that in the ordinary mass, or maybe i did and just never noticed ?

Which part of the Mass does this occur?

 

[Rich_C]

I was wondering if anyone can tell me why the gospels are different in the Traditional Extradinary Form Mass vs the Ordinary Mass?
The Church i belong to does a Solemn HIgh Mass every Sunday and i noticed that sometimes , like for exsample the Mass for Holy Thursday that there is no episitle ? Instead theres a , lesson. What does a lesson mean ? Is it just something thats taking the place of the episitle ? Why is it called a Lesson ??
Also i noticed that in the Solemn High Mass that when the three priests approach the alter and they kneel , that they seem to twist there bodies a little bit. I was wondering what this means and if anyone knows why they do it. I never seen that in the ordinary mass, or maybe i did and just never noticed ?

What a blessing to have a Solemn Mass every Sunday!

When the missal of 1970 was promulgated, it came with a revised liturgical calendar, including a new 3-year cycle of readings (and a third reading at each Mass). The old Mass readings had only the annual cycle, so for example the epistle and Gospel for a given Sunday will be the same every year.

Also, I’ve seen missal title the first reading either “epistle” or “lesson” and it is a difference choice of translation, nothing more as far as I know.

I think the twisting you refer to is a sign of reverence the deacon and sub-deacon are making to the priest (Solemn Masses call for a priest, deacon and sub-deacon, not typical three priest, fyi).

 

[newyorkcatholic]

There’s a little more to “epistle” vs “lesson” though sometimes these words are interchangeable.

Strictly, an “Epistle” is a letter, and is used for any book in the New Testament except the Gospels, Acts, or the Apocalypsis. The rest are all letters (of Paul, James, John, etc).

The other books, and all books of the Old Testament, are sources for “Lessons” – not Gospels and not Epistles.

Nothing more than that AFAIK.

 

[Mike30]

I was wondering if anyone can tell me why the gospels are different in the Traditional Extradinary Form Mass vs the Ordinary Mass?
The Church i belong to does a Solemn HIgh Mass every Sunday and i noticed that sometimes , like for exsample the Mass for Holy Thursday that there is no episitle ? Instead theres a , lesson. What does a lesson mean ? Is it just something thats taking the place of the episitle ? Why is it called a Lesson ??
Also i noticed that in the Solemn High Mass that when the three priests approach the alter and they kneel , that they seem to twist there bodies a little bit. I was wondering what this means and if anyone knows why they do it. I never seen that in the ordinary mass, or maybe i did and just never noticed ?

If the Tabernacle is off to one side, they could be adjusting so the genuflection is more precisely towards it than the main area of the altar. As far as the readings themselves it is because a different lectionaery is used. Thats all.

 

[JReducation]

If the Tabernacle is off to one side, they could be adjusting so the genuflection is more precisely towards it than the main area of the altar. As far as the readings themselves it is because a different lectionaery is used. Thats all.

You are absolutely right. We tend to forget that there is no universal lectionary or missal even in the Latin Church. Actually, the Eastern Churches have greater consistency than the Latin Church. To the best of my knowledge, there are no specific missals and lectionaries for religious orders in the East. In the Latin Church, the major religious orders do not use the Roman Missal or lectionary. We have our own in the EF and the OF. That has always been true. It’s just the most people don’t notice.

If you go to the same Jesuit parish every week, you’re never going to know that the Franciscan parish north of you is using different readings and collects and the diocesan parish south of you is celebrating a different day of the liturgical year. This was especially true prior to WW II, when people were less mobile. People stayed put in their hometown and their parishes. They had no idea that there were different missals and different customs. They thought that the mass was the mass.

Today, because we’re more mobile, we can attend one Church on Monday and another on Wed and another on Sunday and see differences. I’m not talking about abuses or creativity. I’m talking about actual differences in the calendar and the rubrics.

One funny example of that was when a young man who was attending mass at our house went to kneel down for the Eucharistic prayer and found no kneelers. He politely knelt on the floor. I noticed that he looked very confused when no one else knelt. Later, I gently explained to him that we do not kneel, because it sets the priest apart and it is part of our tradition that the friar who is ordained is not to be set apart from his brothers. We only do the kneeling when in a public chapel or church so as not to confuse the laity. Behind closed doors, we do not do that. It’s not out of disrespect for the Eucharist, but to preserve the equality among all the brothers.

Little things like this are not noticeable to the average person and less so 50 or 75 years ago when the average person had no contact with this customs.

Genuflecting toward the tabernacle is another of those customs that varies. In some places the tabernacle is front and center and in others it’s to the side. Both are legitimate. The tabernacle to the side is a Benedictine custom. The tabernacle front and center is a Franciscan custom. Depending on the influence in your area, that’s going to determine where the tabernacle is placed. Many places today follow the Benedictine custom, tabernacle to the side. Until Vatican II, the Franciscan custom was more common. The tabernacle was front and center, where Francis had put it.

Not a big deal when one understands the two traditions and the reason why Benedict did it one way and Francis did it another and why the Church ended up going with Francis. It had nothing to do with Francis. It had everything to do with the fact that there were more Franciscan missionaries than there were Benedictine. The other mendicant orders followed the Franciscan custom. By the time the congregations were founded in the 16th century, the custom was entrenched and no one remembered where it came from, except the Franciscans.

Have you eve found one of those customs that no one remembers how or why it began? That’s what happened with the placement of the tabernacle and with the different lectionaries and missals. No one really knows how it all began to be so fragmented. But it is. We live with it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[newyorkcatholic]

Br JR, very interesting to read.

At a recent Dominican Rite (traditional) Mass I noticed there is much more bowing than genuflection, a legitimate tradition for them.

I think though we have disagreed about the tabernacle issue before. The secular Roman parish tradition was very well established … front and center. I don’t think the movement of tabernacles to the side was as reflective of sudden devotion to Benedictine tradition as to a which to deemphasize what was previously emphasized, and Benedictine tradition serves as a useful justification.

Benedictines don’t need to become secular Romans, and vice versa.

 

[Mintaka]

“Lesson” literally means a “reading”. It’s the same word as “lection-” in “lectionary.” It’s just that the word went from Latin to Old French to English, and changed pronunciation a bit.

And yes, lessons at school come from the same word, but with the meaning a bit broadened.

 

[tbtcom1213]

i noticed that in the Solemn High Mass that when the three priests approach the alter and they kneel , that they seem to twist there bodies a little bit. I was wondering what this means and if anyone knows why they do it. I never seen that in the ordinary mass, or maybe i did and just never noticed ?

In the traditional Solemn Mass the rubrics and/or customs indicate for the sacred ministers upon approaching the foot of the altar and before the recessional to genuflect on the floor (right knee touching the ground). Then throughout the Mass the ministers genuflect on the first step (right knee touching the first step instead of the floor).

This occurs before the prayers at the foot of the altar, anytime the sacred ministers approach the altar, at the Epistle with the subdeacon, during the formation of the Gospel procession as well as several occurrences throughout the offertory and communion.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Also i noticed that in the Solemn High Mass that when the three priests approach the alter and they kneel , that they seem to twist there bodies a little bit. I was wondering what this means and if anyone knows why they do it. I never seen that in the ordinary mass, or maybe i did and just never noticed ?

Do you mean at the beginning of the Mass as they approach the steps to the altar? If so, I think you are referring to the Confiteor (“I confess…”) of the Priest and then the Deacon and Sub-deacon. First the priest bows and offers his Confiteor. When the priest says “et vobis, fratres” (“and to you, brethren”) he turns slightly to his left and right, to the Deacon and Sub-deacon, to indicate that he is speaking to them. Then he stands up and the Deacon and Sub-deacon bow and offer their Confiteor. Likewise, when they say “et tibi, pater” (“and to you, father”) they turn towards him. It can look like twisting because they are bowing as they move. Does this fit?

• PAX

 

[JReducation]

Br JR, very interesting to read.

At a recent Dominican Rite (traditional) Mass I noticed there is much more bowing than genuflection, a legitimate tradition for them.

In the Dominican tradition, it’s more than a custom. It’s an actual rite of the Latin Church.

I think though we have disagreed about the tabernacle issue before. The secular Roman parish tradition was very well established … front and center. I don’t think the movement of tabernacles to the side was as reflective of sudden devotion to Benedictine tradition as to a which to deemphasize what was previously emphasized, and Benedictine tradition serves as a useful justification.

Benedictines don’t need to become secular Romans, and vice versa.

I believe the misunderstanding here flows from the fact that people don’t know that the secular clergy never had a tradition of its own. The secular clergy is incardinated into a a diocese, not a religious tradition. These priests went with what was dominant in their diocese. What was dominant was the Franciscan tradition.

By the time that the secular clergy adopts this tradition, it has been well established by almost 300 years. The secular clergy did not make this its own until the Council of Trent. The Franciscan tradition goes back to the reconstruction of the first Franciscan chapels in 1207 and the first rule in 1209.

The movement of the tabernacle to the side was an attempt to recover an ancient custom that had been maintained by the Benedictines. It was not out of devotion to the Benedictine tradition. It was more of an attempt to recover the past. The modern liturgists had seen it in the Benedictine tradition. The Benedictines were very influential in the movement of the tabernacle. Most of the books on liturgy published during and after Vatican II were written by Benedictines. The Church has always look at them as the best liturgists in Catholic history.

There was also the fact that they controlled the liturgical movement of the 1960s and 70s. Benedictines like Kevin Seazolts, OSF in the USA were very influential among the USCCB. The Benedictines of St. Meinrad and St. Anselm’s actually told the bishops of the USA what do to and how to renovate their churches. The Holy See gave them the Pontifical liturgical department at the Catholic University of America. For years, they have run that school of liturgy. I remember when I started school there to get my Master’s. The Holy See had just given the Liturgy Dept to the Benedictines and everyone else was sent home. We were all formed in the Benedictine tradition, including church architecture, which is very simple and very austere in their tradition. It’s probably more austere than the Franciscan tradition. They were also given free reign at the CDW.

The Franciscans were told to create a Franciscan Liturgical Commission to limit the Franciscan influence to Franciscan houses and parishes. Prior to the 1970s, there was no such thing as the Franciscan Liturgical Commission. The friars simply traveled around the world leaving their mark and the diocesan clergy followed suit. The diocesan clergy did not have the education level of the mendicants and monks. There were few diocesans who had that much education in liturgy and theology. They went with what they found.

Once the Franciscan Liturgical Commission was founded, the Franciscan influence was greatly reduced. Giving the Benedictines the lead role in liturgical reform flipped the tide.

Obviously, this produced a great deal of confusion, because this was being done at the level of schools of liturgy and theology. It was not being done at the diocesan levels. Bishops and parish priests simply read the articles and discourses that were coming out of these schools, but did not have all of the information behind it. They never really passed it on to the faithful in their dioceses. They simply introduced the changes, because of what they read, which was not very extensive. Unless you were in a class with the monks, you did not get the benefit of the whole tradition or the benefit of good catechesis. This is where the Church dropped the ball. It never brought the catechesis from the higher levels of education to the parish. It simply brought the changes.

Basically, it was an attitude that said, “The article says X, so we’re going to do it.” But there was not real understanding of what X meant or whether it was mandatory or not. Most of the time, it was not mandatory. It was just another option that the monks were teaching.

One of the ideas that Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul had was to preserve the Benedictine influence and bring it back into the spotlight as it had been. That’s how we get statements such as the primacy of Gregorian Chant. Vatican II issued that statement, but few people know that it’s a direct quote from the constitutions of the Benedictines.

 

[JReducation]

In later years, we would see other documents speak about the tabernacle being front and center. Again, these documents would quote the writings of the early Franciscan scholars, but most people don’t know this. They think that this is the thought of the Church.

In a way, it is, because the Church has made it its own. But the wording comes from older texts written for the benefit of the friars and they’re never mentioned in documents put out by the Holy See. Only those who are familiar with those texts recognize the words.

My guess is that in both cases, the Holy See deliberately avoided identifying its source so as not to make it seem that it was giving preference to one tradition over another. The intent of the Holy See was to make its own what these traditions had given to the Church as a gift.

We see this a lot in the CCC. I often read parts of the CCC and smile to myself, because I recongize something written by the Salesians, Benedictines, Carmelites, Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits, etc . . . but the CCC does not give them credit, because it wants to present the idea as Catholic, not simply belonging to one religious tradition or the mind of one thinker.

There are many things in there that come from very specific writings by people from a particular school, be they the Fathers, religious orders, or popes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[newyorkcatholic]

In later years, we would see other documents speak about the tabernacle being front and center. Again, these documents would quote the writings of the early Franciscan scholars, but most people don’t know this. They think that this is the thought of the Church.

In a way, it is, because the Church has made it its own. But the wording comes from older texts written for the benefit of the friars and they’re never mentioned in documents put out by the Holy See. Only those who are familiar with those texts recognize the words.

My guess is that in both cases, the Holy See deliberately avoided identifying its source so as not to make it seem that it was giving preference to one tradition over another. The intent of the Holy See was to make its own what these traditions had given to the Church as a gift.

We see this a lot in the CCC. I often read parts of the CCC and smile to myself, because I recongize something written by the Salesians, Benedictines, Carmelites, Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits, etc . . . but the CCC does not give them credit, because it wants to present the idea as Catholic, not simply belonging to one religious tradition or the mind of one thinker.

There are many things in there that come from very specific writings by people from a particular school, be they the Fathers, religious orders, or popes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

That’s very interesting, thank you!

 

[JReducation]

That’s very interesting, thank you!

The way that the Church uses language has been the subject of doctoral studies. I know someone who did his doctoral dissertation on Canon Law on the use of language in Church Law.

It’s a fascinating area of study.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[lelhajj]

I always like to read the comments posted by Br. JR. Greetings from Abu Dhabi, dear Brother!