Why no OT readings at EF?

[Biedrik]

This is always something that has baffled me. Whenever I go to an EF Mass on Sunday, I find no OT readings. Simply, why did this become a practice? The OT has a huge amount of stuff that is extremely relevant to Christianity. Is this just to save time? Or is there some better reason for this?

 

[MarkThompson]

The readings for the EF have remained pretty much unchanged (maybe completely unchanged?) since the missal was created in 1570 – so it’s not as though somebody just decided recently to chop out some of the readings.

Anyway, I can’t really answer your question about how the EF lectionary got to be the way it is, but mostly I’m writing to draw your attention to this link, which breaks down the statistics of how much of each book of the Bible is used in each of the forms of the liturgy. Make sure you read Note 3 ('0.39% of the Old Testament"!) under the OT Summary table. Interesting stuff. I think in the past I’ve read one or two half-hearted, pro-forma defenses of the EF lectionary, but like you I’m very happy to have the dust brushed off the Old Testament at last.

 

[Vince1022]

This is always something that has baffled me. Whenever I go to an EF Mass on Sunday, I find no OT readings. Simply, why did this become a practice? The OT has a huge amount of stuff that is extremely relevant to Christianity. Is this just to save time? Or is there some better reason for this?

Because the so-called “EF” Mass did not consider the OT as important. Thanks be to God for the liturgical reforms of Vatican II!

 

[drforjc]

Because the so-called “EF” Mass did not consider the OT as important. Thanks be to God for the liturgical reforms of Vatican II!

Hmmm… I guess that Psalm 42(43) at the foot of the altar, most of the introits, graduals, offertories, and communions, as well as Psalm 26 at the washing of hands,
and the “Deus, tu conversus vivificabis…” after the absolution are not deemed important then.
They may represent a small percentage of the OT but especially those from the ordinary are repeated at every mass. Sometimes repetition is as important as variety.

I’m not arguing that the addition of an OT reading is not a good development, but disparaging the EF like that is saddening. It is the mass that nourished the souls of countless saints.

 

[ProVobis]

Hmmm… I guess that Psalm 42(43) at the foot of the altar, most of the introits, graduals, offertories, and communions, as well as Psalm 26 at the washing of hands,
and the “Deus, tu conversus vivificabis…” after the absolution are not deemed important then.
They may represent a small percentage of the OT but especially those from the ordinary are repeated at every mass. Sometimes repetition is as important as variety.

I’m not arguing that the addition of an OT reading is not a good development, but disparaging the EF like that is saddening. It is the mass that nourished the souls of countless saints.

Precisely. There is also the beautiful **Psalm 26 **(Lavabo) which was dropped in the OF.

 

[OraLabora]

Hmmm… I guess that Psalm 42(43) at the foot of the altar, most of the introits, graduals, offertories, and communions, as well as Psalm 26 at the washing of hands,
and the “Deus, tu conversus vivificabis…” after the absolution are not deemed important then.
They may represent a small percentage of the OT but especially those from the ordinary are repeated at every mass. Sometimes repetition is as important as variety.

I’m not arguing that the addition of an OT reading is not a good development, but disparaging the EF like that is saddening. It is the mass that nourished the souls of countless saints.

Except that where I go to Mass, we have all the introits, graduals, offertories and communions in an Ordinary Form Mass. Every Mass, every day.

Plus we get the Old Testament read to us in a language we can understand clearly, with its lesson tied in, via the homily to the epistle and gospel readings.

IMHO the post-Vatican II lectionary is simply wonderful for the concordance between the readings.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Because the so-called “EF” Mass did not consider the OT as important. Thanks be to God for the liturgical reforms of Vatican II!

Um, if this is meant as a light-hearted slightly satirical pronouncement. . .you need to work on your comedic technique a bit more.

If you’re serious. . .you need to research the EF (and Vatican II), because right now you don’t seem to have an. . um. . .accurate understanding of either.

 

[stephraim]

IIRC, the reason for the omission of the OT reading in the EF was due to time constraints. I think Pope St. Gregory the Great even stated that Sunday Mass during his later years was about 3 hours long. Recall that certain major feasts and others (I believe possibly some ember or rogation days) still have an OT reading in the EF. The same development occurred in the Byzantine tradition, where they still have an epistle and Gospel reading.

The expanded lectionary in the OF is nice, but I really wish the readings were chanted more often. I’ve only experienced chanted readings at the EF and a Byzantine Ruthenian DL (and at EWTN broadcast Papal Masses), and that’s something straight from our Jewish heritage.

 

[benedictgal]

Now, in the EF, according to Summorum Pontificum, there is the option to use the Lectionary readings from the OF. So, theoretically, you could get the readings from the Old Testament in the EF. However, as other posters indicated, the various prayers in the EF, including the antiphons, are taken from the psalms.

 

[ProVobis]

Except that where I go to Mass, we have all the introits, graduals, offertories and communions in an Ordinary Form Mass. Every Mass, every day.

But there are no OT passages in the OF Mass ordinary, whereas the OT is built into the EF ordinary. That’s what the other poster’s point was.

 

[ProVobis]

Plus we get the Old Testament read to us in a language we can understand clearly,

That’s the standard party line against Latin and I’m not too sure it applies well any more. I’ve heard readers who spoke with heavy accents and who knows what they were reading with all those proper names of tribes, cities, etc. I have to read them myself from the missal to know what they’re speaking. Sorry.

 

[stephraim]

I’ve heard readers who spoke with heavy accents and who knows what they were reading with all those proper names of tribes, cities, etc. I have to read them myself from the missal to know what they’re speaking.

I’ve had similar experiences.

 

[OraLabora]

But there are no OT passages in the OF Mass ordinary, whereas the OT is built into the EF ordinary. That’s what the other poster’s point was.

His point also included the introit, gradual, offertory and communion and my point was that if taken from the propers, for the OF they will be the same as for the EF (though the days may vary).

Those are not part of the ordinary.

That’s the standard party line against Latin and I’m not too sure it applies well any more. I’ve heard readers who spoke with heavy accents and who knows what they were reading with all those proper names of tribes, cities, etc. I have to read them myself from the missal to know what they’re speaking. Sorry.

I have been known to forget my missal, bring the wrong one, or realize that there was a Mass nearby and I had time on my hands so why not go to Mass? In all of those cases I would miss out on an important part of the Mass, the readings.

I happen to think that the readings in the vernacular, even in the EF, are a good idea.

 

[rben20]

Because the so-called “EF” Mass did not consider the OT as important. Thanks be to God for the liturgical reforms of Vatican II!

Just mindless babble…and yes it is called the EF. If you have problem with that speak with Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[ProVobis]

I happen to think that the readings in the vernacular, even in the EF, are a good idea.

In the EF, they are almost always given in vernacular, if not in the Mass itself, then in the sermon. The Latin should not be suppressed, however, even in the OF. If both the Latin and the vernacular are presented, then the vernacular sounds a little more authentic. In fact, I use a translinear form of the Latin Vulgate to provide some of my sources:

sacredbible.org/studybible/index.htm

 

[malphono]

Because the so-called “EF” Mass did not consider the OT as important.

Bosh.

1. 
   *]First off, the EF is not “so-called” but rather it was called so by PP Benedict XVI. If (as another poster has already said), you don’t like it, argue with him.
   
   *]Secondly, it appears that some people have never actually looked at the Propers in the EF. Most, if not all, are taken from Scripture, frequently from the OT.
   
   *]Third, it appears that some people have never actually looked at the text of the Ordinary in the EF. Aside from Psalms 29 & 42, (as has already been mentioned), there are many prayers that are based on (and some taken nearly verbatim from) Scripture, both OT & NT.
   

   Thanks be to God for the liturgical reforms of Vatican II!

   Now, that is strictly a matter of opinion, and never mind that is an opinion which I personally do not share.

 

[Canto]

**OF Mass **(from my experience)
OT reading and Psalm from the Lectionary.

EF Mass
Psalm from the Lectionary
Asperges / Vidi Aquam
Adjutorium nostrum
Judica Me
Parts of Psalms 84 and 101 (Latin numbering)
More explicit reference to Isaiah and the burning coal
Lavabo
Psalms 115:13
Intoit antiphon (replaced often in the OF by Gather Us In and other such songs)
Offertory antiphon (c.f. above)
Communion antiphon (c.f. above)
etc

Don’t know Latin - a portable affordable Missal will have all the Latin translated into English - and the translation will not paraphrase the Mass.

 

[MarkThompson]

**OF Mass **(from my experience)
OT reading and Psalm from the Lectionary.

EF Mass
Psalm from the Lectionary
Asperges / Vidi Aquam
Adjutorium nostrum
Judica Me
Parts of Psalms 84 and 101 (Latin numbering)
More explicit reference to Isaiah and the burning coal
Lavabo
Psalms 115:13
Intoit antiphon (replaced often in the OF by Gather Us In and other such songs)
Offertory antiphon (c.f. above)
Communion antiphon (c.f. above)
etc

Don’t know Latin - a portable affordable Missal will have all the Latin translated into English - and the translation will not paraphrase the Mass.

Ironically, for all that, there’s still much more of the Old Testament read under the new lectionary. Repeating the same one or two psalms day in and day out has a certain nobility and charm, but it hardly amounts to throwing open the treasures of the Old Testament.

 

[Canto]

Ironically, for all that, there’s still much more of the Old Testament read under the new lectionary. Repeating the same one or two psalms day in and day out has a certain nobility and charm, but it hardly amounts to throwing open the treasures of the Old Testament.

These ones or twos enlighten the mystery of the Mass, salvation, the role of the Priest and God’s call to repentance in a very beautiful and consistently enlighting way.

I have heard it argued by Catholcis (and Protestants) that it is easier to really take in the lectionary when you have two readings with a psalm chanted in the middle instead of three + pslam.

 

[MarkThompson]

These ones or twos enlighten the mystery of the Mass, salvation, the role of the Priest and God’s call to repentance in a very beautiful and consistently enlighting way.

I have heard it argued by Catholcis (and Protestants) that it is easier to really take in the lectionary when you have two readings with a psalm chanted in the middle instead of three + pslam.

Don’t misunderstand me, I like hearing (reading, actually) the same psalms – and the Last Gospel, to give a similar example – at each EF Mass. I completely agree with you that it is enlightening and beautiful. But that’s a point that can be made without the unfortunately misleading little table you provided above.

I understand that this is a sore spot for some people because virtually everyone agrees that the new lectionary is a big improvement, and for the remaining partisans it can seem as though if you admit anything about the OF is an improvement you’re conceding “defeat” in the “war.” There’s no reason it has to be that way, though. If there are arguments why the old way is actually better – three readings are too hard to understand, having the same readings every year rather than a multi-year cycle helps them sink in better – then let’s hear those. But please, not the argument that the EF somehow has more of the Old Testament that the OF. When you’re reduced to padding out a list with such items as “More explicit reference to Isaiah and the burning coal,” it might be time to switch tack and start evaluating the issue on the merits.

EDIT: I’ve logged back on here to make it clear, Canto, that I’m not accusing you of being a partisan or thinking you’re fighting a war. I’m speaking rather to the general attitude of those I’ve often seen making similar arguments: the attitude that one must defend to the death the practice, e.g., of having the Last Gospel after the Ite Missa Est, for fear that if one acknowledged it was out of out of order and, anyway, just an artifact of a comparatively late-developed liturgical accretion, you’d have let down all the martyrs who gave their lives to defend the Mass of the Ages – or, at any rate, you’d have given the other “side” some ammunition to use in the “war.” I haven’t sensed that that’s your attitude at all, of course. I was trying to make more general remarks.