Why No Last Gospel in N.O. Mass?

[Geremia]

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?

There may be other reasons why John 1:1-14 is not in the Novus Ordo mass, but I would say that those verses are Catholic (as is the entire Bible, too!) because it relates to how God manifests Himself to us through the Sacraments, something the Protestants have been unfortunately losing. He became Man so we could know Him with our senses, and we receive Him in Communion.

 

[malphono]

There’s a short history of the Last Gospel here in case anyone hasn’t already seen it or is even interested.

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.

Yes, the Last Gospel was originally a “sacristy devotion” in the Roman Rite but, (with the exception of Psalm 42, which is not always said anyway), I don’t agree about the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, which are quite analogous to the Byzantine prayers before the Holy Doors.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

At the parish I attended we had cards both in the servers’ sacristy and priest’s sacrisy with prayers we were required to say before Mass. I believe the priest had his own prayers prior to putting on every article of vestments he put on too.

 

[malphono]

I believe the priest had his own prayers prior to putting on every article of vestments he put on too.

Yes, the EF has vesting prayers. Some might be interested to know that, although the prayers themselves are different, the East and Orient have vesting prayers too. In some Churches, sadly, they have also been dispensed with in the post-conciliar era.

 

[Spirithound]

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…

Do you mean that there is (or was) a Mass for the 6th Sunday of Lent?

 

[AJV]

Do you mean that there is (or was) a Mass for the 6th Sunday of Lent?

No, however, for a ‘Missa privata’ where there was no blessing of the palms, the Gospel of Christ’s entry into Jerusalem was read as the last Gospel.

 

[Jacafamala]

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.)

I have no idea why it was taken out.

But my priest was talking about this last reading a little in a recent homily. The last Gospel is there because it goes back to the beginning. God is in eternity, and to go full circle, to go back to “in the beginning” reflects this His nature, it reflects all of creation as well. We all come from him and must return to face him, too. So we go full circle at the Mass.

 

[Filioque]

My question is why did they get added to the Roman Rite? They as touched on above.

Both the Prayers at the foot of the altar and the Last Gospels (Yup more than just John I were used according to the feasts.) Prior to Pius V’s Missal they were private prayers that the priest recited from the sacristy to the altar. The Last Gospel being recited on the way back to the sacristy in private. But there were changes all along. At one point the Holy Roman Emperor was mentioned in the Canon, with the rise of smaller kingdoms the King was in places included in the inviolate Canon. There are those who decry as an unacceptable change the supression of the Prayers at the foot of the altar and Last Gospel when there is a procession or blessing either prior to the Mass, or directly after it. Some protest the removal of the confiteor prior to the people’s communion, (Which incidentally was never part of the Mass, or part of the Official Altar Missal.) There are even those who will not use any other Missals or Breviaries that were issues after Pope Pius X instituted reforms of the Missal in the early 1900’s (now long since schismatic sects) and I even know a few priests among the schismatic groups who only use the reforms of Pope Pius X, and refuse the 1950’s reforms authorized by Pope Pius XII.

I’ve read the arguments and they all seem to come down to one common idea. Each group that rejects one or the other change authorized by a Pope, (those I agree with or don’t agree with) feel it is their right to disobey the Pope, and question his judgement or authority. Even if Archbishop Bugnini had an agenda to “distroy the Church” or to “destroy the Liturgy”, my question is would our Lord allow it? Yup I don’t really like the Changes to the Latin or Eastern Liturgies since Vatican II, but none of them make the Mass invalid. It is by standing up for, (or kneeling as it where) your Catholic heritage rather than walking out of one’s parish the Churches where the whole mess has gone too far will be won back.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Geremia, I have a postive suggestion.

If the former Last Gospel is so meaningful to you, what’s to stop you from making it part of your usual post-communion prayers that you say privately?

Of course, you can also include the Leonine Prayers, if you’re so moved.

But as well, you SHOULD including the Preparation for Mass and Thanksgiving after Mass, which are the liturgically pointed prayers for private use in the older Roman Missal. I don’t know if they are in the Pauline Missal.

My point is that the prayers the Church actually appoints take precendece over individual preference.

 

[ProVobis]

I’ve read the arguments and they all seem to come down to one common idea. Each group that rejects one or the other change authorized by a Pope, (those I agree with or don’t agree with) feel it is their right to disobey the Pope, and question his judgement or authority.

But what’s really the pastoral value of REMOVING prayers? Very few objected when the name of St. Joseph was added to the Missal back in 1962 but can you imagine if they were to remove it today? Point is the nature of the change must be of added pastoral value not take away. We do, after all, want our money’s worth when we attend Mass. You can’t miss what you never had, but you feel awfully poor when half of what you used to have has been taken away from you.

Sure, there are EF Masses without Psalm 42 and John I. They are exceptions and they don’t go without notice. But those shouldn’t be used as reasons why they can be dispensed with altogether. There should be real legitimate reasons (such as abuse, etc.) that the Pope can use but just to remove prayers for the sake of removing prayers doesn’t make much sense if you wish to maintain some continuity in the liturgy.

Lastly, if you must remove the prayers, do it. But don’t come to the people later and challenge them to interpret the new practices “in light of tradition.” This is plain ridiculous.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\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.\

**The person who started this thread admitted in the original post that the *a priori *assumption was being made that the Last Gospel was not included in the Pauline Missal (Ordinary Form) in order to be “Protestant.”

My point is that the absence of the Last Gospel has nothing to do with Protestantism, and this assumption was wrong.**

 

[corsair]

On those occassions that I do attend the local NO mass, I join a small group that stays after Mass to recite the Last Gospel and the Leonine prayers. Helps to make things a little more palatable.

 

[peary1]

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.

There is nothing in the Last Gospel incompatible with Protestantism but its retention in the Novus Ordo Missae would have clashed with the pattern of Protestant Communion services which conclude with a blessing, going back to the time of Thomas Cranmer and his liturgical changes in the Church in England.

 

[giuseppeTO]

**The person who started this thread admitted in the original post that the *a priori ***assumption was being made that the Last Gospel was not included in the Pauline Missal (Ordinary Form) in order to be “Protestant.”

My point is that the absence of the Last Gospel has nothing to do with Protestantism, and this assumption was wrong.

All you can do is speculate and offer your opinion. You can’t say it is wrong unless you were somehow involved in the decision. There are published statements by the architects of the Pauline Mass, as you know, whose objective goal was not necessarily to make the Mass more pleasing to God, but more pleasing to secular interests. We all can offer our opinions but unless you were involved, you can’t know for sure. You may not agree with the verb “Protestantizing” the Mass, but that has evolved to describe actions/change that removed prayers related to sacrifice and oblation, repeated references to the Blessed Mother, and or served to shorten the Mass among other things - all general characteristics of Protestant worship.

 

[AJV]

All you can do is speculate and offer your opinion. You can’t say it is wrong unless you were somehow involved in the decision. There are published statements by the architects of the Pauline Mass, as you know, whose objective goal was not necessarily to make the Mass more pleasing to God, but more pleasing to secular interests.

Actually it is quite possible to say that it is wrong and flat out incorrect - the rationale was given not only in the schemas but also in a document presented to the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council — a declaratio — on what was meant by the phrasing Sacrosanctum Concilium on what would become article 50. You can find it in the official Acts of the Council.

It seems a bit strange though in some ways to apply the term “Protestantizing” to a mere shortening of service! Apart from the fact that actually Protestant services are not shorter (not at least until 1985 or so) not did they attempt to make them so. Moreover, there is really nothing in the last Gospel that Protestants could object to. In other removed prayers, yes, in the last Gospel, no.

With regard to the Leonine prayers, the Church only adds/added prayers to the end of the Mass for a period, not for a time, in orderto keep the distinction between the public prayer and the private prayer… One of the reasons that the Leonine prayers ere said after Mass was because they could be in the vernacular and for an intention - moreover, their devotional character is more evident from the fact that it was only to be said at less solemn Masses, never at sung Masses, Masses with a special character, etc. It was onyl intended for the Missa privata. If one thinks about it, why does the Church not prescribe litanies, and zillions of other prayers that she could for as many reasons?

 

[bpbasilphx]

||There is nothing in the Last Gospel incompatible with Protestantism but its retention in the Novus Ordo Missae would have clashed with the pattern of Protestant Communion services which conclude with a blessing, going back to the time of Thomas Cranmer and his liturgical changes in the Church in England.||

As I have pointed out elsewhere, the Last Gospel did not exist in Sarum books, which formed the basis of the BCP.

\All you can do is speculate and offer your opinion.\

The only one who was offering opinion and speculations was the original poster in the primal post, which were clearly identified as such.

 

[bpbasilphx]

||There is nothing in the Last Gospel incompatible with Protestantism but its retention in the Novus Ordo Missae would have clashed with the pattern of Protestant Communion services which conclude with a blessing, going back to the time of Thomas Cranmer and his liturgical changes in the Church in England.||

As I have pointed out elsewhere, the Last Gospel did not exist in Sarum books, which formed the basis of the BCP.

\All you can do is speculate and offer your opinion.\

The only one who was offering opinion and speculations was the original poster in the primal post, which were clearly identified as such.

||You may not agree with the verb “Protestantizing” the Mass, but that has evolved to describe actions/change that removed prayers related to sacrifice and oblation, repeated references to the Blessed Mother, and or served to shorten the Mass among other things - all general characteristics of Protestant worship.||

NOBODY can accuse the Orthodox of not having plenty of references to the Theotokos, but NONE of them are essential to the Eucharistic action or confecting it. (Do not conclude from this I’m recommending they be omitted. I’m not.)

As far as shortening present services. even PreV2 ones were ALWAYS shorter than their Orthodox counterparts–so much so that many Orthodox have in the past been scancalized by their relative brevity.

 

[Filioque]

The real crux of the issue is this. Either the Pope has the authority to erect and approve of a Liturgical Rite, or Suppress a Liturgical Rite. In the case of the OF and EF, Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II, even Pope Paul by his granting Indults to older priests and other groups have said explicitly or implicitly that the EF was not completely suppressed, or in the case of Pope Benedict, that the EF was not suppressed at all.

Any honest scholarship of the Latin Rite liturgies, both those that survive today and those that either fell into disuse or were officially suppressed, will show that while a pattern exists among them, which includes the OF, there has never been one single Liturgy in the West. Each of the Liturgies has had it’s own customs, and shared in some of the externals. The prayers at the foot of the altar differ between the Carmelite, Dominican, Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Roman and other Latin Rites prior to Vatican II. So too the Last Gospel was not universally John I.

While the Roman Rite prior to Vatican II, even with the various changes made to the rubrics over the centuries from the time of St. Gregory the Great, is one of many Liturgical Rites used in the West. What is perfect about the Mass is that it is the same sacrifice as Calvary in an unbloody manner, where Jesus is both priest and victim. The rituals themselves when they conform to the Catholic ethos, which all Eastern and Latin Rite Liturgies authorized by the Holy See do, (including the OF) are equally the Sacrifice of our Lord. They are all of equal value.

Prior to Vatican II we were educated as Catholics that the Value of every Mass was infinite, while a Mass may differ in solemnity, from the poorest Mission chapel to a Solemn Papal Mass, it was of the same infinite value. So too if we are Catholics, we must believe today that any Mass that follows the rubrics of any approved rite is of equal value, whatever our aesthetic preferences may be.

For me I prefer the Mass in the EF, Russian and Armenian Rites. But as a spiritual source of graces, I will attend any. I would even guess that the rare occasions I assist at mass in my local parish, which is very OF, the graces I receive, (as opposed to those which are just as abundant as in any other rite) may be greater, because I go despite my aesthetic dislike for the rite, but because it is a valid, and authorized rite.

I would also be remiss to point out that the use of the EF does not guarantee devoutness. I knew one good Monsignor who would slip out while the choir sang the Gloria and Credo (once he fulfilled the obligation of reciting it sub voce at the altar) and take some long puffs on a cigar that he had placed on the stoop leading out from the sacristy, pointing his cigar at latecomers. Good thing the incense covered most of the cigar smell on his vestments. I could go on but the point is not to bash one rite or the other, rather to stress that it is the Holy See and not our own tastes or personal theological/liturgical ideas that dictates what is and is not a Catholic Rite.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

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

what Catholic tradition? There is nothing “traditional” about the new mass.

 

[Geremia]

I’ve read the arguments and they all seem to come down to one common idea. Each group that rejects one or the other change authorized by a Pope, (those I agree with or don’t agree with) feel it is their right to disobey the Pope, and question his judgement or authority. Even if Archbishop Bugnini had an agenda to “distroy the Church” or to “destroy the Liturgy”, my question is would our Lord allow it? Yup I don’t really like the Changes to the Latin or Eastern Liturgies since Vatican II, but none of them make the Mass invalid. It is by standing up for, (or kneeling as it where) your Catholic heritage rather than walking out of one’s parish the Churches where the whole mess has gone too far will be won back.

I think that might be some of it, but I think a loss of reverence and improper interpretation of the bishops’ authority in councils is a huge problem.