|
Post by maolsheachlann on Oct 24, 2016 13:46:45 GMT
Why is Vatican II never given any credit for introducing an Old Testament reading on Sundays and holy days throughout the year?
It seems to me this was a very praiseworthy addition, but when people talk about the reform of the liturgy it is never taken into account.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that many of the liturgical innovations that came into being after the Council were lamentable. If the Church decided to restore the Latin Mass everywhere tomorrow, I would be perfectly happy with that, though it would take a bit of getting used to. But it seems very unbalanced to leave out the good things that came in with the Council-- or, at least, one good thing.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 27, 2016 22:57:50 GMT
Fair enough. The three-year cycle allows a much larger amount of biblical text to be read, and there is certainly a lot more OT material (I have seen articles from the pre-Vatican II era by perfectly pious Catholics lamenting that so many Catholics knew so little of the Bible - not even who Esther was, for example). Advocates of the EF would say that the emphasis on a wider range of texts reflects a view of the Mass as primarily didactic and cerebral which goes against what might in secular terms be called a sense of wonder, and that the one-year cycle allows greater familiarity with the texts involved (which centre on the messianic prophecies, the mission of Jesus, and the Psalms as the Church's prayer).
|
|