|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Sept 9, 2021 4:27:49 GMT
I very much love the African expression of the Eucharist. I have the African Credo on my playlist and relish the joy of belief everytime I hear it. www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLxKgBHCIUMThanks Mercedes for this link. I appreciate very much the uplifting song and the modest but beautiful dress of this group. They were great. This is very nice, thank you for providing this. African-descended people display a unique and exuberant spirituality, and you need go no further than Southern American black gospel music to sense this. It is very beautiful However, it would be a less-than-ideal cultural fit for, let us say, the descendants of Belgian Catholic immigrants to Wisconsin, or Norwegian Lutherans in North Dakota. It'd be a bit jarring to Russian Orthodox worshipers in Moscow as well. Different cultures have different tastes, gifts, and expectations. Individuals within different cultures can have preferences outside the norm for those cultures.
I have said about all I can say on this subject, and I thank everyone for the good, intelligent, charitable discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Sept 9, 2021 7:36:39 GMT
I found more details here: www.udmercy.edu/life/ministry/images/Mass_article.pdfThe Mass was first celebrated in large houses, and the celebrant was a Bishop. It was only when Catholicism was tolerated that separate structures were made and the class of priests emerged. There was an elaborate High Mass, where everything was sung, and a daily Low Mass, where reading usually took place and involved a priest. The private Mass started much later, with monks who were not ordained. There are six general sections of the Mass, and it took around 500 years before they became fixed. They came from earlier practices and are part of both the OF and the EF. The missal was revised multiple times until 1570, and was still revised after that. The Roman Rite used Latin but the other rites used the vernacular, and long before and during the Council of Trent various groups called for the use of vernacular languages. The Council saw no problems with such use but argued that it was not yet time to do so. Communion until the 8th century involved receiving both bread and wine, and some wanted that returned, but the Council rejected it. There were no concelebrations except for ordination of priests. It was only during Vatican II that it was allowed. In short, far from being only new, it turns out that Vatican II uses ideas that turn out to be as old as the Church itself, but also new given many changes in the world. That is, Many Catholics have no access to even chapels and priests due to poverty, never mind guitars and even missals, which is why by the 1980s the idea of basic Christian communities emerged. At the same time, the laity have taken over more roles. What's not mentioned in the short article is that for almost two centuries the Church used only a fraction of the Bible for readings. It was only when reforms were made that the full power of God's Word was exposed to the faithful. And many decades before that, the Church and its faithful had been calling for more readings and study of the Bible, more research and updated translations based on that. The call for the use of the vernacular turns out to be much older than the Council of Trent itself, not to mention many changes made in the Mass and more. That means Vatican II is part of a very long tradition of Church history involving adjustments made in a world that changes constantly. Vatican II, meanwhile, is also new because it confronts a very new world where countries in places like Asia, Africa, South America, and even the Middle east are growing not only in terms of population and economic prowess but even for a growing interest in the Church. That's why, as articles shared earlier show, the massive influx in Church membership is taking place in these regions. Meanwhile, there have been many more new things that have emerged since Vatican I, like the struggle of national democratic fronts worldwide, of nationalism and globalization, of new scientific discoveries and even crises like ecosystem damage, species dieoffs, limits to growth, global warming, soaring debts, massive production and deployment of armaments on a global scale, and so on. The call for better translations of the Bible, more studies of the Bible, more studies of updated catechism that addresses that new world, and even discussions on Church laws, the role of women in the Church, etc., have been taking place. Thus, these points counter many of those claimed in the SSPX page, and even raise points that were not addressed and are of great importance. Again, you provide valuable information, and I appreciate the intelligent discourse and scholarship. I would just raise the following points (not my only concerns, but the ones that come immediately to mind):
There are some who, in the face of the rapidly changing world that you describe, seek a rock of stability and sameness, taking comfort in traditions that speak to many. The TLM provides this. I think it's fair to say that the TLM is an intrinsically European liturgy. It is celebrated (but, as you well note, does not have to be) in an ancient European proto-language, and most European languages have significant roots in Latin, either being derived directly from it, or borrowing heavily. Broadly speaking, there is such a thing as distinctive European cultural sensibilities, among these being more of a sense of the cerebral, the logical, the linear, the sober, the silent, and the solemn. To use a secular example, this is why European classical music does not sound the same as African music or Asian music. One might object that the numbers of European-descended people are declining (thanks to contraception and abortion!), but that does not mean that the European cultural tradition needs just to wither and die, to move over and make way for the huge Global South. That would be, I must dare to say, a kind of "reverse cultural imperialism". It is no more fair to try to make Europeans into Congolese and Filipinos, than it is to make Congolese and Filipinos into Europeans. There aren't many (comparatively speaking) Chaldean Catholics or Italo-Albanian Catholics either. Do we say "there aren't enough of you, your liturgy is a dead liturgy, you're hanging onto a liturgy from a day that has passed, that ship has sailed, put it aside and come on over to the Roman Rite majority"?
- But there is such a thing, as people of one culture, adopting the various ways (including religion) of cultures into which they were born, due to personal differences and diversity. Not a few Westerners become Buddhists and Hindus, a perfect example of the latter being the mother of Tulsi Gabbard, a white American who became a Hindu, and imparted this to her daughter. (Despite her very attractive dark appearance, Tulsi has no known South Asian blood, it's just a coincidence.) And of course there are the many white gentiles who convert to Judaism. It also works the other way around. Many people of the Global South, many people of color, become thoroughly European in their thinking, manners, and lifestyle, through their own free choice.
Just got to say it, a Tridentine missal is no more expensive than a Novus Ordo missal. They might be harder to get, due to economies of scale in printing them, but in and of themselves, they cost the same. I think of the Novus Ordo, with as charitable a face as can be placed upon it, as a critical re-appropriation and re-imagining of what are said to be the best features of various ancient liturgies, and "retro-fitting" them, so to speak, onto the "scaffolding" of the barest essentials of the Roman Rite. Was this kind of wide-ranging "reconstruction" ever done in the history of the Church? Or did liturgies develop (and they did develop) more organically, "almost by accident", you could say? I'm not necessarily saying the "reconstruction" was a bad thing, I just have to wonder if it ever took place before.
As revealed in what was shared, it appears that part of that tradition is change: from Aramaic and common Greek to Latin and the vernacular to Latin as the base for vernacular translations to Aramaic, Ancient Hebrew, and common Greek and Latin as the base for Latin as the base for vernacular translations, from the High and Low Masses to elements found in the EF and the OF to the EF to the OF, from no Bible to a fraction from the Bible to a lot from the Bible, and more.
As, what might be seen as European is so because much of the Church was European. After a century later, it became Asian, African, American, and Middle Eastern, which is notable because the Church was originally Middle Eastern.
If Pope Benedict XVI and others are right, then the early Church was probably also "African," i.e., communal activity, chanting, singing, CITH, and even public confessions. It was also probably very middle Eastern, with a Bible that borrows from ancient Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, Egyptian, Babylonian, and many other cultures.
The implication is that Christianity itself combines so many cultures. That reminds me of one point raised by Harold Bloom which apparently Jews, Christians, and Muslims use to refer to the other two: people of the book.
About dead and living liturgies, what's notable is that if Pope Benedict XVI and others are right, then the OF is actually dead and alive. That is, it uses elements found in the early Church but brings very new things, like mining from much of the Bible, something which the Church learned to promote the hard way because of its Protestant brethen. In which case, what's considered new turns out to be old, but it might also work the other way round: Latin came about because fewer people were familiar with Aramaic and common Greek, and what Latin became common Greek was, and Aramaic, too, as fewer people understood ancient Hebrew. Similarly, Luther and others realized that the only way to reach out to people was to use languages that they understood. Hence, the Bible in German, and then later in English, with one becoming the first translation approved by the Church.
Of course, the goal is not to abandon what is old, which is why the Church is composed of around 24 Churches, and why we have Vatican II, as the Church confronts communities in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and the Americas that are very new but also very old. In this case, though, Pope Benedict XVI wisely brought back an EF that was never abrogated because some miss it, but Pope Francis correctly argued that we shouldn't abandon what is new, too, and that means making full use of the Bible, modern catechism to confront modern problems, and a diversity of languages that has been part of the Church from the beginning.
About costs, I think the Church sees that as a major one because it appears that large numbers of Catholics worldwide have little to no access to Churches, chapels, priests, Bibles, the catechism, Catholic education, and more. And the reason is poverty: they barely have access to even basic needs, like food, medicine, and housing. That's why as one article shared earlier points out, someone had to point out that "elephant in the room."
About retrofitting, etc., I think every point above, points in previous messages, and the recent document shared illustrates that. I think there were even times when many Christians of the early Church had to hide because of persecution, so they celebrated Mass using some of the six elements given if possible. Even in the 1980s, as the idea of basic Christian communities emerged, the Church had to rely more on the laity and probably Mass in the meanest of circumstances.
Finally, maybe it's part of Christianity, too, as there are many passages and events where Jesus illustrates this.
|
|
|
|
Post by StellaMaris on Sept 9, 2021 9:59:44 GMT
Thanks Mercedes for this link. I appreciate very much the uplifting song and the modest but beautiful dress of this group. They were great. This is very nice, thank you for providing this. African-descended people display a unique and exuberant spirituality, and you need go no further than Southern American black gospel music to sense this. It is very beautiful However, it would be a less-than-ideal cultural fit for, let us say, the descendants of Belgian Catholic immigrants to Wisconsin, or Norwegian Lutherans in North Dakota. It'd be a bit jarring to Russian Orthodox worshipers in Moscow as well. Different cultures have different tastes, gifts, and expectations. Individuals within different cultures can have preferences outside the norm for those cultures.
Which is my point. Those cultures aren't trying to push their spiritual expression onto anyone else. They are just expressing in the way they are familiar with and sensitised to. So I say to traditionalists, relish and enjoy your ancient European expression of the Mass, knowing that it is not superior or more Catholic than others. No need to keep banging on about how brilliant it is. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Sept 9, 2021 14:48:14 GMT
Again, you provide valuable information, and I appreciate the intelligent discourse and scholarship. I would just raise the following points (not my only concerns, but the ones that come immediately to mind):
There are some who, in the face of the rapidly changing world that you describe, seek a rock of stability and sameness, taking comfort in traditions that speak to many. The TLM provides this. I think it's fair to say that the TLM is an intrinsically European liturgy. It is celebrated (but, as you well note, does not have to be) in an ancient European proto-language, and most European languages have significant roots in Latin, either being derived directly from it, or borrowing heavily. Broadly speaking, there is such a thing as distinctive European cultural sensibilities, among these being more of a sense of the cerebral, the logical, the linear, the sober, the silent, and the solemn. To use a secular example, this is why European classical music does not sound the same as African music or Asian music. One might object that the numbers of European-descended people are declining (thanks to contraception and abortion!), but that does not mean that the European cultural tradition needs just to wither and die, to move over and make way for the huge Global South. That would be, I must dare to say, a kind of "reverse cultural imperialism". It is no more fair to try to make Europeans into Congolese and Filipinos, than it is to make Congolese and Filipinos into Europeans. There aren't many (comparatively speaking) Chaldean Catholics or Italo-Albanian Catholics either. Do we say "there aren't enough of you, your liturgy is a dead liturgy, you're hanging onto a liturgy from a day that has passed, that ship has sailed, put it aside and come on over to the Roman Rite majority"?
- But there is such a thing, as people of one culture, adopting the various ways (including religion) of cultures into which they were born, due to personal differences and diversity. Not a few Westerners become Buddhists and Hindus, a perfect example of the latter being the mother of Tulsi Gabbard, a white American who became a Hindu, and imparted this to her daughter. (Despite her very attractive dark appearance, Tulsi has no known South Asian blood, it's just a coincidence.) And of course there are the many white gentiles who convert to Judaism. It also works the other way around. Many people of the Global South, many people of color, become thoroughly European in their thinking, manners, and lifestyle, through their own free choice.
Just got to say it, a Tridentine missal is no more expensive than a Novus Ordo missal. They might be harder to get, due to economies of scale in printing them, but in and of themselves, they cost the same. I think of the Novus Ordo, with as charitable a face as can be placed upon it, as a critical re-appropriation and re-imagining of what are said to be the best features of various ancient liturgies, and "retro-fitting" them, so to speak, onto the "scaffolding" of the barest essentials of the Roman Rite. Was this kind of wide-ranging "reconstruction" ever done in the history of the Church? Or did liturgies develop (and they did develop) more organically, "almost by accident", you could say? I'm not necessarily saying the "reconstruction" was a bad thing, I just have to wonder if it ever took place before.
As revealed in what was shared, it appears that part of that tradition is change: from Aramaic and common Greek to Latin and the vernacular to Latin as the base for vernacular translations to Aramaic, Ancient Hebrew, and common Greek and Latin as the base for Latin as the base for vernacular translations, from the High and Low Masses to elements found in the EF and the OF to the EF to the OF, from no Bible to a fraction from the Bible to a lot from the Bible, and more.
As, what might be seen as European is so because much of the Church was European. After a century later, it became Asian, African, American, and Middle Eastern, which is notable because the Church was originally Middle Eastern.
If Pope Benedict XVI and others are right, then the early Church was probably also "African," i.e., communal activity, chanting, singing, CITH, and even public confessions. It was also probably very middle Eastern, with a Bible that borrows from ancient Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, Egyptian, Babylonian, and many other cultures.
The implication is that Christianity itself combines so many cultures. That reminds me of one point raised by Harold Bloom which apparently Jews, Christians, and Muslims use to refer to the other two: people of the book.
About dead and living liturgies, what's notable is that if Pope Benedict XVI and others are right, then the OF is actually dead and alive. That is, it uses elements found in the early Church but brings very new things, like mining from much of the Bible, something which the Church learned to promote the hard way because of its Protestant brethen. In which case, what's considered new turns out to be old, but it might also work the other way round: Latin came about because fewer people were familiar with Aramaic and common Greek, and what Latin became common Greek was, and Aramaic, too, as fewer people understood ancient Hebrew. Similarly, Luther and others realized that the only way to reach out to people was to use languages that they understood. Hence, the Bible in German, and then later in English, with one becoming the first translation approved by the Church.
Of course, the goal is not to abandon what is old, which is why the Church is composed of around 24 Churches, and why we have Vatican II, as the Church confronts communities in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and the Americas that are very new but also very old. In this case, though, Pope Benedict XVI wisely brought back an EF that was never abrogated because some miss it, but Pope Francis correctly argued that we shouldn't abandon what is new, too, and that means making full use of the Bible, modern catechism to confront modern problems, and a diversity of languages that has been part of the Church from the beginning.
About costs, I think the Church sees that as a major one because it appears that large numbers of Catholics worldwide have little to no access to Churches, chapels, priests, Bibles, the catechism, Catholic education, and more. And the reason is poverty: they barely have access to even basic needs, like food, medicine, and housing. That's why as one article shared earlier points out, someone had to point out that "elephant in the room."
About retrofitting, etc., I think every point above, points in previous messages, and the recent document shared illustrates that. I think there were even times when many Christians of the early Church had to hide because of persecution, so they celebrated Mass using some of the six elements given if possible. Even in the 1980s, as the idea of basic Christian communities emerged, the Church had to rely more on the laity and probably Mass in the meanest of circumstances.
Finally, maybe it's part of Christianity, too, as there are many passages and events where Jesus illustrates this.
This is, again, a very intelligent, comprehensive summary, and I found it to be very good reading. I will admit that I have been troubled from time to time, by the relatively small part of Scripture relied upon, year after year, the very same passages, in the Tridentine missal (and I use that arcane term here, to avoid a debate over "what is traditional and what is not") --- though 104 fairly lengthy readings from the New Testament are not a negligible part of the NT. But on the other hand, if one assists at Holy Mass in the Tridentine form every day of the year, that is 364 Masses, plus one liturgy that is not a Mass on Good Friday, and that's a lot of Scripture, though heavily if not totally weighted towards the NT. That, of course, would necessitate living near a TLM location that offers daily Mass, and being able to make it there daily. That's an ideal that relatively few people achieve, whether TLM or Novus Ordo. Sunday/HDO Mass is the bare minimum.
And as a kind of side note, if you attend the traditional Latin liturgies during the Easter Triduum, that is a huge amount of Scripture. I've heard the view expressed before, that despite what you might think, Protestant worship services are really not all that "Bible-intensive" (for lack of a better way to put it), often it is just very narrowly focused readings, relatively short passages, that get preached on and discussed at great length. In terms of sheer amount of Scripture, a Catholic who attends Mass every day, gets a whole lot more than your garden-variety Baptist. (But they still eat our lunch as regards knowledge of Scripture and the time they spend reading it on their own.)
|
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Sept 10, 2021 0:29:09 GMT
As revealed in what was shared, it appears that part of that tradition is change: from Aramaic and common Greek to Latin and the vernacular to Latin as the base for vernacular translations to Aramaic, Ancient Hebrew, and common Greek and Latin as the base for Latin as the base for vernacular translations, from the High and Low Masses to elements found in the EF and the OF to the EF to the OF, from no Bible to a fraction from the Bible to a lot from the Bible, and more.
As, what might be seen as European is so because much of the Church was European. After a century later, it became Asian, African, American, and Middle Eastern, which is notable because the Church was originally Middle Eastern.
If Pope Benedict XVI and others are right, then the early Church was probably also "African," i.e., communal activity, chanting, singing, CITH, and even public confessions. It was also probably very middle Eastern, with a Bible that borrows from ancient Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, Egyptian, Babylonian, and many other cultures.
The implication is that Christianity itself combines so many cultures. That reminds me of one point raised by Harold Bloom which apparently Jews, Christians, and Muslims use to refer to the other two: people of the book.
About dead and living liturgies, what's notable is that if Pope Benedict XVI and others are right, then the OF is actually dead and alive. That is, it uses elements found in the early Church but brings very new things, like mining from much of the Bible, something which the Church learned to promote the hard way because of its Protestant brethen. In which case, what's considered new turns out to be old, but it might also work the other way round: Latin came about because fewer people were familiar with Aramaic and common Greek, and what Latin became common Greek was, and Aramaic, too, as fewer people understood ancient Hebrew. Similarly, Luther and others realized that the only way to reach out to people was to use languages that they understood. Hence, the Bible in German, and then later in English, with one becoming the first translation approved by the Church.
Of course, the goal is not to abandon what is old, which is why the Church is composed of around 24 Churches, and why we have Vatican II, as the Church confronts communities in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and the Americas that are very new but also very old. In this case, though, Pope Benedict XVI wisely brought back an EF that was never abrogated because some miss it, but Pope Francis correctly argued that we shouldn't abandon what is new, too, and that means making full use of the Bible, modern catechism to confront modern problems, and a diversity of languages that has been part of the Church from the beginning.
About costs, I think the Church sees that as a major one because it appears that large numbers of Catholics worldwide have little to no access to Churches, chapels, priests, Bibles, the catechism, Catholic education, and more. And the reason is poverty: they barely have access to even basic needs, like food, medicine, and housing. That's why as one article shared earlier points out, someone had to point out that "elephant in the room."
About retrofitting, etc., I think every point above, points in previous messages, and the recent document shared illustrates that. I think there were even times when many Christians of the early Church had to hide because of persecution, so they celebrated Mass using some of the six elements given if possible. Even in the 1980s, as the idea of basic Christian communities emerged, the Church had to rely more on the laity and probably Mass in the meanest of circumstances.
Finally, maybe it's part of Christianity, too, as there are many passages and events where Jesus illustrates this.
This is, again, a very intelligent, comprehensive summary, and I found it to be very good reading. I will admit that I have been troubled from time to time, by the relatively small part of Scripture relied upon, year after year, the very same passages, in the Tridentine missal (and I use that arcane term here, to avoid a debate over "what is traditional and what is not") --- though 104 fairly lengthy readings from the New Testament are not a negligible part of the NT. But on the other hand, if one assists at Holy Mass in the Tridentine form every day of the year, that is 364 Masses, plus one liturgy that is not a Mass on Good Friday, and that's a lot of Scripture, though heavily if not totally weighted towards the NT. That, of course, would necessitate living near a TLM location that offers daily Mass, and being able to make it there daily. That's an ideal that relatively few people achieve, whether TLM or Novus Ordo. Sunday/HDO Mass is the bare minimum.
And as a kind of side note, if you attend the traditional Latin liturgies during the Easter Triduum, that is a huge amount of Scripture. I've heard the view expressed before, that despite what you might think, Protestant worship services are really not all that "Bible-intensive" (for lack of a better way to put it), often it is just very narrowly focused readings, relatively short passages, that get preached on and discussed at great length. In terms of sheer amount of Scripture, a Catholic who attends Mass every day, gets a whole lot more than your garden-variety Baptist. (But they still eat our lunch as regards knowledge of Scripture and the time they spend reading it on their own.)
The source I used to explain this point in another thread is "The Bible and Liturgy" by Irene Nowell, O.S.B. She wrote that the lectionary before Vatican II had only one cycle repeated every year. It consisted of two readings: from the NT letters and from the gospel. There was only one OT reading on the feast of the Epiphany.
Except for the weeks of Lent, Easter, and Pentecost, there was no daily lectionary. Instead, the reading from Sunday was used repeatedly except if there was a special occasion.
The change to the lectionary of 1970 was massive: three cycles with gospel readings from Matthew, Mark, and Luke for each of the cycles, with each gospel read virtually from beginning to end, and fit as part of "semi-continuous reading" for 34 Sundays of Ordinary Time, with a first reading from the OT that complements it in terms of theme. That plus the psalm and the second reading (from the NT letters and also read in a semi-continuous manner) are meant to encourage the listener and reader to experience the impact of the gospel reading.
As for the major seasons, the gospel readings were selected to fit their respective themes. There are too many points to share about that, and I've been repeating my points constantly across multiple threads, so I'll leave it up to forum members to read my other posts to find out. Also, try the essay just mentioned (it's published in the _Little Rock Catholic Study Bible_ together with many others), as well as the introduction to the _Lectionary for Mass_ (1998).
As for Protestants, one thing that the Church realized, and hopefully not too late, is that the Bible is an important collection, and Catholics have been neglecting it for so long. That's explained in the changes made to the lectionary, Vatican II, _Dei Verbum_, and more, and involved a process spanning several decades. This explains why, according to Ronald Witherup, S.S., the Church was largly unaware of the key role Protestant scholars played in promoting professional studies of the Bible, and because of that, formed a Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1902. That was part of multiple documents involved, esp. the need for Scriptural study (1893), the promotion of that (1943), discussing the historical truth of the Bible (1964), _Dei Verbum_ (1965), and beyond.
So, if what took place before 1970 is huge, then what took place after that is really huge, and in more ways than most imagine. And I get this feeling that one reason why they can't imagine that is that they never got to read the documents that came from Vatican II and understood what changes took place and why.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Sept 10, 2021 1:48:12 GMT
This is, again, a very intelligent, comprehensive summary, and I found it to be very good reading. I will admit that I have been troubled from time to time, by the relatively small part of Scripture relied upon, year after year, the very same passages, in the Tridentine missal (and I use that arcane term here, to avoid a debate over "what is traditional and what is not") --- though 104 fairly lengthy readings from the New Testament are not a negligible part of the NT. But on the other hand, if one assists at Holy Mass in the Tridentine form every day of the year, that is 364 Masses, plus one liturgy that is not a Mass on Good Friday, and that's a lot of Scripture, though heavily if not totally weighted towards the NT. That, of course, would necessitate living near a TLM location that offers daily Mass, and being able to make it there daily. That's an ideal that relatively few people achieve, whether TLM or Novus Ordo. Sunday/HDO Mass is the bare minimum.
And as a kind of side note, if you attend the traditional Latin liturgies during the Easter Triduum, that is a huge amount of Scripture. I've heard the view expressed before, that despite what you might think, Protestant worship services are really not all that "Bible-intensive" (for lack of a better way to put it), often it is just very narrowly focused readings, relatively short passages, that get preached on and discussed at great length. In terms of sheer amount of Scripture, a Catholic who attends Mass every day, gets a whole lot more than your garden-variety Baptist. (But they still eat our lunch as regards knowledge of Scripture and the time they spend reading it on their own.)
The source I used to explain this point in another thread is "The Bible and Liturgy" by Irene Nowell, O.S.B. She wrote that the lectionary before Vatican II had only one cycle repeated every year. It consisted of two readings: from the NT letters and from the gospel. There was only one OT reading on the feast of the Epiphany.
Except for the weeks of Lent, Easter, and Pentecost, there was no daily lectionary. Instead, the reading from Sunday was used repeatedly except if there was a special occasion.
The change to the lectionary of 1970 was massive: three cycles with gospel readings from Matthew, Mark, and Luke for each of the cycles, with each gospel read virtually from beginning to end, and fit as part of "semi-continuous reading" for 34 Sundays of Ordinary Time, with a first reading from the OT that complements it in terms of theme. That plus the psalm and the second reading (from the NT letters and also read in a semi-continuous manner) are meant to encourage the listener and reader to experience the impact of the gospel reading.
I thought for a moment you had caught me totally asleep at the wheel --- in all brutal honesty, I have not recently lived in an area which had a daily TLM available, and when I lived someplace that did (SSPX-affiliated chapel), I was at a place in my life when I did not make daily Mass a priority, I could probably count the times on one hand, during those years, that I went to a weekday TLM.
Your comment sent me running to my Father Lasance Missal (the big fat one) and I'm finding that it is a mixed bag --- some days use a reading from another Mass, but on probably the majority of days during the year (outside of the times you noted), there were indeed separate readings, and almost always a separate epistle. So these "special occasions" must have been quite numerous.
I do not have an issue in the least, with the Church expanding the range of readings from Scripture.
|
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Sept 11, 2021 5:19:05 GMT
The source I used to explain this point in another thread is "The Bible and Liturgy" by Irene Nowell, O.S.B. She wrote that the lectionary before Vatican II had only one cycle repeated every year. It consisted of two readings: from the NT letters and from the gospel. There was only one OT reading on the feast of the Epiphany.
Except for the weeks of Lent, Easter, and Pentecost, there was no daily lectionary. Instead, the reading from Sunday was used repeatedly except if there was a special occasion.
The change to the lectionary of 1970 was massive: three cycles with gospel readings from Matthew, Mark, and Luke for each of the cycles, with each gospel read virtually from beginning to end, and fit as part of "semi-continuous reading" for 34 Sundays of Ordinary Time, with a first reading from the OT that complements it in terms of theme. That plus the psalm and the second reading (from the NT letters and also read in a semi-continuous manner) are meant to encourage the listener and reader to experience the impact of the gospel reading.
I thought for a moment you had caught me totally asleep at the wheel --- in all brutal honesty, I have not recently lived in an area which had a daily TLM available, and when I lived someplace that did (SSPX-affiliated chapel), I was at a place in my life when I did not make daily Mass a priority, I could probably count the times on one hand, during those years, that I went to a weekday TLM.
Your comment sent me running to my Father Lasance Missal (the big fat one) and I'm finding that it is a mixed bag --- some days use a reading from another Mass, but on probably the majority of days during the year (outside of the times you noted), there were indeed separate readings, and almost always a separate epistle. So these "special occasions" must have been quite numerous.
I do not have an issue in the least, with the Church expanding the range of readings from Scripture.
This might help:
That is,
Also,
That is, the pre-Vatican II Missal uses 1 pct of the OT minus the Psalms vs. 3.7 pct (major feasts) and 13.5 pct (Ordinary Time) for the current Lectionary.
For the NT, it's 16.5 pct of that for the pre-Vatican II Missal and 40.8 pct (major feasts) and 71.5 pct (Ordinary Time) for the current Lectionary.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Sept 11, 2021 14:05:48 GMT
I thought for a moment you had caught me totally asleep at the wheel --- in all brutal honesty, I have not recently lived in an area which had a daily TLM available, and when I lived someplace that did (SSPX-affiliated chapel), I was at a place in my life when I did not make daily Mass a priority, I could probably count the times on one hand, during those years, that I went to a weekday TLM.
Your comment sent me running to my Father Lasance Missal (the big fat one) and I'm finding that it is a mixed bag --- some days use a reading from another Mass, but on probably the majority of days during the year (outside of the times you noted), there were indeed separate readings, and almost always a separate epistle. So these "special occasions" must have been quite numerous.
I do not have an issue in the least, with the Church expanding the range of readings from Scripture.
This might help:
That is,
Also,
That is, the pre-Vatican II Missal uses 1 pct of the OT minus the Psalms vs. 3.7 pct (major feasts) and 13.5 pct (Ordinary Time) for the current Lectionary.
For the NT, it's 16.5 pct of that for the pre-Vatican II Missal and 40.8 pct (major feasts) and 71.5 pct (Ordinary Time) for the current Lectionary.
Good information. I have absolutely no issue with Catholics being exposed to as much Scripture as possible.
All adult Catholics should have read the Bible in its entirety. I did so in college, read every book word-for-word (though not in front-to-back order), kept track of what I had read, and with very slow, deliberate reading, I did so in 3 1/2 years, 20 minutes or so per day, took copious notes, which I still have. My bible was the Douay-Rheims (Challoner) version, though I also read large portions, including the entire New Testament, of the King James Version. I can only wish my Latin were better, so I could read the Vulgate (of which I also have a copy, clothbound edition printed in Spain) --- I can "hack my way through it", but that's about it. One excellent way to learn a language, is to immerse oneself in a book written in it, and there couldn't be any better book than the Bible.
I would only wonder, as a matter of casual interest, why the Church saw it as desirable, all those years, not to include any more of Scripture than she did, in the Mass.
|
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Sept 12, 2021 1:40:13 GMT
My understanding is that that had been the default from the beginning: the Church did not want the laity to read Scriptures because they might interpret passages wrongly. Various Protestants wanted the opposite because besides sola fide they also wanted sola scriptura. The irony is that what the Church warned about did come true, as sola fide is contradicted by James and others, and sola scripture by the fact that it was the same Church that selected the books that made up the Bible. In short, there is little that is "sola" about Christianity.
That's why when I interviewed some seniors a few years back about this, some said that when they were in Catholic school back in the late 1940s and 1950s, they were not allowed to read the Bible unless supervised by religious personnel, like priests and nuns. Beyond that, what was learned about the Bible came from catechism and the Mass.
Things became more liberal after Vatican II, especially when more laity were tasked to help Church workers given the lack of personnel.
The stance softened with the rise of Protestanism, which is why, among other things, the Douay-Rheims translation was made with the approval of the Church. Many other things followed, as already explained (e.g., the Church called for the formation of a Biblical Commission, for better translations, for more research, etc.), but it took place across four centuries.
That's why Catholic study bibles became more prevalent only recently. In fact, the points I raised about reading the Bible and Scriptures used in Mass came from the _Little Rock Catholic Study Bible_. There are more, and some annotated with points from the Catechism, historical points raised by charts, maps, and so on, but they're not cheap!
Before that, I remember taking religion class in Catholic school, and were were lucky (although we didn't realize it then) to have not just a Jesuit priest as a teacher but a director of novices, and one of the things we learned to do was exegesis. The year-long process, and designed for high schoolers who knew no Latin, Greek, or Hebrew, was to look at six translations of the same event (e.g., the Sermon on the Mount), then study the nuances of key words (and there are lots to consider) using the Catholic Encyclopedia, then in light of the variations in translations and the denotation and connotation of key words, study the interpretations of the event using the Jerome Biblical Commentary and other sources, and finally, informed by that, come up with one's own interpretation and, inspired by lectio divina, one's own reflection of the passages.
Meanwhile, we were studying seven other books about Catholicism (including one about the Mass itself) in class together with documents from Vatican II, esp. Lumen Gentium.
|
|
|
|
Post by pianistclare on Sept 12, 2021 2:05:28 GMT
Yup. That's the pre-Vatican mindset. Don't ever trust the laity.
You teacher was a great one.
God bless.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Sept 12, 2021 2:42:29 GMT
My understanding is that that had been the default from the beginning: the Church did not want the laity to read Scriptures because they might interpret passages wrongly. Various Protestants wanted the opposite because besides sola fide they also wanted sola scriptura. The irony is that what the Church warned about did come true, as sola fide is contradicted by James and others, and sola scripture by the fact that it was the same Church that selected the books that made up the Bible. In short, there is little that is "sola" about Christianity. That's why when I interviewed some seniors a few years back about this, some said that when they were in Catholic school back in the late 1940s and 1950s, they were not allowed to read the Bible unless supervised by religious personnel, like priests and nuns. Beyond that, what was learned about the Bible came from catechism and the Mass. Things became more liberal after Vatican II, especially when more laity were tasked to help Church workers given the lack of personnel. The stance softened with the rise of Protestanism, which is why, among other things, the Douay-Rheims translation was made with the approval of the Church. Many other things followed, as already explained (e.g., the Church called for the formation of a Biblical Commission, for better translations, for more research, etc.), but it took place across four centuries. That's why Catholic study bibles became more prevalent only recently. In fact, the points I raised about reading the Bible and Scriptures used in Mass came from the _Little Rock Catholic Study Bible_. There are more, and some annotated with points from the Catechism, historical points raised by charts, maps, and so on, but they're not cheap! Before that, I remember taking religion class in Catholic school, and were were lucky (although we didn't realize it then) to have not just a Jesuit priest as a teacher but a director of novices, and one of the things we learned to do was exegesis. The year-long process, and designed for high schoolers who knew no Latin, Greek, or Hebrew, was to look at six translations of the same event (e.g., the Sermon on the Mount), then study the nuances of key words (and there are lots to consider) using the Catholic Encyclopedia, then in light of the variations in translations and the denotation and connotation of key words, study the interpretations of the event using the Jerome Biblical Commentary and other sources, and finally, informed by that, come up with one's own interpretation and, inspired by lectio divina, one's own reflection of the passages. Meanwhile, we were studying seven other books about Catholicism (including one about the Mass itself) in class together with documents from Vatican II, esp. Lumen Gentium. While I don't imagine that you and I are ever going to agree totally on everything, I do have to say that I am very impressed with the depth of your scholarship, and the excellent essays you've posted in these forums recently. I've learned quite a bit, and that's never a bad thing.
Was this in the United States where you interviewed seniors who had been discouraged from reading the Bible in their youth? Just curious.
Your commentary serves a very useful purpose, in that, if what you say is accurate, it would be good for the Church to "own up to it", to say, yes, we used to discourage Bible study --- not just failed to encourage, but actually discouraged it --- because of the fears you cite. This is what the Protestants always accuse of us, and it does not serve the cause of Christ, to pretend that it's not true. The Church does discourage --- and rightly so --- interpretations of Scripture that lead to theological error, heterodoxy, and even material heresy, and that is where I have just the slightest unease with your comment about "[coming] up with one's own interpretation". Reflection, fine. Private interpretation, well, that's one thing that caused the Protestant Reformation. Our Scripture study must always be informed by tradition, the analogia fidei, the teachings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the teachings of the magisterium. But if the Church was overly reticent or sheepish about the faithful reading the Bible in times past, then, as I noted, that needs to be faced front and center, and acknowledged for what it was. Keep in mind, too, that literacy has not always been what it is now. Illiterate people couldn't have read the Bible if they'd wanted to!
Just out of curiosity, what is your take on the Haydock Bible? And A Textual Concordance of Holy Scripture (TAN Books)? I have access to the Haydock online, and have a copy of the latter in my home library. The concordance is more than "just a concordance", it actually contains the passages from the DRV. I mean no disrespect to Bishop Challoner in saying so, but I was amused by his notes, in the DRV itself, on the Song of Solomon (Canticle of Canticles) --- it seemed like he was desperately trying to explain it away, the constant refrain being (in so many words) "this isn't about sex, this isn't about a man and a woman, it's about God's love for His Church", when clearly it is "both/and". I suspect it was a rather embarrassing book for him to have to annotate. I have no such squeamishness.
|
|
|
|
Post by StellaMaris on Sept 12, 2021 5:34:15 GMT
Was this in the United States where you interviewed seniors who had been discouraged from reading the Bible in their youth? Just curious.
Your commentary serves a very useful purpose, in that, if what you say is accurate, it would be good for the Church to "own up to it", to say, yes, we used to discourage Bible study --- not just failed to encourage, but actually discouraged it --- because of the fears you cite. This is what the Protestants always accuse of us, and it does not serve the cause of Christ, to pretend that it's not true. Catholic seniors everywhere will tell you the same thing. That's how it was. If one persists in getting their information from anti VII sites of course it's going to be distorted. These people want to paint the past in as best light as they can and today with doomsaying and condemnation. That's what they do. Go to the official Church sources if you want truth and accuracy. USCCB Changes in Catholic attitudes towards bible readings. Scripture always has played an important role in the prayer life of the Catholic Church and its members. For the ordinary Catholic in earlier centuries, exposure to Scripture was passive. They heard it read aloud or prayed aloud but did not read it themselves. One simple reason: Centuries ago the average person could not read or afford a book. Popular reading and ownership of books began to flourish only after the invention of the printing press.Once the printing press was invented, the most commonly printed book was the Bible, but this still did not make Bible-reading a Catholic’s common practice. Up until the mid-twentieth Century, the custom of reading the Bible and interpreting it for oneself was a hallmark of the Protestant churches springing up in Europe after the Reformation. Protestants rejected the authority of the Pope and of the Church and showed it by saying people could read and interpret the Bible for themselves. Catholics meanwhile were discouraged from reading Scripture.
Identifying the reading and interpreting of the Bible as “Protestant” even affected the study of Scripture. Until the twentieth Century, it was only Protestants who actively embraced Scripture study. That changed after 1943 when Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. This not only allowed Catholics to study Scripture, it encouraged them to do so. And with Catholics studying Scripture and teaching other Catholics about what they were studying, familiarity with Scripture grew.Scripture awareness grew after the Second Vatican Council. Mass was celebrated in the vernacular and so the Scripture readings at Mass were read entirely in English. Adult faith formation programs began to develop, and the most common program run at a parish focused on Scripture study. The Charismatic movement and the rise of prayer groups exposed Catholics to Scripture even more. All of this contributed to Catholics becoming more familiar with the Bible and more interested in reading the Scriptures and praying with them. It is an 'owned' thing and now we do differently. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Sept 12, 2021 12:03:15 GMT
Was this in the United States where you interviewed seniors who had been discouraged from reading the Bible in their youth? Just curious.
Your commentary serves a very useful purpose, in that, if what you say is accurate, it would be good for the Church to "own up to it", to say, yes, we used to discourage Bible study --- not just failed to encourage, but actually discouraged it --- because of the fears you cite. This is what the Protestants always accuse of us, and it does not serve the cause of Christ, to pretend that it's not true. Catholic seniors everywhere will tell you the same thing. That's how it was. If one persists in getting their information from anti VII sites of course it's going to be distorted. These people want to paint the past in as best light as they can and today with doomsaying and condemnation. That's what they do. Go to the official Church sources if you want truth and accuracy. USCCB Changes in Catholic attitudes towards bible readings. Scripture always has played an important role in the prayer life of the Catholic Church and its members. For the ordinary Catholic in earlier centuries, exposure to Scripture was passive. They heard it read aloud or prayed aloud but did not read it themselves. One simple reason: Centuries ago the average person could not read or afford a book. Popular reading and ownership of books began to flourish only after the invention of the printing press.Once the printing press was invented, the most commonly printed book was the Bible, but this still did not make Bible-reading a Catholic’s common practice. Up until the mid-twentieth Century, the custom of reading the Bible and interpreting it for oneself was a hallmark of the Protestant churches springing up in Europe after the Reformation. Protestants rejected the authority of the Pope and of the Church and showed it by saying people could read and interpret the Bible for themselves. Catholics meanwhile were discouraged from reading Scripture.
Identifying the reading and interpreting of the Bible as “Protestant” even affected the study of Scripture. Until the twentieth Century, it was only Protestants who actively embraced Scripture study. That changed after 1943 when Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. This not only allowed Catholics to study Scripture, it encouraged them to do so. And with Catholics studying Scripture and teaching other Catholics about what they were studying, familiarity with Scripture grew.Scripture awareness grew after the Second Vatican Council. Mass was celebrated in the vernacular and so the Scripture readings at Mass were read entirely in English. Adult faith formation programs began to develop, and the most common program run at a parish focused on Scripture study. The Charismatic movement and the rise of prayer groups exposed Catholics to Scripture even more. All of this contributed to Catholics becoming more familiar with the Bible and more interested in reading the Scriptures and praying with them. It is an 'owned' thing and now we do differently. Be assured that I read and take into account all points of view, gather information, knowledge, and wisdom accordingly, and then make up my own mind. I believe in letting everyone have their say. Let them make their case. I know that is not always a hallmark of Catholic practice, either in the past, or now, to listen to different points of view, but it is what I do. As I have said before --- and I don't mean you --- I would say most Catholics in the world, as a practical matter, approach matters as though the Church began in 1962. I strongly object to Orwellian "memory holes" that discard the past and force everyone only to live in the present. "How does the present differ from the past?" is a question everyone should ask often, in all avenues of life, and from this come two other very useful questions, "why does the present differ from the past?", and "is that a good thing?".
Clearly it is better to read Scripture, and to read it often, than not to read it, as long as all dangers to the Faith are removed --- private interpretation is how Protestantism got started, and look at the mess that has created. I am perfectly fine with the Church admitting that her past practices (not doctrines, just practices, it was never a "doctrine" that "the laity are discouraged from reading the Bible") left something to be desired, but I would like to see the reason cited as well --- "we didn't want people reading the Bible because we feared that they'd come to their own private interpretations, and thus lapse into error and heresy", and that "reason" has some internal logic to it. This was never an issue prior to the introduction of the printing press, because few Bibles were available, and many people could not read in the first place. One could well argue in the present day, when all of the world's information is available with a few keystrokes on a cheap laptop computer, that "we don't want people reading various points of view as regards the desirability of post-Vatican II changes, as well as the doctrinal exactitude of the words of the Council itself, because they might come to conclusions different than what the Church and her leaders want people coming to". The genie is out of the bottle, so to speak, just as a very malevolent and harmful "genie" was "out of the bottle" when people started having access to mass-produced printed media, and gained literacy to be able to read it. Protestantism is inherently attractive because it allows one to "have religion made to order for me" --- private interpretation, don't you know? --- just as traditionalism is inherently attractive to many because it provides an anchor of stability in a world that is changing at warp speed, and because it provides something that is proven, tried, and true. If someone then says "quit delving into the past and just get with the program of how things are right now", it's perfectly legitimate to ask the simple question "why?".
|
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Sept 12, 2021 14:13:40 GMT
Protestantism is inherently attractive because it allows one to "have religion made to order for me" --- private interpretation, don't you know? --- just as traditionalism is inherently attractive to many because it provides an anchor of stability in a world that is changing at warp speed, and because it provides something that is proven, tried, and true. If someone then says "quit delving into the past and just get with the program of how things are right now", it's perfectly legitimate to ask the simple question "why?".
The missal for the TLM is from 1962, is that correct? The Novus Ordo missal was published in 1970, and had the changes made under VII. In the scope of the Church, those 8 years doesn't really amount to anything at all. Asking "why" is perfectly fine as long as you accept the explanation for "why" the Church did what she did, or a Pope did what he did. It is when people think they know better than the Pope or the Church herself that it starts to bring division into the Church. Much like protestantism did when it started asking "why" and changing the rules for themselves. Much division has been brought about lately with the Popes recent letter to the Bishops. It is ok to ask "why" about that letter, as long as one remembers, the letter wasn't addressed to anyone other than Bishops. If one isn't a Bishop, you weren't the intended audience, and your opinion on the letter makes little difference due to your position in the Church, whether it be laity, or even a priest. The letter wasn't written to the priests either. If Pope Francis is trying to bring unity to the Church instead of division, it is up to the people to follow. He is after all, Christ's representative on Earth. If Christ said, this is the way we need to go forward, would anyone ask "why" of him? |
|
|
|
Post by StellaMaris on Sept 12, 2021 23:33:23 GMT
Catholic seniors everywhere will tell you the same thing. That's how it was. If one persists in getting their information from anti VII sites of course it's going to be distorted. These people want to paint the past in as best light as they can and today with doomsaying and condemnation. That's what they do. Go to the official Church sources if you want truth and accuracy. USCCB Changes in Catholic attitudes towards bible readings. Scripture always has played an important role in the prayer life of the Catholic Church and its members. For the ordinary Catholic in earlier centuries, exposure to Scripture was passive. They heard it read aloud or prayed aloud but did not read it themselves. One simple reason: Centuries ago the average person could not read or afford a book. Popular reading and ownership of books began to flourish only after the invention of the printing press.Once the printing press was invented, the most commonly printed book was the Bible, but this still did not make Bible-reading a Catholic’s common practice. Up until the mid-twentieth Century, the custom of reading the Bible and interpreting it for oneself was a hallmark of the Protestant churches springing up in Europe after the Reformation. Protestants rejected the authority of the Pope and of the Church and showed it by saying people could read and interpret the Bible for themselves. Catholics meanwhile were discouraged from reading Scripture.
Identifying the reading and interpreting of the Bible as “Protestant” even affected the study of Scripture. Until the twentieth Century, it was only Protestants who actively embraced Scripture study. That changed after 1943 when Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. This not only allowed Catholics to study Scripture, it encouraged them to do so. And with Catholics studying Scripture and teaching other Catholics about what they were studying, familiarity with Scripture grew.Scripture awareness grew after the Second Vatican Council. Mass was celebrated in the vernacular and so the Scripture readings at Mass were read entirely in English. Adult faith formation programs began to develop, and the most common program run at a parish focused on Scripture study. The Charismatic movement and the rise of prayer groups exposed Catholics to Scripture even more. All of this contributed to Catholics becoming more familiar with the Bible and more interested in reading the Scriptures and praying with them. It is an 'owned' thing and now we do differently. Be assured that I read and take into account all points of view, gather information, knowledge, and wisdom accordingly, and then make up my own mind. I believe in letting everyone have their say. Let them make their case. I know that is not always a hallmark of Catholic practice, either in the past, or now, to listen to different points of view, but it is what I do. As I have said before --- and I don't mean you --- I would say most Catholics in the world, as a practical matter, approach matters as though the Church began in 1962. I strongly object to Orwellian "memory holes" that discard the past and force everyone only to live in the present. "How does the present differ from the past?" is a question everyone should ask often, in all avenues of life, and from this come two other very useful questions, "why does the present differ from the past?", and "is that a good thing?".
Clearly it is better to read Scripture, and to read it often, than not to read it, as long as all dangers to the Faith are removed --- private interpretation is how Protestantism got started, and look at the mess that has created. I am perfectly fine with the Church admitting that her past practices (not doctrines, just practices, it was never a "doctrine" that "the laity are discouraged from reading the Bible") left something to be desired, but I would like to see the reason cited as well --- "we didn't want people reading the Bible because we feared that they'd come to their own private interpretations, and thus lapse into error and heresy", and that "reason" has some internal logic to it. This was never an issue prior to the introduction of the printing press, because few Bibles were available, and many people could not read in the first place. One could well argue in the present day, when all of the world's information is available with a few keystrokes on a cheap laptop computer, that "we don't want people reading various points of view as regards the desirability of post-Vatican II changes, as well as the doctrinal exactitude of the words of the Council itself, because they might come to conclusions different than what the Church and her leaders want people coming to". The genie is out of the bottle, so to speak, just as a very malevolent and harmful "genie" was "out of the bottle" when people started having access to mass-produced printed media, and gained literacy to be able to read it. Protestantism is inherently attractive because it allows one to "have religion made to order for me" --- private interpretation, don't you know? --- just as traditionalism is inherently attractive to many because it provides an anchor of stability in a world that is changing at warp speed, and because it provides something that is proven, tried, and true. If someone then says "quit delving into the past and just get with the program of how things are right now", it's perfectly legitimate to ask the simple question "why?".
The problem arises when the 'why' is answered but that is rejected and the 'why' becomes a tool of defiance. There is no benefit or edification in entertaining that sort of why. |
|
