Would Traditional Catholics Be Pleased If EF Adopted OF Calendar And Lectionary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dempsey1919
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dempsey1919

Guest
It has been suggested that the Gregorian Rite may adopt the Calender and Lectionary of the Ordinary Form. As traditional Catholics, do you welcome this change? Or would you prefer to keep the old Calendar and Lectionary?

I have often thought that it would be more convenient if all Masses of the Roman rite had a common calendar and the same lectionary. How do other traditionalists feel about this issue?
 
If the EF adopts the calendar and lectionary of the OF, hell will be raised.

It would be simply ridiculous.

If anything, the EF calendar should replace the OF calendar.

The EF’s is superior.
 
If the EF adopts the calendar and lectionary of the OF, hell will be raised.

Why would this cause people to “raise hell?”
It would be simply ridiculous.
Click to expand...
If anything, the EF calendar should replace the OF calendar.
Click to expand...
The EF’s is superior.
Click to expand...
Would you explain why you think the EF calendar is superior?

For one thing, I think the EF calendar should be updated to include Saints that have been canonised since 1962.
 
BayernAnhaenger said:
If the EF adopts the calendar and lectionary of the OF, hell will be raised.

It would be simply ridiculous.

If anything, the EF calendar should replace the OF calendar.

The EF’s is superior.
Click to expand...
What are the differences between the two? Are the scripture readings different, even for feast days? I am completely ignorant to the difference and have been wondering about this. Any comparison between the two would be much appreciated.
 
Whatever Mother Church makes, her children must respect and accept.
 
Whatever Mother Church makes, her children must respect and accept.
Click to expand...
This is very true regarding faith and morals. However, it doesn’t prevent us from discussing liturgical issues.

Many within the Church mistakenly taught that the Tridentine Mass had been abrogated and suppressed. In fact, some Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests were very hostile towards the Tridentine Mass and actively prevented its celebration within their dioceses. The faithful who attended the Tridentine Mass were lead to believe that they were disobedient to Holy Mother Church for continuing to do so. This was clearly wrong. Traditionalists always had the right to attend the Tridentine Mass, despite what many of the clergy said.

What point am I trying to make?

Basically, that we are not wrong for discussing liturgical issues and voicing our legitimate concerns. Granted, we must always accept what the Church teaches regarding faith and morals. But we should not feel disobedient for doing something (attending the Tridentine Mass and using the old Caldendar even when they were supposedly banned) that does not contravene the doctrines of the faith. The actions of Pope Benedict prove this to be true.
 
Eucharisted said:
Whatever Mother Church makes, her children must respect and accept.
Click to expand...
Agreed but since the OP is looking for opinion… 😃

I would like to see the EF adopt, at least partially the expanded set of readings. I don’t know if adding a second reading before the Gospel is such a great idea but I love the greater amount of the Bible we hear at Mass in the OF and think it might be a good thing if the Gospel, at least, was the same in both for any given Sunday.

As for the calendar, I would not like to see the loss of the many other holy days and memorials and minor seasons (I don’t know if thats the right word) in the EF calendar.

But neither the calendar or the readings are what draws me to the EF. I would be pleased as well as accepting of whatever the Church decides.
 
Well the specific question asked in the OP is we if we would be pleased. In answer to that, no.
 
Speaking as a traditional Eastern Christian, I feel that both forms of the Roman Rite should be preserved in their integrity.

This includes the differeing lectionaries.
 
you know, I’m going to be honest…I don’t really have an opinion. But I tell you, the EF readings are much richer in the OT than the NO is.
 
Dempsey1919 said:
It has been suggested that the Gregorian Rite may adopt the Calender and Lectionary of the Ordinary Form. As traditional Catholics, do you welcome this change? Or would you prefer to keep the old Calendar and Lectionary?

I have often thought that it would be more convenient if all Masses of the Roman rite had a common calendar and the same lectionary. How do other traditionalists feel about this issue?
Click to expand...
The OF Lectionary is ok. Covering more Scripture is not a bad thing. But, in my experience you just have most Catholics familiar with 3 times as much Scripture 1/3 as well. But, if it is a necessity to have the OF and the EF use the same Lectionary (and there is no good reason why they have to be) then the OF Lectionary may not be the best choice.

VII called for an expanded 3 year cycle of Readings. Well enough so far. But, it did not necessarily call for a 1 yr cycle of Readings largely used for over a thousand years to just be tossed out.

We have a cycle of Readings that largely helped to form countless Saints. Why not add an OT Reading (on those days when there isn’t one) and then if it is really necessary call that Year A and come up with some alternate Readings for years B and C? That way you preserve something that is (or should be) very precious to the Church and still expand the Readings a bit.

When it comes to the Calendar itself then the EF Calendar has some things on the OF Calendar. First off, Ordinary Times should go. We should revert back to Time after Epiphany and Time after Pentecost. None of the Eastern Catholic Churches use “Ordiany” Time to my knowledge. The ones I have visited have used Time after Epiphany and Time after Pentecost.

Next, there is Septuagesima. I love the 3 week preparation for Lent. It is incredibly distinct from “Ordinary” Time. It is a beautiful mini-season.

When it comes to Feast Days a whole bunch of Saints were pretty arbitrarily assigned new Feast Days by Bugnini. Overall, it doesn’t matter much which Feast Day is chosen. The exception to that would be Christ the King. It just makes more sense to have it on the last Sunday in October than the last Sunday in “Ordinary” TIme.

On the last Sunday in October you have a Feast acknowleding Christ as King. A few days later we celebrate All Saints and then All Souls. There seems to be a moment of perfect catechetics in the Liturgical year - we must acknowledge Christ as King first and then we can become Saints. Not the other way around.

There is also the fact that the whole of the Roman Rite (and not just parishes using the EF) would be celebrating Jesus Christ as King on the same Sunday that many Protestant Churches were celebrating Martin Luther on Reformation Day. And I think that would say a lot.

Nothing scholarly. Just a few thoughts from someone who has quite a bit of experience with both form of the Mass.

James
 
bpbasilphx said:
Speaking as a traditional Eastern Christian, I feel that both forms of the Roman Rite should be preserved in their integrity.

This includes the differeing lectionaries.
Click to expand...
I think I agree with this. I just don’t see a compelling reason why it is necessary to integrate them.

James
 
franklinf said:
What are the differences between the two? Are the scripture readings different, even for feast days? I am completely ignorant to the difference and have been wondering about this. Any comparison between the two would be much appreciated.
Click to expand...
Very different.

First the Liturgical Seasons are a bit different between the two.

Second, in the OF (on Sundays) there is (for the most part) an OT Reading, a Psalm, a NT Reading, and a Gospel.
In the EF there is a NT Reading (for the most part), a Psalm, and the Gospel.

Third, the OF has a 3 yr cycle of Sunday Readings. The EF has a 1 yr cycle much like the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Fourth, the OF has a 2 yr cycle of daily Readings. Or the Readings for a particular Saint may be used. In the EF there is no cycle of daily Readings. The Readings for the Feast of the Saint are used.

In addition to that in the EF there are sentences of Scripture used in other places as well - an Entrance Antiphon, an Offeretory Antiphon, and a Communion Antiphon.
In theory the Entrance Antiphon and Communion Antiphon can be used in the OF as well but in practice you are usually hard pressed to find a parish that does no replace these two with hymns.

Here is the 3 year OF cycle of Sunday Readings A | **(“http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/1998USL-OrdinaryB.htm”) | C This is just Ordianry Time. You can find more here. And the EF cycle of Sunday Readings for comparison.

And now some statitics:
If you were to attend the OF every day for a 3 year period you would hear approximately 71.5% of the NT and 13.5% of the OT. Just on Sundays it would be 40.8% NT and 3.7% OT.

In the EF every year it would be 16.5% of the NT and 1% of the OT. (it is a Catholic urban legend that you hear all of the Bible in Mass over a 3 yr period)

Lectionary Statistics

Hope this helps a bit.

James
 
Dempsey1919 said:
It has been suggested that the Gregorian Rite may adopt the Calender and Lectionary of the Ordinary Form. As traditional Catholics, do you welcome this change? Or would you prefer to keep the old Calendar and Lectionary?

I have often thought that it would be more convenient if all Masses of the Roman rite had a common calendar and the same lectionary. How do other traditionalists feel about this issue?
Click to expand...
I prefer the EF calendar. I like each Archangel having his own feast day. Plus the EF calendar is easier to follow for traditional Catholics. Plus the OF Lectionary would have to have the Douay Rheims translation. The NAB and it’s use in the OF Mass, is horrible. Most traditional Catholics don’t care for the NAB translation or any other inclusive translation for that matter, but the USCCB keep on forcing it down Catholics throats in the US. Just one more reason I hate the OF Mass.
 
Pope Benedict has actually suggested that the propers for the new Saints canonized since 1962 be integrated into the EF Calendar. Such an action would constitute a more organic development of the EF liturgy.
 
porthos11 said:
Pope Benedict has actually suggested that the propers for the new Saints canonized since 1962 be integrated into the EF Calendar. Such an action would constitute a more organic development of the EF liturgy.
Click to expand...
I don’t know the specifics of it, but a lot of talk about the “need to update” the EF calendar to take account of new saints is misplaced because people often think one simply can’t celebrate new saints with the old calendar. But there has never been a need to issue a new calendar every time a saint is canonized; rather, the saint gets a day and a rank and people go from there. The real meaty problem would only come with conflicting ranks or something like that, not the bare possibility of celebrating. In my experience priests using the OF rarely make use of the option to use the mass of the memorial anyway, so the OF isn’t really using the new saints either. (If I had a dollar for every day I’ve been excited to honor a saint’s day at Mass only to find a priest in green vestments who makes no mention whatsoever of the person we could be celebrating).

With that prelimary aside, then, this traditionalist thinks the EF year is far richer through such features as Septuagesima, Ember and Rogation days, and vigils (real vigils, that is, proper Masses for the day before a solemnity). Thus I would not appreciate losing that richness to the streamlined life of the OF calendar.

As for readings, the OF lectionary is bloated. A three-year lectionary may have a mandate, but it’s just too much, and the extra Sunday reading is typically ill-synched and leads to too much material to digest. The idea of a weekday cycle has its merits, to enrich what at some times becomes a very repetitive tour through feriae and a few commons, but I think repetition on a few verses over the course of the year is also very valuable. I’ve seen the way the repetition of the EF lections has slowly formed my thought over the last few years such that various situations or concepts call to mind the Scriptures offered for my reflection in the liturgy. The previous two decades with different fare every day (and during college I heard the vast majority of that!) simply didn’t manage the same feat. So if I had to choose between the possible enrichment from a daily lectionary and the anchor of a one-year cycle, I would opt for the one-year cycle any day. Long story short - OF lectionary also gets a thumbs down.
 
Andreas_Hofer said:
I don’t know the specifics of it, but a lot of talk about the “need to update” the EF calendar to take account of new saints is misplaced because people often think one simply can’t celebrate new saints with the old calendar. But there has never been a need to issue a new calendar every time a saint is canonized; rather, the saint gets a day and a rank and people go from there. The real meaty problem would only come with conflicting ranks or something like that, not the bare possibility of celebrating. In my experience priests using the OF rarely make use of the option to use the mass of the memorial anyway, so the OF isn’t really using the new saints either. (If I had a dollar for every day I’ve been excited to honor a saint’s day at Mass only to find a priest in green vestments who makes no mention whatsoever of the person we could be celebrating).

With that prelimary aside, then, this traditionalist thinks the EF year is far richer through such features as Septuagesima, Ember and Rogation days, and vigils (real vigils, that is, proper Masses for the day before a solemnity). Thus I would not appreciate losing that richness to the streamlined life of the OF calendar.

As for readings, the OF lectionary is bloated. A three-year lectionary may have a mandate, but it’s just too much, and the extra Sunday reading is typically ill-synched and leads to too much material to digest. The idea of a weekday cycle has its merits, to enrich what at some times becomes a very repetitive tour through feriae and a few commons, but I think repetition on a few verses over the course of the year is also very valuable. I’ve seen the way the repetition of the EF lections has slowly formed my thought over the last few years such that various situations or concepts call to mind the Scriptures offered for my reflection in the liturgy. The previous two decades with different fare every day (and during college I heard the vast majority of that!) simply didn’t manage the same feat. So if I had to choose between the possible enrichment from a daily lectionary and the anchor of a one-year cycle, I would opt for the one-year cycle any day. Long story short - OF lectionary also gets a thumbs down.
Click to expand...
True.
 
My preference is the EF calender; however, I would like to see some more modern feasts added in, such as Divine Mercy Sunday.
 
Andreas_Hofer said:
With that prelimary aside, then, this traditionalist thinks the EF year is far richer through such features as Septuagesima, Ember and Rogation days, and vigils (real vigils, that is, proper Masses for the day before a solemnity). Thus I would not appreciate losing that richness to the streamlined life of the OF calendar.
Click to expand...
Absolutely! Ordinary time indeed…oooof :mad:

Here are some interesting quotes on the topic:

But what possible advantage can be gained for the pastoral care of the faithful by changing the feast days of the saints in the Church calendar, changing the way of counting Sundays during the liturgical year, or even changing the words of Consecration? What possible advantage can be gained by introducing a completely new Order of Readings and abolishing the old one, or by making minor and unimportant adjustments to the traditional rite, and then finally, by publishing a new Missal? Was all this really done because of a pastoral concern about the souls of the faithful, or did it not rather represent a radical breach with the traditional rite, to prevent the further use of traditional liturgical texts and thus to make the celebration of the ‘Tridentine Mass’ impossible—because it no longer reflected the new spirit moving through the Church? (Msgr. Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, p. 99-100.)

The new assignment of the feasts of saints in the Church calendar published at the very outset of the liturgical reforms, a completely unnecessary and radical change, only served to alienate the faithful. (Ibid.)

One of the weaknesses of the postconciliar liturgical reform can doubtless be traced to the armchair strategy of academics, drawing up things on paper which, in fact, would presuppose years of organic growth. The most blatant example of this is the reform of the Calendar: those responsible simply did not realize how much the various annual feasts had influenced Christian people’s relation to time. In redistributing these established feasts throughout the year according to some historical arithmetic—inconsistently applied at that—they ignored a fundamental law of religious life. (J. Ratzinger, Feast of Faith. pp. 81-82.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top