Why no OT lesson in The Latin Mass?

[alih]

it is apparent by answers given to this question that some respondents seem to be unaware of the structure of “the mass.”
one cannot give catholic religious training in this forum as it is, was and will be the duty if not the responsibilty of those whose religious vocations have been trained.
opinions are not facts. there are missaletts available and websites available which may accurately describe how the ordinary and the proper of the mass come together. it would be my hope, that more of the faithfull would come to understand and appreciate what is going on. have a good year. (alih)

 

[Robster7]

I have noticed among other things, that no one ever answered the original question why there are little or no OT readings in TLM, compared to vernacular Mass, or at the very least, said, “I don’t know.”

As in my prev post, I think the use of more OT in Mass is good.

By the way, FYI, I usually attend vernacular Mass, but sometimes go to TLM: I appreciate both.

The importance of incorporating more scripture in Mass, is that for a certain number of Catholics who may not regularly read or study the Bible, this is at least one time they can hear it.

Some other comments.

**Elgar: **The universality of the Latin in the Mass worldwide is an advantage primarily to those who travel reqularly to countries where one’s own language is spoken. This is does not represent the majority of Catholics, including me. I can go to a non English mass occasionally, and despite the language barrier, I know the Mass well enough to follow along w/o a missal. It is not the ideal situation.

What is wrong with a 3-year Lectionary that incorporates more Scripture over time into Sunday Mass? How is that not “catholic”?Is it that some Protestants may have cooperated with Catholics in putting it together? In a Lector’s Workbook, this mostly common Lectionary differs on certain Sundays when there is a Catholic holy day or feast celebrated. Catholics have one set of readings on such a day; Protestants another.

Equal weight to lit of word vs. lit of Euch? How do you figure?
Just by adding one more reading? And how does that take away from concept of Sacrifice??? Details, please. And the way your post reads, one might think because of this adjustment of Lectionary **alone **, the result was loss of faith in the Real Presence> I doubt that is what you mean.

Eelpis “No need for it…The Gospel is what is important”?
But to better understand the origins of the sacrifice of Jesus in the Gospel, you would need to read and understand the OT and connection to the NT. That is why one would read the OT.

Windmill: Certain parts of OT are not inspiring, granted (e.g., census at beginning of Numbers, endless lists of sacrifices in Leviticus). But not entirely useless. Teaches something about how organized society and religion was. This is **not **the bulk of OT.

"Major in the minors"? We value the OT for its connection to NT and Jesus. Just ignoring it because it’s difficult is not altogether mature.

I dont recall in this thread who said it, but seemed to imply

 

[Windmill]

Certain parts of OT are not inspiring, granted (e.g., census at beginning of Numbers, endless lists of sacrifices in Leviticus). But not entirely useless. Teaches something about how organized society and religion was. This is **not **the bulk of OT.

I agree. My point is that the arrangement of ferial readings in the new Lectionary (most especially in the daily readings) are not geared toward a theme of the day. They are sequential, and are geared at exposing the people to all the books of the Bible. This is approach has it’s benefits as well as its drawbacks.

"Major in the minors"? We value the OT for its connection to NT and Jesus. Just ignoring it because it’s difficult is not altogether mature.

I’m not sure how you draw this conclusion from my comment. I never implied that we should ignore the OT. To “major on the minors” means to over-emphasize a minor point and under-emphasize a major point. The “minor” point was not the OT readings, but rather, the Liturgy of the Word. The “major” point was the Liturgy of the Eucharist and Christ’s Holy Sacrifice. Even if I was referring to the OT readings, the phrase “major on the minors” does not mean to neglect the “minors”, it simply means to keep things in their proper perspective.

Elgar understood my point, but I may have been a little vague in my comment. I apologize for the confusion.

 

[Robster7]

And I apologize for the phrase “not mature.” I was writing in a hurry before going to work and couldn’t think of the right word.

But it seems to me that the Liturgy of the Word is important in telling the story of salvation. Yes, the sacrifice is primary, but the scripture is important in giving us some background info.

If you wanted to get extreme about it, you could ditch the Liturgy of the Word. Calling it “minor” is a bit too dismissive.
How is it overemphasized to the detriment of the Sacrifice?

Anyway, aren’t Scripture and Tradition both important sources of revelation? And both interpreted by the Magisterium to back up authentic teaching?

 

[Windmill]

And I apologize for the phrase “not mature.” I was writing in a hurry before going to work and couldn’t think of the right word.

But it seems to me that the Liturgy of the Word is important in telling the story of salvation. Yes, the sacrifice is primary, but the scripture is important in giving us some background info.

If you wanted to get extreme about it, you could ditch the Liturgy of the Word. Calling it “minor” is a bit too dismissive.
How is it overemphasized to the detriment of the Sacrifice?

Anyway, aren’t Scripture and Tradition both important sources of revelation? And both interpreted by the Magisterium to back up authentic teaching?

My point was that the Mass is not a bible study. The message of love in the Bible is no comparison to Love itself - ie, Christ in the Sacred Species. I agree, the Liturgy of the Word is not useless, and it is not incidental, and it is nothing to be scoffed at. However, it is not to be set on par with the coming down of the God-Man.

 

[Chatter163]

I have noticed among other things, that no one ever answered the original question why there are little or no OT readings in TLM, compared to vernacular Mass, or at the very least, said, “I don’t know.”

Perhaps this is because it is impossible to look backwards and ask why the old rite was not more like the new rite? Historically speaking, this is reverse reasoning. The proper question would be why the new rite opted for a change/innovation/reform/revision/whatever as compared to the old rite, since the old preceded the new.

One cannot ask why an earlier time did not act according to the mindset of a later time. One can, however, ask why the later time opted to alter the mindset of the earlier.

This is all beside the fact that the old rite is replete with OT readings, particularly at weekday Masses.

 

[Robster7]

Perhaps this is because it is impossible to look backwards and ask why the old rite was not more like the new rite?

It is not impossible to review the history of the development of the Mass as to how the rites developed and why. I believe you can google this and find lots of writing re the historical development. I don’t know what information is available as to the format of the scripture readings, how they selected the readings for the masses, and why the epistle is usually NT.

The proper question would be why the new rite opted for a change/innovation/reform/revision/whatever as compared to the old rite, since the old preceded the new.

I understand the addition of a third reading on Sundays in the newer vernacular rite was to expose the faithful to more OT scripture and connect it to the Gospel for the day. The foundation of Christianity is Judaism, and to appreciate how we got here, it is important to know where we came from and what the connection is. It was a good “change.”

You phrase the same question 2 different ways.

The question was just why are there fewer OT selections in TLM vs. NO.

Like the “change” involving the Apostles Creed with the more detailed Nicene Creed. The latter expands on points mentioned in the former. That was a positive change. The former was good, the latter was better in that it explained things in more detail.

 

[Chatter163]

It is not impossible to review the history of the development of the Mass as to how the rites developed and why. I believe you can google this and find lots of writing re the historical development. I don’t know what information is available as to the format of the scripture readings, how they selected the readings for the masses, and why the epistle is usually NT.

I did not say that it was impossible “to review the history of the development of the Mass as to how the rites developed and why.” I said that it was impossible to look backward and question why an earlier era did not have the mindset of the later era. These are two completely different scenarios. In the former, one simply studies the history of liturgical development, presumably without an agenda. In the latter, one would be looking back in history and questioning why certain ancients did not conform to perspectives and practies that came later. This is revisionism. The former way is the proper way to approach the questions of liturgical reform; the latter is agenda-driven, self-centered humanistic revisionism and no way to approach history of any sort.

You phrase the same question 2 different ways.

The question was just why are there fewer OT selections in TLM vs. NO.

That’s just it; they are NOT the same question. It may just have been a poor choice of words on the part of the OP, but the original question demands to know why the ancients did not appreciate the perspectives of the moderns, while the other question simply seeks to discover the sequence of liturgical history.

 

[alih]

the answer to robster’s quiry was answered (name removed by moderator)ost no. 11. this is not the novus-ordo service. it is, was and continues to be the sacrificial rite of the catholic church. founded by christ and devoloped from peter till it reached its zenith. over several centuries, primarily due to the distances needed to travel, mostly afoot, enemies of catholicism, along with the hardships connected with travel, many variation crept in. these were dealt with finally with the council of trent, whom, with the help of the new fangled printing press, were able to standardize the rite and codify it. manifesting his hatred for the catholic church, martin luther was quoted as saying, “if you destroy the mass, you destroy the church.” therefore, the latin mass: the traditional mass: the gregorian mass is that which luther had in mind. draw your own conclusions. have a good year. (alih)

 

[catholic101]

One thing to remember is that the Old lectionary was formed by centuries of tradition and that alone makes it something not lightly cast aside for a modern fabrication. It is arrogance to assume that modern people always know better than the ancients. Chesterton once said something like tradition is the rule of the dead. I have heard and what I have experianced confirms this to a degree is that the old lectionary more often has readings that tie in with the feast day while the new lectionary focuses on covering as much of the bible as posible. I think hearing from all four gospels during the year is a nice feature of the old lectionary. The addition of Old testament readings to the Liturgy of the Word was a genuine improvement, but the scraping of the epistle and gospel readings in order to use a new set of readings was a bad idea and shows a disregard for tradition. Keep in mind however that in the Old rite it is required to use the introit,gradual,offeratory,communion chants(though they are always said but not always chanted), these are usualy quotes from the Bible especialy the Psalms. I think the old Lectionary has a better ‘rythem’ for the Liturgical year than the new.

 

[Robster7]

"The Old lectionary was formed by centuries of tradition and that alone makes it something not lightly cast aside for a modern fabrication.

Granting that something of long tradition should not be lightly cast aside, that something is a long tradition is not necessarily and in itself a recommendation, anymore than the newness or modernity of something is a recommendation. We ought to know the origin to the tradition and be able to understand its perpetuation: how did the tradiion arise, and why is an important question to answer. Otherwise, one can make an idolotry of tradition (“this is the way we’ve always done it”)

Likewise, one can make an idol of newness or moderity, which in and of itself tells us nothing about the value of something in and of itself.

In the Idolotry of the modern, one dismisses tradition because it is old.

In the idolotry of tradition, one just sets everything in stone and dismisses anything new as junk.

Both errors assume their particular view is absolutely correct

'It is arrogance to assume that modern people always know better than the ancients. Chesterton once said something like tradition is the rule of the dead."

Likewise, it is arrogance to assume ancient ways are necessarily better than modern ones. The ancientness or modernity of an idea or practice tells us nothing necessarily of its validity. Chesterton made a good point, calling tradition “the democracy” of the dead.

Re feast days, the revision of the universal liturgical calendar was contemplated at the time of Trent. but not actually carried out until Vatican II. The idea was to bring more of a focus on Christ himself. Also, there was a multiplication of Marian feasts under various titles, and the bulk of the calendar was top-heavy with saint’s feast days, some of which were primarily of only local interest in one country.