Why No Last Gospel in N.O. Mass?

[Geremia]

One of my favorite parts of masses in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite is the reading of the Last Gospel, John 1:1-14. Why, when, and how was it taken out of the Novus Ordo mass?

For my “Why?” question, I can speculate that it was to Protestantize, for some odd reason, the Catholic mass since that passage in John is very Catholic.

 

[thistle]

One of my favorite parts of masses in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite is the reading of the Last Gospel, John 1:1-14. Why, when, and how was it taken out of the Novus Ordo mass?

For my “Why?” question, I can speculate that it was to Protestantize, for some odd reason, the Catholic mass since that passage in John is very Catholic.

Please stop that nonsense.
Better to keep quiet than spout rubbish.

 

[Geremia]

Please stop that nonsense. Better to keep quiet than spout rubbish.

Then please disprove the speculation. I can assure you some people actually believe it, not just speculate it. Also, the speculation is not totally ungrounded “rubbish;” there are some striking changes in the Novus Ordo mass that resemble the same changes Cramner made for his “Communion Service.”

 

[YADA]

On Christmas Day the Gospel Reading - [Christmas Mass - During the Day] in all three cycles [A, B and C] is John 1: 1-18 [or optionally John 1: 1-5, 9-14]

the other readings are -

1st Reading: Isaiah 52:7-10 and the 2nd Reading: Hebrews 1:1-6

For Epithany Sunday we also have in all three cycles: John 1:1-18 [or optionally John 1: 1-5, 9-14]

the other readings are -

1st Reading: Sirsch 24:1-4, 12-16 and the 2nd Reading: Ephesians 1:3-6, 15-18

These facts would disprove your initial charge that John 1:1-14 was taken out of the Novus Ordo … perhaps you just do not attend Mass on EPithany [allowing for the fact that you might attend a Christmas Mass at another then during the day … ie Mid Night Mass]

 

[preV2tradcath]

On Christmas Day the Gospel Reading - [Christmas Mass - During the Day] in all three cycles [A, B and C] is John 1: 1-18 [or optionally John 1: 1-5, 9-14]

the other readings are -

1st Reading: Isaiah 52:7-10 and the 2nd Reading: Hebrews 1:1-6

For Epithany Sunday we also have in all three cycles: John 1:1-18 [or optionally John 1: 1-5, 9-14]

the other readings are -

1st Reading: Sirsch 24:1-4, 12-16 and the 2nd Reading: Ephesians 1:3-6, 15-18

These facts would disprove your initial charge that John 1:1-14 was taken out of the Novus Ordo … perhaps you just do not attend Mass on EPithany [allowing for the fact that you might attend a Christmas Mass at another then during the day … ie Mid Night Mass]

Thank you. I had forgotten that information. You do have a point. But I think the OP was refering to the fact that in the EF the Mass almost always ends with the reading of the Last Gospel, John 1: 1-14.

So the Mass ends this way:
The priest says the Ite, Missa est (Go the Mass is ended), and the server says Deo Gratias (Thanks be to God).
The priest says a final private prayer called the Placeat:

May the lowly homage of my service be pleasing to Thee, O most holy Trinity: and do
Thou grant that the sacrifice which I, all unworthy, have offered up in the sight of Thy
majesty, may be acceptable to Thee, and, because of Thy loving kindness, may avail to
atone to Thee for myself and for all those for whom I have offered it up. Through Christ
our Lord. Amen.

He gives the blessing.

He goes to the Gospel (left) side of the altar and reads the Last Gospel we are discussing. The Mass ends with the server saying Deo gratias at the end of that Gospel reading.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Are you saying that John 1 is somehow “more Catholic” than the rest of the Gospels?

Only in the 1950’s or so did the Last Gospel always become John 1. Before that, the Last Gospel was changeable.

Originally, this was a sacrity devotion which got appended to the end of the Mass, just as the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar were sacristy prayers that got appended to the beginning.

In some cases, the Last Gospel was to be omitted.

Did you know these things, Geremia?

In other words, it was NOT part of the Latin Mass originally. Are you saying that the Latin Mass was Protestantizing because of the lack.

Furthermore, the Last Gospel was never part of any of the Eastern Liturgies (with the exception of the Armenians borrowing it). Do you think these liturgies were “protestantizing” because of its not being done?

(I hope you don’t think the “St. Michael Prayer” was ever part of the Mass, either, or that the “NO” cut out.)

 

[bpbasilphx]

\I can assure you some people actually believe it, not just speculate it. \

**Some people “actually believing” something doesn’t make it right.

There are “some people” who call themselves “traditionalists” who “actually believe” that Sr. Lucia of Fatima was assassinated and an impostor substituted. They even have photographs on their sites supposedly pointing out differences in physiognomy.

There are others who “actually believe” that Cardinal Siri was really elected Pope in 1968 and 1962.

And so it goes.

I think you should show more discretion about your sources of information.**

 

[revert_jen]

Please stop that nonsense.
Better to keep quiet than spout rubbish.

These facts would disprove your initial charge that John 1:1-14 was taken out of the Novus Ordo

Are you saying that John 1 is somehow “more Catholic” than the rest of the Gospels?
…
Did you know these things, Geremia?

In other words, it was NOT part of the Latin Mass originally. Are you saying that the Latin Mass was Protestantizing because of the lack.

Furthermore, the Last Gospel was never part of any of the Eastern Liturgies (with the exception of the Armenians borrowing it). Do you think these liturgies were “protestantizing” because of its not being done?

(I hope you don’t think the “St. Michael Prayer” was ever part of the Mass, either, or that the “NO” cut out.)

I am really at a loss to understand the apparent hostility toward the OP on this thread. Between the first response, which was just rude and uninformative, and the other posts which charge the OP with making statements that were certainly not made in this thread, it puzzles me.

It seems the OP has attended the EF and derives spiritual benefit from the last gospel. It would require a fair bit of research for someone who is younger than 60 or so to know that the last Gospel used to be changeable. In any case, I have a Missal published in 1943 where it does not appear to be changeable.

A fair number of changes to the liturgy post-Vatican II do have the appearance of making the Mass more like some Protestant liturgies than they were before.

If the removal of the Last Gospel was not due to a desire to make the liturgy more attractive to prospective converting Protestants, it would seem to be sufficient to say so without the attitude. I mean, the OP asked a question, but although everyone pounced on the word “protestantize” nobody seems to have answered the actual question.

In fact, I believe (although I am not sure) that it was removed as a result of an effort to implement the following:
Sacrosanctum Concilium #34:

The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions…

It may have been felt that it was unnecessarily repetitious. I believe that I read somewhere that that was the reason, but I am not sure about it, so if I’m wrong, please cut me some slack.

–Jen

 

[ProVobis]

The Last Gospel (John 1) was removed long before the N.O. Mass. The Latin Mass missal of 1965 had removed the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar (Psalm 42) as well. It’s probably why it didn’t sell too well.

 

[AJV]

It seems the OP has attended the EF and derives spiritual benefit from the last gospel. It would require a fair bit of research for someone who is younger than 60 or so to know that the last Gospel used to be changeable. In any case, I have a Missal published in 1943 where it does not appear to be changeable.

–Jen

It won’t appear in your handmissal per se, because it was governed by the rubrics. The rule was that, for example, if a feast was celebrated instead of the Sunday, the Gospel of the Sunday would be read as the Last Gospel. There is also the Third Mass of Christmas, where the Last Gospel is the Gospel of the day, so there as different reading. . Look in your missal for hints of this rubric on the following days: third Mass of Christmas, the feast fo the Holy Family, Palm Sunday…

 

[michaeldaniels]

I think it is plausible…not necessarily true, but plausible what the OP stated…and your logic YADA doesn’t work either because it used to be read after every Mass which is a far cry from once or twice or so a year…That is not the only thing they removed…why did they remove The Prayer to St. Michael, The Hail Mary, and Hail Holy Queen after each Mass…which are most definitely Catholic prayers…If it isn’t broke, why fix it???

On Christmas Day the Gospel Reading - [Christmas Mass - During the Day] in all three cycles [A, B and C] is John 1: 1-18 [or optionally John 1: 1-5, 9-14]

the other readings are -

1st Reading: Isaiah 52:7-10 and the 2nd Reading: Hebrews 1:1-6

For Epithany Sunday we also have in all three cycles: John 1:1-18 [or optionally John 1: 1-5, 9-14]

the other readings are -

1st Reading: Sirsch 24:1-4, 12-16 and the 2nd Reading: Ephesians 1:3-6, 15-18

These facts would disprove your initial charge that John 1:1-14 was taken out of the Novus Ordo … perhaps you just do not attend Mass on EPithany [allowing for the fact that you might attend a Christmas Mass at another then during the day … ie Mid Night Mass]

 

[michaeldaniels]

The Holy Gospel according to John is referred to commonly as “The Catholic Gospel”

Are you saying that John 1 is somehow “more Catholic” than the rest of the Gospels?

Only in the 1950’s or so did the Last Gospel always become John 1. Before that, the Last Gospel was changeable.

Originally, this was a sacrity devotion which got appended to the end of the Mass, just as the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar were sacristy prayers that got appended to the beginning.

In some cases, the Last Gospel was to be omitted.

Did you know these things, Geremia?

In other words, it was NOT part of the Latin Mass originally. Are you saying that the Latin Mass was Protestantizing because of the lack.

Furthermore, the Last Gospel was never part of any of the Eastern Liturgies (with the exception of the Armenians borrowing it). Do you think these liturgies were “protestantizing” because of its not being done?

(I hope you don’t think the “St. Michael Prayer” was ever part of the Mass, either, or that the “NO” cut out.)

 

[revert_jen]

It won’t appear in your handmissal per se, because it was governed by the rubrics. The rule was that, for example, if a feast was celebrated instead of the Sunday, the Gospel of the Sunday would be read as the Last Gospel. There is also the Third Mass of Christmas, where the Last Gospel is the Gospel of the day, so there as different reading. . Look in your missal for hints of this rubric on the following days: third Mass of Christmas, the feast fo the Holy Family, Palm Sunday…

Yes, I see what you mean. There are some places where it indicates that the last Gospel is different from the one that is printed in the Ordinary of the Mass section. But the fact that one is printed in the Ordinary section is a little confusing. I never noticed it because I hadn’t ever actually used that Missal–I have a 1962 one too. I just have it because I like old books. Anyway it seems that the last Gospel was usually John 1, even then.

Thanks!

–Jen

 

[Eric_Olsen]

Please stop that nonsense.
Better to keep quiet than spout rubbish.

the goal was to prostentanize the mass to make it more appealing to them
Bugnini even said “we must strip out from our mass anything that may be a roadblock
for them to convert”.

 

[revert_jen]

why did they remove The Prayer to St. Michael, The Hail Mary, and Hail Holy Queen after each Mass…which are most definitely Catholic prayers…If it isn’t broke, why fix it???

I don’t think they were part of the Mass, only prayers that were commonly (and piously) recited after Mass. In one of the parishes near here, with the permission of the pastor, a couple of people started the practice of saying the St. Michael prayer after the OF Mass as well. They put copies in the pews for a bit until people caught on, and now I believe that most people that stay through the end of the closing hymn pray it after Mass there. There is no rule against it or anything. If people are sincere in praying it, they have the opportunity, and if they would only be thinking of the traffic in the parking lot it wouldn’t do much good anyway, so they leave earlier. (This is second-hand information so I’m not sure of the mechanics, but I believe that is what they do.)

–Jen

 

[giuseppeTO]

Are you saying that John 1 is somehow “more Catholic” than the rest of the Gospels?

Only in the 1950’s or so did the Last Gospel always become John 1. Before that, the Last Gospel was changeable.

Originally, this was a sacrity devotion which got appended to the end of the Mass, just as the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar were sacristy prayers that got appended to the beginning.

In some cases, the Last Gospel was to be omitted.

Did you know these things, Geremia?

In other words, it was NOT part of the Latin Mass originally. Are you saying that the Latin Mass was Protestantizing because of the lack.

Furthermore, the Last Gospel was never part of any of the Eastern Liturgies (with the exception of the Armenians borrowing it). Do you think these liturgies were “protestantizing” because of its not being done?

(I hope you don’t think the “St. Michael Prayer” was ever part of the Mass, either, or that the “NO” cut out.)

A couple of clarifications, Bish.

Prior to the reforms of the 1950s, the Last Gospel was a part of the Mass. The ordo called for a proper Last Gospel as an exception on certain days.

Not sure how “originally” means anything in the context of the post since the codification of the Last Gospel and the prayers at the foot of the altar are at least 500+ years old. Since all rites, whether Eastern or Western grew in an organic way over centuries and did not spring into use at the Resurrection, one could conceivably go back to a time when many elements of all rites did not exist, excepting perhaps for the essential words and practices of confecting the Blessed Sacrament. Christ did not leave us with a Missal, as you know.

Again you totally miss the point by comparing the presence or absence of an element in the Latin Rite to the Eastern Liturgies as if they are some sort of litmus test of Catholicity. If you re-read the original post, the poster’s question was why they were removed. They were there and someone thought that the Mass was improved by getting rid of these prayers and readings. Perhaps they felt the Mass was too darn long, I don’t know.

And as for the removal of the Leonite prayers, I guess Pope Paul (or the architects of the Novus Ordo Missae), felt that the battle with the devil was over and he was in retirement. What a surprise, first church of Satan in the US was in 1966 and the first Satanic Bible in 1969. Probably just a coincidence.

 

[Geremia]

Some people “actually believing” something doesn’t make it right.

I never claimed to agree. I mean that because some people believe it, there is possibly a reason they do, and this is what we should be talking about.

There are “some people” who call themselves “traditionalists” who “actually believe” that Sr. Lucia of Fatima was assassinated and an impostor substituted. They even have photographs on their sites supposedly pointing out differences in physiognomy.

There are others who “actually believe” that Cardinal Siri was really elected Pope in 1968 and 1962.

And so it goes.

I think you should show more discretion about your sources of information.

The fact they believe these things automatically makes it false? It is still a possibility, although personally I think it is very remote.

 

[Geremia]

the goal was to prostentanize the mass to make it more appealing to them
Bugnini even said “we must strip out from our mass anything that may be a roadblock
for them to convert”.

So basically the Catholic tradition is a scandal to those who want to convert?

 

[TMC]

What is particularly anti-Protestant about John 1:1-14? I don’t know any Protestants that disavow it or shrink away from it. What uniquely Catholic viewpoint does it support?

 

[bkovacs]

One of my favorite parts of masses in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite is the reading of the Last Gospel, John 1:1-14. Why, when, and how was it taken out of the Novus Ordo mass?

For my “Why?” question, I can speculate that it was to Protestantize, for some odd reason, the Catholic mass since that passage in John is very Catholic.

Like allot of other things, they stripped it away. Like the “public” recitation of the prayer to St Michael by the priest and his parish after Holy Mass. Blame Angelo Bugnini. Even Pope Paul VI cried when he saw it. But if Pope Paul VI acted like a Pope, he could have refused any change. But he gave in to the liberals. Unlike what Pope Pius X would have done.