FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: TLM vs. NO - The merits of two readings vs. one
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Just for fun discussion. This is not to compare TLM vs. the NO in all other facets, but one of the interesting changes in the NO was increasing the number of readings to two (one OT and one NT). If any one thing can be called organicish change in the NO, it would be this one aspect. Back in the 5th to 7th century, the amount of readings was two. From the 7th century until the NO, the amount was fixed at one. So the question is, would there be any merit to adding a second reading TLM (if an altered version of it were to ever be made) or is the two reading system of the NO a bad change?

Personally, what I like about the two readings is that you see the connection of the OT with the Gospels. The foretelling of what you're about to see unfold in the Gospel is really neat. Of course, we can also say that this is redundant in a sense, since you're getting similar information in the Gospel reading. Other than that, I wonder what other people think.
I like that too. I also like the 3-year cycle, although the choices of text in that cycle are not great. There's a beautiful elegance to the cycle, anyway.
It may have been a good idea to increase the number of scripture readings, but it was badly done. It is also based on two false premise : (1) that the traditional liturgy omitted significant parts of Scripture and (2) that it is the role of the liturgy to present the whole (or a significant part) of scripture as readings.

First, is the impression that the Sunday Mass is the extent of the liturgy. If one considers the daily Masses including the Sanctoral cycle, a large swath of Scripture is covered. If you limit yourself to Sunday and Holy Days only, then of course the quantity of Scripture is limited, but that's like saying just because people only participate in a very small part of the liturgy, we have to cram everything into that part to expose them to everything. That's not only false reasoning, but it's a recipe for failure. By analogy it's like trying forcing people to take 20 multivitamins all at once since they can't be relied upon to eat well throughout the week. It sounds good in theory, but in practice it just causes people to ignore the extra scripture even more than they did when there was one reading.

In reality, if you take the whole of the traditional liturgy you see a wonderful balance. The core essentials of the message are communicated in the Sunday Masses, more refined messages in the daily Masses, especially during Lent and the Sanctoral cycles. The majority of scripture is covered throughout the year in the Breviary. The Psalms are prayed in full by the clergy every week. That's pretty extensive.

Thus in theory including more readings is good, but when it has been done the traditional cycle of themes is disrupted. Instead of the same themes year after year, now it's a three-year cycle of readings (and themes). Add to that the themes have been adjusted to fit modern sentiments ...

History shows how the Masses were reduced from many more readings to fewer. We see, for instance, in the Ember Saturday Masses there are five lessons, and Epistle and a Gospel. All of the Masses used to have a more extensive structure, yet instead of restoring those, the reformers decided to come up with new structures and themes, and not just in one year, but spread over three, so that whereas we traditionalists all know that next Sunday will be "Good Shepherd Sunday" and we will consider Our Lord as our gentle pastor seeking after his lost sheep, in a three-year cycle, we get that but once every three years. It diffuses the message and the familiarity we all have with it.

Secondly, the overarching mistake is that the liturgy is supposed to present the whole of the Faith in didactic terms. This one of the whole problems with the new theology of the Mass. Rather than primarily being the sacrifice of Christ, re-presented for the application of the merits here and now, it becomes more about teaching the faithful, lessening the notion of propitiatory sacrifice.
I don't have much to add here, but why did they add the 2d reading?
(04-05-2016, 02:08 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]This one of the whole problems with the new theology of the Mass. Rather than primarily being the sacrifice of Christ, re-presented for the application of the merits here and now, it becomes more about teaching the faithful, lessening the notion of propitiatory sacrifice.

No where is this more evident than the materials given to me that I *had* to use to do prep for my daughter's First Confession and Communion. Really guys? We're spending a whole lesson talking about how to set a table, or how waves of love come from us? Fluff, fluff, fluff.

We pretty much do the workbooks so we have something to hand in, then I pull out the Baltimore Catechism and we do the meat and potatoes.
(04-05-2016, 04:47 PM)PrairieMom Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-05-2016, 02:08 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]This one of the whole problems with the new theology of the Mass. Rather than primarily being the sacrifice of Christ, re-presented for the application of the merits here and now, it becomes more about teaching the faithful, lessening the notion of propitiatory sacrifice.

No where is this more evident than the materials given to me that I *had* to use to do prep for my daughter's First Confession and Communion. Really guys? We're spending a whole lesson talking about how to set a table, or how waves of love come from us? Fluff, fluff, fluff.

We pretty much do the workbooks so we have something to hand in, then I pull out the Baltimore Catechism and we do the meat and potatoes.

I feel your pain (well sort of).  I was lucky.  Because I know the director of religious ed at our parish rather well, I got out of all that fluff.  The kids have to attend one retreat and that's it.  I was free to use the Baltimore Catechism and not their crappy workbooks.
(04-05-2016, 05:00 PM)Fontevrault Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-05-2016, 04:47 PM)PrairieMom Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-05-2016, 02:08 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]This one of the whole problems with the new theology of the Mass. Rather than primarily being the sacrifice of Christ, re-presented for the application of the merits here and now, it becomes more about teaching the faithful, lessening the notion of propitiatory sacrifice.

No where is this more evident than the materials given to me that I *had* to use to do prep for my daughter's First Confession and Communion. Really guys? We're spending a whole lesson talking about how to set a table, or how waves of love come from us? Fluff, fluff, fluff.

We pretty much do the workbooks so we have something to hand in, then I pull out the Baltimore Catechism and we do the meat and potatoes.

I feel your pain (well sort of).  I was lucky.  Because I know the director of religious ed at our parish rather well, I got out of all that fluff.  The kids have to attend one retreat and that's it.  I was free to use the Baltimore Catechism and not their crappy workbooks.

I'm already bucking the system by refusing to put my kids in the religious ed classes. They were so confused when I signed her up for her Sacraments but she's not on the roster otherwise. I didn't want to push my luck.
(04-05-2016, 04:47 PM)PrairieMom Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-05-2016, 02:08 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]This one of the whole problems with the new theology of the Mass. Rather than primarily being the sacrifice of Christ, re-presented for the application of the merits here and now, it becomes more about teaching the faithful, lessening the notion of propitiatory sacrifice.

No where is this more evident than the materials given to me that I *had* to use to do prep for my daughter's First Confession and Communion. Really guys? We're spending a whole lesson talking about how to set a table, or how waves of love come from us? Fluff, fluff, fluff.

We pretty much do the workbooks so we have something to hand in, then I pull out the Baltimore Catechism and we do the meat and potatoes.

It's evident in plenty of seemingly innocuous, even beneficial things touted as "improvements".

One of these is the change in the norms so that one can receive the Eucharist multiple times per day (twice, in fact), outside of danger of death.

Previously one could only receive once, and then only again if the Eucharist were given as viaticum. This matches the ancient practice of a single public Mass at each Church, at which all would participate together. This single communion remained even when Masses multiplied.

But, it is good to frequently receive Our Lord, some would argue, so why not twice ...

In itself there is nothing wrong with it, but consider the new rules. One can receive a second time only in the context of another Mass. Why this? Because the Mass is a meal, and if you go to a second meal, why would you not partake of the meal?

Again, it is one more sign of the changed notion of the Mass. Subtle changes on some level, not so subtle on other, but all founded on a flawed notion of what the Mass and Liturgy really are -- founded on the error that the Liturgy is primarily for the faithful (and thus must be adapted and suited to the needs of the faithful, else it looses its purpose), rather than being primarily Christ, though His Mystical Body, offering praise to the His Father (and so adapted only minimally and secondarily according to the times and needs of the faithful).
I think the issue of receiving twice in a day of something that lay people would run into at weddings or funerals. Of course these days everyone needs to receive, can't just stay in the pew.

For priests it's also the issue of doing so many masses on Sunday. It wouldn't shock me if many priests do three masses a day now.
(04-05-2016, 06:29 PM)GangGreen Wrote: [ -> ]I think the issue of receiving twice in a day of something that lay people would run into at weddings or funerals. Of course these days everyone needs to receive, can't just stay in the pew.

For priests it's also the issue of doing so many masses on Sunday. It wouldn't shock me if many priests do three masses a day now.

I was just about to point that out. My understanding was that historically you could take twice anyway for just that reason (weddings, funerals), and with the new 1983 it removed that condition (that one of those times was for a wedding, etc).

From https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_times.htm

Quote:One of the significant changes for the faithful in the Code of Canon Law which was promulgated in 1983 was the permission to receive Holy Communion more than once per day. In the past the law set certain conditions, such as participation in a funeral, marriage or ordination Mass. The new canon, however, simply states,

    c.917 A person who has received the Most Holy Eucharist may receive it again (iterum) on the same day only during the celebration of the Eucharist in which the person participates, with due regard for the prescription of can. 921, part 2.

What it is saying is that if one attends a Mass after receiving Holy Communion previously that day, one may receive it again. If it is not a Mass, but a Communion Service for example, one may not receive again.

However, since the Church encourages the full participation of the laity in the Masses they attend, including Holy Communion (if they are worthy), the question arose whether this canon might not permit Holy Communion in any Mass, regardless of the number of times one attended per day. After numerous bishops asked this question of the Holy See, the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Legislative texts gave the following authentic interpretation, approved by Pope John Paul II,

    Doubt: Whether, according to canon 917, one who has already received the Most Holy Eucharist may receive it again on the same day only a second time, or as often as one participates in the celebration of the Eucharist.

    Response: Affirmative to the first; negative to the second. [AAS 76, (1984) 746]

In the accompanying commentary it was explained that the meaning of again (iterum) was to allow a second time, but not a third, fourth etc... The exception to this is the one given in the law itself, canon 921, 2.

    2. Even if they have received Communion in the same day, those who are in danger of death are strongly urged to receive again.

Thus, Communion given as Viaticum may be received at any time.

One final note, this law applies to Latin Rite Catholics. Iin the Eastern Catholic Churches the practice of frequent daily Divine Liturgy (Mass) is not found, and so the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches is silent on this matter.
Pages: 1 2 3