E
elgar
Guest
I attended my first Latin Mass last Sunday since my youth and noticed there was no OT lesson. I’m assuming this is historical but was rather bothersome for me personally. Can anyone explain this?
- Status
W
Windmill
Guest
Check out this site. It has all the readings for the liturgical year. There seem to be plenty of OT readings for the Epistle.
catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Roman_Missal.htm
While there may not be as many OT readings as in the New Mass, you also aren’t having to sit through geneologies and boring legal prescriptions like you do on some of those balmy summer days during certain cycles of the new Lecitonary. Also, the Propers that are used in the TLM are mostly OT psalms, so that should be included in the OT exposure of the TLM.
Different strokes for different folks!
catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Roman_Missal.htm
While there may not be as many OT readings as in the New Mass, you also aren’t having to sit through geneologies and boring legal prescriptions like you do on some of those balmy summer days during certain cycles of the new Lecitonary. Also, the Propers that are used in the TLM are mostly OT psalms, so that should be included in the OT exposure of the TLM.
Different strokes for different folks!
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
It seems that the OT lesson was dropped fairly early in the development of the Roman Lectionary (pre V2, that is), though some days retained one in place of the Epistle.
OTOH, the Ember Days frequently had several OT lessons before the Epistle.
OTOH, the Ember Days frequently had several OT lessons before the Epistle.
P
palmas85
Guest
There are more than a few Old Testament readings in the Traditional Mass. They don’t have them at every Mass but there are quite a few of them.
I am curious though as to why that fact would be bothersome for you.
E
elgar
Guest
Perhaps I’ve become accustomed to the somewhat standard format of OT, Psalm, NT readings and the 3-year lectionary for most of my life for better or worse.
I missed hearing Ez33:7-9 on Sunday–a powerful and relevant reading for what is going on today.
B
beeliner
Guest
When I wuz a kid (1950’s) only solemn high Masses had an OT lesson before the epistle.
In regular high and low Masses, however, a reading from the OT, Acts or Revelation was sometimes scheduled in place of the epistle.
E
elgar
Guest
Perhaps this is a stretch, but it used to be that the Latin Mass was the commonality that tied all Catholics together. One could attend Mass anywhere in the world and all could connect through the language of the Mass. Since this is no longer the case, perhaps the 3-year lectionary that many Christians follow connect english speaking Christians through the Scripture passages. This is more ecumenical than “Catholic” but what the heck.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
Perhaps this is a stretch, but it used to be that the Latin Mass was the commonality that tied all Catholics together. One could attend Mass anywhere in the world and all could connect through the language of the Mass.
**Did you mean to exclude Eastern Catholics when you said “all Catholics”?
The Eastern Catholics NEVER used the Latin Mass–and still don’t.**
**Did you mean to exclude Eastern Catholics when you said “all Catholics”?
The Eastern Catholics NEVER used the Latin Mass–and still don’t.**
E
elgar
Guest
I stand corrected; I should have said “Western-Rite Catholics”. Sorry to say Eastern Rite Catholicism is quite foreign to me since the closest parish is probably 250 miles from where I live.
P
ProVobis
Guest
But you have other Church treasures, don’t you?
A
alih
Guest
a reading of the “proper” of the mass would generally show that old testament readings generally will be found in the 1. introit, 2. gradual, 3. offertory prayers. example: 15th sunday after pentecost, introit psalm 85, gradual psalm 91, offertory psalm 39. hope this has been informative. have a good year. (alih)
E
eelpis
Guest
No need for it, there is just so much you can remember. The gospel is the important part.
E
elgar
Guest
I disagree. All of it is important. The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Why then does the Cathoic bible include the books of the Apocrypha if the gospel is the important part? Another feature of the 3-year lectionary is that it ties everything together to the gospel. Don’t get me wrong, I respect the Latin Mass and find it much more dignified than 95% of NO Masses, but forcing the laity to open a bible once in awhile has been one of the few positives to come out of V2.
M
maurin
Guest
actually, there are a heck of a lot more…from the ‘judica me’ to the collects, gradual, secrets, etc. Pick up any 1962 missal and read…tolle, legge.
W
Windmill
Guest
maurin,
I agree. The Psalms and collects from the missal do add a significant amount of OT writings to the TLM. As I was careful to say in my OP, the “readings” (meaning, the Epistles) are not as OT-saturated as in the New Mass. But, again, volume does not equate with superiority. There are many passages in the OT that are not really inspiring.
E
elgar
Guest
For me it is a package deal. I’m currently reading 1 Chronicles as I plow through the bible. I agree, it is easy to dismiss all of those confusing names I can’t pronounce and skip ahead to more interesting narrative, but that is not the point. Having a good study bible has helped. There is not a decent approved Catholic bible for the US church because our bishops have a financial interest in supporting inferior translations. Don’t believe me, just ask Fr. Richard John Neuhaus.
You have convinced me there are numerous paraphrases of the Old Testament in the Latin Mass–perhaps those passages should contain chapter and verse. Are they the same prescribed ones over and over or do they cover the entire OT?
I will never buy the dummed down approach that there is only so much one can remember or concentrate on. Spare me some expert’s view of what is interesting and what is not. Bottom line: We have a long way to go in “Bible Study” in the RC church.
R
Robster7
Guest
The OT readings in vernacular Sunday Masses are usually tied into the Gospel for the Day. The addition of OT readings has been a blessing in understanding the connection between Scriptures OT and NT. They often contain some preceding type of which the NT reading shows the fulfillment.
While the NT Gospels are quite useful, one gets a richer understanding when one sees the OT connection.
Ignoring the OT altogether because the Gospel is sufficient, as a previous poster wrote, smacks of Marcionism. That heresy said that the God depicted in the OT was inferior (nasty, mean, etc.) to nice-guy Jesus in the NT, and so it could be tossed.
The misconception of God’s nature in the OT comes from looking exclusively at passages in which God is angry and punishing. One reads only the “juicy” parts where God gets mad. It does not examine the case set out for His his chastisement. God is depicted as a loving husband to Israel, who, despite God’s love is unfaithful, continually stepping out on Him with pagan gods. Even God will only take so much abuse before punishing the offender. But before he lets loose his wrath, he pleads for reconciliation, again and again. The tender pleading in Hosea “Come back to Me.”, Isaiah, “Come, let us reason together” and “Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow” if the offender repents. It is only after these appeals are ignored that God punishes.
Moreover, some imperfect OT depictions of the Almighty may reflect the limitations of the people’s understanding of that time.
Jesus, in his first appearance in a synagogue, read from Isaiah, and started his discourse, “This Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” When Jesus and others refer to the Scriptures in NT, they are referring to the Old Testament, which is the only scriptures they would have know at the time. Moreover, they must refer to earlier prophecies and explain how He is the fulfillment of them.
So, I don’t see how we can wholly ignore the OT, especially since what was promised there is fulfilled in the NT.
While the NT Gospels are quite useful, one gets a richer understanding when one sees the OT connection.
Ignoring the OT altogether because the Gospel is sufficient, as a previous poster wrote, smacks of Marcionism. That heresy said that the God depicted in the OT was inferior (nasty, mean, etc.) to nice-guy Jesus in the NT, and so it could be tossed.
The misconception of God’s nature in the OT comes from looking exclusively at passages in which God is angry and punishing. One reads only the “juicy” parts where God gets mad. It does not examine the case set out for His his chastisement. God is depicted as a loving husband to Israel, who, despite God’s love is unfaithful, continually stepping out on Him with pagan gods. Even God will only take so much abuse before punishing the offender. But before he lets loose his wrath, he pleads for reconciliation, again and again. The tender pleading in Hosea “Come back to Me.”, Isaiah, “Come, let us reason together” and “Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow” if the offender repents. It is only after these appeals are ignored that God punishes.
Moreover, some imperfect OT depictions of the Almighty may reflect the limitations of the people’s understanding of that time.
Jesus, in his first appearance in a synagogue, read from Isaiah, and started his discourse, “This Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” When Jesus and others refer to the Scriptures in NT, they are referring to the Old Testament, which is the only scriptures they would have know at the time. Moreover, they must refer to earlier prophecies and explain how He is the fulfillment of them.
So, I don’t see how we can wholly ignore the OT, especially since what was promised there is fulfilled in the NT.
W
Windmill
Guest
I understand where you’re coming from.
We can always use good Bible study materials, too. I have gotten a lot out of the bible study tapes from St. Joseph’s Communications done by Scott Hahn. He has covered quite a few of the biblical books exhaustively. I’d recommend it without reserve.However, the point of the readings at Mass is not to be a “bible study”, but rather, to complement the feast day and set the tone for that day. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not knocking Bible studies. I think Catholics are starting to crack open their Bibles, learn apologetics, learn scriptural applications to their lives, and let the written word transform them. I think that’s great! However, the point of Mass is not to be a Bible study - it’s primarily about the Holy Sacrifice.
It’s okay to emphasize good things. But we should be careful not to “major on the minors”. The Sacrifice is primary - the biblical exposition is secondary. If we want more, the place for it is in Bible studies - not Mass.
As far as the chapter/verse citations in the old missals for Psalms, prayers, etc…I have the St. Joseph’s Daily Missal, and it actually does that. It’s useful to have a sense of context where a verse/prayer/antiphon is coming from, but I don’t think it is vital. Remember, chapter and verse did not appear until the 1500’s. It’s not as important to understand things from a “biblically geographic” point of view (IOW, where it is in the Bible) as opposed to the theological POV.
I’m sure you’d agree with that.
E
elgar
Guest
You make some good points. I think–and you can correct me–a big difference between the Tridentine Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo is the former is all about the “Sacrifice” and the latter wants to put an almost equal weight between the liturgy of the Word and the liturgy of the Sacrament. I think alot of confusion has been sown. No wonder some startling statistics on a large percentage of Catholics who don’t believe in the “real presence”.I understand where you’re coming from.
However, the point of the readings at Mass is not to be a “bible study”, but rather, to complement the feast day and set the tone for that day. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not knocking Bible studies. I think Catholics are starting to crack open their Bibles, learn apologetics, learn scriptural applications to their lives, and let the written word transform them. I think that’s great! However, the point of Mass is not to be a Bible study - it’s primarily about the Holy Sacrifice.
It’s okay to emphasize good things. But we should be careful not to “major on the minors”. The Sacrifice is primary - the biblical exposition is secondary. If we want more, the place for it is in Bible studies - not Mass.
As far as the chapter/verse citations in the old missals for Psalms, prayers, etc…I have the St. Joseph’s Daily Missal, and it actually does that. It’s useful to have a sense of context where a verse/prayer/antiphon is coming from, but I don’t think it is vital. Remember, chapter and verse did not appear until the 1500’s. It’s not as important to understand things from a “biblically geographic” point of view (IOW, where it is in the Bible) as opposed to the theological POV.
I’m sure you’d agree with that.
C
Chatter163
Guest
Your memory seems to be playing tricks on you. There were the same number of readings for each Mass, be they Low, Sung or Solemn. A Mass being solemn did not produce an extra reading.
- Status