Why no OT readings at EF?

[Canto]

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.

Well said!! but the Isaiah bit is very pertinent. Why the need to dilute the explicitness of the OT reference in the OF?

I actually would like to see (as an option) the Collect, Secret and Post Communion in English and the Canon soft not silent for the EF

The point of my table was to show there is OT at the EF and that some is diluted or optional int the OF. One poster noted “so-called “EF” Mass did not consider the OT as important” which my comparison shows otherwise.

In my table I pointed out that some bits were just one verse so it’s not as if I was claiming it had a whole massive quotes, but just to show that it’s there.

 

[MarkThompson]

Well said! but the Isaiah bit is very pertinent. Why the need to dilute the explicitness of the OT reference in the OF?

I actually would like to see (as an option) the Collect, Secret and Post Communion in English and the Canon soft not silent for the EF

The point of my table was to show there is OT at the EF and that some is diluted or optional int the OF. One poster noted “so-called “EF” Mass did not consider the OT as impirtant” which may comparison shows otherwise.

I see you posted before I finished adding my edit paragraph above, so I’m glad you didn’t take it in the spirit I was hoping you wouldn’t.

I’ve got to go, but briefly:

1. I don’t know of any reason to change the reference to Isaiah at all.
2. To me, the simplest thing that ought to be done (allowed under SP) is to omit the inaudible, irrelevant Latin reading or chanting of the Epistle and Gospel, which no one can hear or understand, and has to be repeated anyway at a bizarre, aliturgical moment (the homily!). God knows the Bible, you don’t have to read it toward the altar.
3. Good to know about your table. I agree that the EF doesn’t fail to “take the OT seriously,” but at the same time the way in which it treats the OT is qualitatively very, very distinct from the issue of adding a specially-chosen OT reading every Sunday.

 

[LilyM]

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.

But since most of the OT is never recited in the EF at all, being neither in the prayers nor the lectionary, you have no chance to take it in, regardless of whether it’s difficult or easy to do so.

So that argument is a totally moot point.

 

[Canto]

But since most of the OT is never recited in the EF at all, being neither in the prayers nor the lectionary, you have no chance to take it in, regardless of whether it’s difficult or easy to do so.

So that argument is a totally moot point.

What do you mean by “neither in the prayers”?

The OT is in the Entrance, Offertory and Communion Antiphons, called Chants in the OF rubrics, which change each Mass for example.

If it’s difficult to take in all that scripture, might it not be better to have fewer readings.

BTW, as you know, people can always read the OT outside of Mass.

 

[LilyM]

What do you mean by “neither in the prayers”?

The OT is in the Entrance, Offertory and Communion Antihpons, called Chants in the OF rubrics, which change each Mass for example.

Yes, but as you point out those antiphons/chants are present in the OF too. So altogether the OF has a much higher proportion of Old Testament scripture in it because of the addition of the readings.

Out of interest, I wonder how many people would be able to remember well the OT readings from the last few times they went to Mass?

About the same proportion as would remember well the New Testament reading (called the Epistle in the EF, I believe) from their last few Masses.

BTW, as you know, people can always read the OT outside of Mass.

AND the New Testament AND the Gospels, of course - so why read the NT or the Gospels in Mass and neglect the OT?

 

[Canto]

Yes, but as you point out those antiphons/chants are present in the OF too. So altogether the OF has a much higher proportion of Old Testament scripture in it because of the addition of the readings.

The thing is these chants can be replaced in the OF by Gather Us In and Ashes and other songs with questionable lyrics. Aside from going to St Mary’s Cathedral in Sydney occasionally, I have never heard these antiphons/chants sung.

About the same proportion as would remember well the New Testament reading (called the Epistle in the EF, I believe) from their last few Masses.

So what does this say about the OF with two readings, not one, before the gospel?

Do we carry on with more scripture, or less more tailored scripture.

Sorry for changing my post btw.

AND the New Testament AND the Gospels, of course - so why bother with any readings at all?

Scripture for feast days etc relates specifically to the occasion and inspires, informs and educates the faithful.

 

[LilyM]

The thing is these chants can be replaced in the OF by Gather Us In and Ashes and other songs with questionable lyrics. Aside from going to St Mary’s Cathedral in Sydney occasionally, I have never heard these antiphons/chants sung.

St Benedict’s in Broadway sings them - I used to go there (yup, I’m a Sydneysider)

So what does this say about the OF with two readings, not one, before the gospel?

That having two readings before the Gospel doesn’t make people one iota less likely to remember them than if there is only one

Do we carry on with more scripture, or less more tailored scripture.

That’s like saying a wedding dress with a lot of material in it must, of necessity, therefore be less tailored than a bikini with only a little material in it. Anyone who knows tailoring knows it simply isn’t so.

The scripture of the OF is every bit as tailored as the EF - the OT readings are carefully chosen to complement and reiterate the themes of the Psalm, NT and Gospel.

Let’s take a hypothetical example -
OT Reading: Melchisidech the priest offering bread and wine.
NT Epistle: St Paul recounts the Last Supper.
Gospel: The actual Last Supper.

Why would that sequence of readings be any more difficult to remember than if it were simply St Paul’s account paired with the Gospel account? The thematic link between the three is very strong and it would be very easy to remember either way, but IMHO has the added richness of reflecting on the continuities of the priesthood as presented in OT and the priesthood of the NT.

Scripture for feast days etc relates specifically to the occasion and inspires, informs and educates the faithful.

So … you’re saying the OT isn’t scripture? That doesn’t suit some occasions and can’t always inspire, inform and educate the faithful? And therefore isn’t worth reading at Mass alongside the NT and Gospels?

Remember St Paul telling Timothy that scripture is good for reproof etc etc etc? He wasn’t referring to the Gospels when he said that, they hadn’t been written yet. Nor to most of the rest of the NT either, for the same reason. So the OT is incredibly valuable.

And St Jerome said ‘ignorance of the SCRIPTURES (meaning not just the NT, but the OT as well) is ignorance of Christ’. Why not do all we can to cure that ignorance?

St Augustine said ‘the New (Testament) is in the Old concealed, the Old (Testament) is in the New revealed’ - he wouldn’t have been half the theologian (or saint) that he was without his thorough familiarity with Old as well as New Testaments.

It can only be to our advantage to hear the Old Testament foreshadowings of the New - there are so many wonderful resonances it’s awe-inspiring.

 

[Canto]

St Benedict’s in Broadway sings them - I used to go there (yup, I’m a Sydneysider)

Is St Benedict’s indicative of your average OF parish?

So … you’re saying the OT isn’t scripture? That doesn’t suit some occasions and can’t always inspire, inform and educate the faithful? And therefore isn’t worth reading at Mass alongside the NT and Gospels?

Nope. Was noting that Scripture EF or OF is specifically tailored. So that’s why we should bother with Scripture at Mass.

 

[LilyM]

Is St Benedict’s indicative of your average OF parish?

No, never said it was - just that if you’re a local and you want to hear it, that’s another place you can go.

Nope. Was noting that Scripture EF or OF is specifically tailored. So that’s why we should bother with Scripture at Mass.

Uh huh. Still doesn’t explain why the EF is so radically different from the OF that OT readings can’t be ‘specifically tailored’ to the EF as well as the OF.

 

[Canto]

No, never said it was - just that if you’re a local and you want to hear it, that’s another place you can go.:

Will have to make the trip and visit one of these days. Thanks Beats another Sunday of Gather us in (sorry but I can’t stand that song and it’s unknowing swipe at the heavenly liturgy).

Uh huh. Still doesn’t explain why the EF is so radically different from the OF that OT readings can’t be ‘specifically tailored’ to the EF as well as the OF.

Some OT readings are tailored. Also the OF Lectionary can be used at the EF as has been pointed out.

**Doubts About the Three-Year Cycle, 2010 **
newliturgicalmovement.org/2010/01/doubts-about-three-year-calendar.html

 

[ProVobis]

And what is the point of this thread? To demonstrate that those Masses which have expanded readings of the OT are more valuable than the Masses with short readings of the OT or none at all?

It seems the very first thing happening to the Mass after Vatican II was the suppression of Psalm 42. And then Psalm 26 a little later. What was the purpose of that if not to denigrate the Old Testament’s connection with the Catholic liturgy?

 

[japhy]

The scripture of the OF is every bit as tailored as the EF - the OT readings are carefully chosen to complement and reiterate the themes of the Psalm, NT and Gospel.

Let’s take a hypothetical example -
OT Reading: Melchisidech the priest offering bread and wine.
NT Epistle: St Paul recounts the Last Supper.
Gospel: The actual Last Supper.

That example is only valid on feast days. Most Sundays throughout the year, the 2nd reading is not thematically related to the First Reading or the Gospel. It is simply sequentially taken from the NT epistles.

 

[malphono]

As I’ve said before in other threads, personally I see no problem with restoring a specifically OT reading to the EF, though I would prefer if it were done within the framework of the EF itself. That is to say, I’d prefer an OT reading be added to the EF rather than importing the OF lectionary. The EF cycle of readings compliments the EF calendar, and to import the OF lectionary would, IMO, be a disservice to the EF.

And what is the point of this thread? To demonstrate that those Masses which have expanded readings of the OT are more valuable than the Masses with short readings of the OT or none at all?

So it is beginning to seem.

It seems the very first thing happening to the Mass after Vatican II was the suppression of Psalm 42. And then Psalm 26 a little later. What was the purpose of that if not to denigrate the Old Testament’s connection with the Catholic liturgy?

Don’t get me wrong: I have nothing against Psalm 42 or its use at Mass per se, but I don’t know that I’d carry the argument that far. One has to keep in mind that Psalm 42 was never used in a Requiem, e.g., and from that it is very clear that it was not integral to the Ordinary.

 

[japhy]

It seems the very first thing happening to the Mass after Vatican II was the suppression of Psalm 42. And then Psalm 26 a little later. What was the purpose of that if not to denigrate the Old Testament’s connection with the Catholic liturgy?

I don’t think it was so much the suppression of Psalm 42 and Psalm 26. It was the suppression of the prayers at the foot of the altar (which were once done by the priest beforehand) and the lengthy psalm accompanying a very brief action (washing the hands).

Interestingly, though, Psalm 26 (“I will wash…”), which is quoted even by St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his mystagogical catecheses of the 4th century, was replaced with Psalm 51 (“Lord, wash…”).

 

[malphono]

I don’t think it was so much the suppression of Psalm 42 and Psalm 26. It was the suppression of the prayers at the foot of the altar (which were once done by the priest beforehand) and the lengthy psalm accompanying a very brief action (washing the hands).

As I recall, though, it was only Psalm 42 that was suppressed in the “interim Missal” of 1965.

As an aside, and not to derail the thread, the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar are analogous to the Prayers Before the Holy Doors in the Byzantine liturgy (as well as the equivalent in the Syriac liturgies). True, they were originally done just before the start of the formal “public liturgy” but not as “sacristy devotions” as is often claimed.

Interestingly, though, Psalm 26 (“I will wash…”), which is quoted even by St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his mystagogical catecheses of the 4th century, was replaced with Psalm 51 (“Lord, wash…”).

It seems to me that S Cyril was right. Going from there, the substitution (or rather, replacement) of Psalm 26 (lavabo) with Psalm 51 (miserere) would therefore seem to me to be misplaced. The miserere indeed speaks of washing, but it is in a passive sense. FWLIW, the traditional Byzantine and Syriac liturgies both use (at least part of) Psalm 26 for the washing of hands.

 

[japhy]

As I recall, though, it was only Psalm 42 that was suppressed in the “interim Missal” of 1965.

Right you are; I stand corrected.

True, they were originally done just before the start of the formal “public liturgy” but not as “sacristy devotions” as is often claimed.

Do you have a source for this? The Old Catholic Encyclopedia says that they were, indeed, prayed in the sacristy: “The latest additions to the Mass are its present beginning and end. The psalm Iudica me, the Confession, and the other prayers said at the foot of the altar, are all part of the celebrant’s preparation, once said (with many other psalms and prayers) in the sacristy, as the Præparatio ad Missam in the Missal now is. There was great diversity as to this preparation till Pius V established our modern rule of saying so much only before the altar.”

It seems to me that S Cyril was right. Going from there, the substitution (or rather, replacement) of Psalm 26 (lavabo) with Psalm 51 (miserere) would therefore seem to me to be misplaced. The miserere indeed speaks of washing, but it is in a passive sense.

There is different tone between Psalm 51:2 and Psalm 26:6. In the former, it is God Who washes: “Wash me, O Lord…” In the latter, it is the priest who washes: “I wash my hands…” While Psalm 26 is about recognizing the call to holiness and the importance of purity in exercising the priestly office, Psalm 51 is about admitting failure to live up to that holiness and purity. Psalm 26 contrasts the hands of the faithful priest with those of evildoers, “in whose hands are evil devices, and whose right hands are full of bribes.” (Ps. 26:10) The Extraordinary Form prayer does not imply that the priest is a faultless man who has no need of the mercy of God: the prayer ends by beseeching God, “Redeem me, and have mercy on me.” (Ps. 26:11)

The point of both prayers is that, just as the holy sacrifice about to be offered is pure and spotless, so too the priest and people offering that sacrifice should be holy and without blemish. Of course, this state of sanctity does not come from ourselves, but from God.

 

[malphono]

Do you have a source for this? The Old Catholic Encyclopedia says that they were, indeed, prayed in the sacristy: “The latest additions to the Mass are its present beginning and end. The psalm Iudica me, the Confession, and the other prayers said at the foot of the altar, are all part of the celebrant’s preparation, once said (with many other psalms and prayers) in the sacristy, as the Præparatio ad Missam in the Missal now is. There was great diversity as to this preparation till Pius V established our modern rule of saying so much only before the altar.”

Not handy, no. Sorry. But, with the exception of Psalm 42 (which, since it was never prayed at Requiems, etc, isn’t integral anyway and was likely a “sacristy devotion”), the analogy to the Prayers Before the Holy Doors should stand clearly enough on its own. As I mentioned earlier, neither is per se part of the “public liturgy” but yet both are done in the presence of the faithful. I would further suggest that the use of the words “Introibo ad altare Dei…” itself lends credence to its “semi public” nature. (It’s also interesting to note that all the surviving Western Rites (except those proprietary to religious Orders) use similar formulae.)

There is different tone between Psalm 51:2 and Psalm 26:6. In the former, it is God Who washes: “Wash me, O Lord…” In the latter, it is the priest who washes: “I wash my hands…” While Psalm 26 is about recognizing the call to holiness and the importance of purity in exercising the priestly office, Psalm 51 is about admitting failure to live up to that holiness and purity. Psalm 26 contrasts the hands of the faithful priest with those of evildoers, “in whose hands are evil devices, and whose right hands are full of bribes.” (Ps. 26:10) The Extraordinary Form prayer does not imply that the priest is a faultless man who has no need of the mercy of God: the prayer ends by beseeching God, “Redeem me, and have mercy on me.” (Ps. 26:11)

The point of both prayers is that, just as the holy sacrifice about to be offered is pure and spotless, so too the priest and people offering that sacrifice should be holy and without blemish. Of course, this state of sanctity does not come from ourselves, but from God.

All true, but I have to say the theme of Psalm 26 looks to me to be far closer to the point. The ritual cleansing of unworthy hands in the lavabo is an active gesture, whereas in the miserere the plea for cleansing is passive. It seems to be interpreted that way by the East and Orient, as well as the surviving non-Roman Western Rites, too. I’ve nothing against the miserere (heaven knows it’s used quite a lot precisely as a plea for forgiveness by the Syriac Churches ), but IMHO I just don’t think it quite fits the bill for the particular circumstance at hand.

 

[LilyM]

That example is only valid on feast days. Most Sundays throughout the year, the 2nd reading is not thematically related to the First Reading or the Gospel. It is simply sequentially taken from the NT epistles.

Not so. Look at this weekend’s readings (an ordinary Sunday) - the following quotes show that they very much have a common thread running through them.

First reading from Sirach - ‘the more humble you are, the more you will find favour with God’.

Psalm - ‘God gives a home to the forsaken, he leads forth prisoners to prosperity’ (ie God helps the humble)

Second reading from Hebrews - ‘Brothers and sisters, you have not approached that which could not be touched …’ (ie you have been humble in your conduct)

Gospel - ‘everyone who humbles himself will be exalted’.

They fit together perfectly well thematically.

 

[AJV]

Not so. Look at this weekend’s readings (an ordinary Sunday) - the following quotes show that they very much have a common thread running through them.

First reading from Sirach - ‘the more humble you are, the more you will find favour with God’.

Psalm - ‘God gives a home to the forsaken, he leads forth prisoners to prosperity’ (ie God helps the humble)

Second reading from Hebrews - ‘Brothers and sisters, you have not approached that which could not be touched …’ (ie you have been humble in your conduct)

Gospel - ‘everyone who humbles himself will be exalted’.

They fit together perfectly well thematically.

That may be so LilyM, but form the notes of the revisers who prepared the lectionary, japhy is right, and your example is more of a coincidence, in a way. Explicit effort was made to link the OT reading to the Gospel, but not the NT reading.

 

[AJV]

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?

The EF lectionery can be traced from very ancient times and for this reason there are only two readings. Initially (though practise varied across churches), int he earliest centuries, the number of readings was very large. The Gosples were read at an early date, then the Old Testament. An order, which is still retained partially in some of the Oriental Churches reads the OT, then Acts, then the NT (or instead of acts, two Episcles, one from Paul, and nother from a different apostle), and the the Gospel. But in the 5th century, Constantinople abbreviated this order to only two lessons, and this practise was later copied in Rome. However, vigils of feasts and Sundays, and fast days often had more Scripture read. This is why for example, at the Paschal Vigil there were/are so many readings, and likewise in the EF for the Ember days, there are also more readings, many from the Old Testament. With time, of course, the reading of long passages of Scripture was only done at Matins in the Liturgy of the Hours, which vicariously replaced/overlapped/derived from the older Vigils.

Another thing you will observe if you see the EF Sunday/ferial lectionary is that although two readings are prescribed, and the first is called an “Epistle”, it is not always an Epistle but may be from the OT. With very few exceptions, this occurs on all the weekdays of Lent, which are fast days. Again, this is the more ancient custom according to which fasting days, days of preparation, were marked with long readings from the Prophetic lections (as can be observed in the ferial Masses of Lent in the EF) but Sundays, dedicated to the Resurrection, were marked by reading from the “divine dispesation and the teachings of the apostles” which is the New Testament.