Why more readings with the N.O. calendar?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Geremia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Geremia

Guest
Why are there more readings on the post-Vatican II liturgical calendar? (Cf. catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Roman_Missal.htm) There must be a reason why for hundreds of years people focused on select readings instead of trying to cover almost the whole Bible in three years as we do now in Novus Ordo (N.O.) masses. What is this reason? Also, some of the readings in a N.O. daily mass are just not appropriate to be read at a mass; for example, I remember being a lector and reading, on Friday of the 3rd week of Ordinary Time in Year II (catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/2002USL-Weekdays-OT-II.htm), the story of David’s seduction of Bathsheba (2 Sam 11:1-4a, 5-10a, 13-17)! How is this appropriate for getting one’s mind in the proper state to receive Holy Communion?
 
ALL the Bible is important, why would we not read it at Mass??
 
The entire Bible is God’s Word and as our Lord said himself, “Man does not live on bread alone, but on EVERY word that comes from the mouth of God.”

Sadly, many, and I dare say most Catholics spend little if any time reading the Bible on their own, so the only exposure they get is in the liturgical readings.

I will grant that some passages may not be in and of themselves helpful, but generally speaking a good homilist can put them into perspective and context to aid the faithful to grow in their understanding and acceptance of the faith. The one you cited in particulary could be used as a means of explaining how easy it is, even for a person who loves the Lord, to fall into sin and the wonders of God’s mercy and forgiveness.

I am a relatively conservative Catholic who prays the rosary, likes latin prayers and responses in the Mass, and thinks that there is not enough reverence for the Eucharist these days. But I must say that including more of the Bible in the Liturgical
Calendar is one of the better things to come out of Liturgical Reforms that followed Vatican II.
 
Geremia said:
There must be a reason why for hundreds of years people focused on select readings instead of trying to cover almost the whole Bible in three years as we do now in Novus Ordo (N.O.) masses. What is this reason?
Click to expand...
Maybe the Church was shortsighted “for hundreds of years.” Why do you object to greater coverage of the bible?
 
Timothysis said:
Maybe the Church was shortsighted “for hundreds of years.” Why do you object to greater coverage of the bible?
Click to expand...
As I said in [thread=326053]another thread[/thread]:
Geremia said:
uppose I were a neophyte who attended mass that Friday only and did not get the full context of the story provided by the following days’ readings. What would I think? I would be very confused and possibly even think the Catholic Church supports adultery! The pre-Vatican II liturgical calendar focuses on the most important select readings, not quoted out of context; it enables one constantly to solidify one’s fundamental understanding of our Catholic faith. The current calendar, however, presents far too many readings related, but still auxiliary, to those readings of the fundamentals of our faith.
Click to expand...
Geremia said:
One would not teach, for example, calculus and arithmetic simultaneously. Similarly here, why are the fundamental readings—i.e., those of the pre-Vatican II calendar—mixed with other, more advanced readings?
Click to expand...
 
I don’t think there is ever a need to dumb down the word of God, even for a neophyte. Where would we stop? Oops, better not mention the adulteress they wanted to stone; and Adam and Eve were :o naked! My goodness. And what about all that gratuitous violence during the Passion of Our Lord?

Along with brockmac, I agree “that including more of the Bible in the Liturgical
Calendar is one of the better things to come out of Liturgical Reforms that followed Vatican II.”
 
IrishAm said:
I don’t think there is ever a need to dumb down the word of God, even for a neophyte. Where would we stop? Oops, better not mention the adulteress they wanted to stone; and Adam and Eve were :o naked! My goodness. And what about all that gratuitous violence during the Passion of Our Lord?

Along with brockmac, I agree “that including more of the Bible in the Liturgical
Calendar is one of the better things to come out of Liturgical Reforms that followed Vatican II.”
Click to expand...
Agreed. What an absurd objection. If a neophyte is so easily put off by not hearing an entire book of the bible read at once, then what is he to do when confronted with the concept of transubstantiation? Catholicism is an intellectual religion, let’s not “dumb it down.”
 
Timothysis said:
Maybe the Church was shortsighted “for hundreds of years.” Why do you object to greater coverage of the bible?
Click to expand...
If more is better, then why don’t we just keep adding readings?

And no condensed or abbreviated versions either. 🙂
 
Geremia said:
There must be a reason why for hundreds of years people focused on select readings instead of trying to cover almost the whole Bible in three years as we do now in Novus Ordo (N.O.) masses. What is this reason?
Click to expand...
This question still has not been answered. It would seem that if many Catholics throughout the ages were illiterate and did not understand Latin, the readings in a mass before Vatican II would mostly be to the benefit of the priests, yet they still chose to read select, fundamental readings at mass and not the whole Bible in three years as we do now, even though they, with their theological training, might have benefited from a more extensive selection of readings. Why?
 
Geremia said:
This question still has not been answered. It would seem that if many Catholics throughout the ages were illiterate and did not understand Latin, the readings in a mass before Vatican II would mostly be to the benefit of the priests, yet they still chose to read select, fundamental readings at mass and not the whole Bible in three years as we do now, even though they, with their theological training, might have benefited from a more extensive selection of readings. Why?
Click to expand...
I believe there is great wisdom in the limitation of the readings.

Since most Catholics (even today) get most of their scripture through Sunday Mass, it is more important to focus on the critical readings, and repeat them. Most of the OT readings we get today are not critical teachings.

It the old days, every Sunday had its readings, and most Sunday’s had a name (not 13th Sunday of Ordinary time). Over a lifetime of attending Mass, most Catholics would know and remember those readings, know their importance, and associate them with the appropriate part of the Church year.

God Bless
 
Geremia said:
As I said in [thread=326053]another thread[/thread]:
Click to expand...
“One would not teach, for example, calculus and arithmetic simultaneously. Similarly here, why are the fundamental readings—i.e., those of the pre-Vatican II calendar—mixed with other, more advanced readings?”

What do you propose, Mass 101 and Advanced Mass? I think the ENTIRE bible is important.

Plus, I grow tired of the accusations that Catholics don’t know the bible.
 
Geremia said:
This question still has not been answered. It would seem that if many Catholics throughout the ages were illiterate and did not understand Latin, the readings in a mass before Vatican II would mostly be to the benefit of the priests, yet they still chose to read select, fundamental readings at mass and not the whole Bible in three years as we do now, even though they, with their theological training, might have benefited from a more extensive selection of readings. Why?
Click to expand...
First, I don’t think many people realize it, but it is a myth that we read the entire bible in three years. Vast quantities are skipped. We get only 14% of the OT, leaving the Psalms out of it. Even the NT is at only 72%, I think. So, the readings are still fairly paired down. Reference stats here.

Second, here is one answer:

SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM said:
35. That the intimate connection between words and rites may be apparent in the liturgy:
  1. In sacred celebrations there is to be more reading from holy scripture, and it is to be more varied and suitable.
Click to expand...

I am certainly happy with the readings we receive. I recognize all of the readings we get on the main Sundays and Holy Days. So, whatever we read there is fine by me. It is not too much to process. 🙂

I do think Catholic children ought to be carefully taught very basic, foundational passages from Sacred Scripture. Scripture passages are like friends, that keep us company, just like favorite prayers and psalms. They instruct the mind and keep it on track, uplifting us when we are having trials at home or work.

Myself, I like reading about David. It connects with Psalm 51 (50 in DR). The story about the neighbor’s beloved lamb and how Nathan explains it to David, and then how David prays over his dying son, all those are important to me.
 
This is the question I seek to answer. I want to know why the creators of the, for example, Missale Plenum chose the readings they did for it. The Missale Plenum evolved into the Missale Romanum and eventually into the modern missal. This might be useful: Catholic EncyclopediaMissal
 
ProVobis said:
If more is better, then why don’t we just keep adding readings?

And no condensed or abbreviated versions either. 🙂
Click to expand...
On a more serious reply, I think there is merit to sticking with a particular set of readings for “some time”, whatever that may be. We don’t want to get caught up in the “liturgical fidget”.

I’m all for the unabbreviated versions tho! 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top