Lectionary

[Mrvoll]

I has looking in the missal and half the Sunday Readings do not coenside with each other

[Cam42]

The reason that they don't coincide is because the Liturgy of the Word was reformed. So, the readings in the various cycles, is not consistent with that of the pre-Vatican Council II Liturgy.

Not a big deal.....both are the word of God.

[dspen2005]

now, the faithful are exposed to the whole of Scripture in the Liturgy.... ( at least, this is my understanding.... if i am wrong, someone please correct my error)

[Cam42]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Jun 11 2005, 04:32 PM']now, the faithful are exposed to the whole of Scripture in the Liturgy.... ( at least, this is my understanding.... if i am wrong, someone please correct my error)
[right][snapback]609365[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Over a three year period, 97% of Sacred Scripture is read at Mass.

[Brother Adam]

I'd like to see a short resource produced with the daily mass readings and Sundays readings for all three cycles all together (and instead of them all drawn out, yes i know they are online for it to just be the references)

(I.E.
6/12/05
Reading 1: _____
Reading 2: _____
Gospel: _______
6/13/05
Reading 1:____
.... and so on)

[FutureSoror]

I don't really like one better than the other, although sometimes I wish they just both used the same one.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jun 11 2005, 05:46 PM']I'd like to see a short resource produced with the daily mass readings and Sundays readings for all three cycles all together (and instead of them all drawn out, yes i know they are online for it to just be the references)

(I.E.
6/12/05
Reading 1: _____
Reading 2: _____
Gospel: _______
6/13/05
Reading 1:____
.... and so on)
[right][snapback]609392[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Bro. Adam....

[url="http://myweb.lmu.edu/fjust/Lectionary.htm"]Roman Catholic Lectionary Website[/url]

[conservativecatholic]

I received a Daily Roman Missal (Post Vatican II) as a gift for confirmation a few weeks back and I've been comparing it to the pre-Vatican II Latin Missal of my mother. In my opinion, the readings that embody her pre-vatican II missal are much more organized and the nexus between a particular day's readings in the Latin missal are clearly visible rather than today's missal. Although I will say, the Daily Roman Missal that my parents gave me is awesome!

Edited June 14, 2005 by conservativecatholic

[Mrvoll]

You know, I like to watch Luthern Service on Sun. morings. ( I go Sat. Night) and they use the same readings, so that is why I started this thread.

[Cam42]

[quote name='conservativecatholic' date='Jun 13 2005, 08:40 PM']I received a Daily Roman Missal (Post Vatican II) as a gift for confirmation a few weeks back and I've been comparing it to the pre-Vatican II Latin Missal of my mother. In my opinion, the readings that embody her pre-vatican II missal are much more organized and the nexus between a particular day's readings in the Latin missal are clearly visible rather than today's missal. Although I will say, the Daily Roman Missal that my parents gave me is awesome!
[right][snapback]610961[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I use that every day.....It is a Scepter Publishers product. A product of the Work.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 11 2005, 05:24 PM']Over a three year period, 97% of Sacred Scripture is read at Mass.
[right][snapback]609384[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
only if scriptures are not left out for "pastorial reasons" somthing I find very very common. BUtthat is not the Churches fault.

[son_of_angels]

As someone who attends both the Tridentine Mass and the Missa Normativa, I appreciate both missals. The new one seems uniquely suited for public reading, and for scriptural exposition in the homily. The older one is better and demonstrating the mystical subject of the various feasts and so forth which we celebrate. Also, there is a good deal of flexibility with the old one as to which readings are used during Ferias, whereas the newer one has readings specifically appointed for each day.
I, however, like the old lectionary much better because it uniquely points to the devotional subject of each mass, and thus has a much better system for votive masses, saint's day masses, and so on. It simply is better suited to the unique character of a Mass as opposed to a worship service. Also, when it uses multiple readings before the Gospel, as on Ember days, these readings are followed each by a tract and collect, which makes the service more focused and prayerful.
I also understand that this lectionary would probably not be suited to the Novus Ordo mass, as the readings in the new mass are something which you specifically sit down and listen to from the pulpit. This is much different than the readings being chanted or read from the altar while kneeling (at Low Mass) or standing. In the old mass, the readings form a part of the overall prayer, whereas they are just kind of presented as a block in a new mass.

So there's my thoughts.

[Snowcatpa]

[color=purple]
[quote name='dspen2005' date='Jun 11 2005, 06:32 PM']now, the faithful are exposed to the whole of Scripture in the Liturgy.... ( at least, this is my understanding.... if i am wrong, someone please correct my error)
[right][snapback]609365[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 11 2005, 07:24 PM']Over a three year period, 97% of Sacred Scripture is read at Mass.
[right][snapback]609384[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 15 2005, 11:38 PM']only if scriptures are not left out for "pastorial reasons" somthing I find very very common. BUtthat is not the Churches fault.
[right][snapback]612959[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'm a little confused. Do any of you know the changes the lectionaries made in regards to like, the concerns women made at the time? Including more women in the scripture and such? I would think that the post-Vatican II lectionary would be better at addressing their concerns but I might be wrong.

I guess I just wonder, how, if 97% of Sacred Scripture is read at mass over a 3 year cycle, with whatever changes were made in the readings post-Vatican II, is there still a large omission of women from the readings? Not that I don’t whole-heartedly revere, value and learn from all scripture, but, as some critics say, readings with women are either missing, reconfigured, made "optional", or exised/skipped over within the context of a larger story - and if the passage makes it past these 4 things is more likely to be on a Weekday. It's not even like it's just a little difference, like, 70% male 30% female, (both stories can be read for either gender, I just mean highlighting the characters, although there is a greater male presence in the Bible as a whole), but it's far lower.

The lectionary includes many readings showing the struggle people face in joining Christ, and dealing with their own lives along the way…but so many passages for women in particular are difficult for them to understand and reconcile with their own lives in a Christian manner – whether that be wives submitting to their husbands, the portrayl of a woman’s body, or whatnot. While I don’t know that I mind that being left out, that is a major issue that affects Christ’s message for many, many women that is never in the lectionary and rarely talked about on the altar on Sunday. We need to address somewhere besides quiet study groups the fact that the divine word of God has used woman to explain evil … it’s so hard to understand, and I think more people would if this was addressed more in the lectionary.

Does anyone know of any changes to the liturgy pre/post Vatican II that deal with this?
[/color]

[son_of_angels]

[quote]We need to address somewhere besides quiet study groups the fact that the divine word of God has used woman to explain evil  … it’s so hard to understand, and I think more people would if this was addressed more in the lectionary.[/quote]




Actually I think that this sort of issue is exactly the sort that we need to avoid or ignore. Both the Novus Ordo and Tridentine Lectionaries come from the past, not just the recent past, and not from particular political agendas. They are a beautiful heritage that needs to be preserved.
I do not believe that either the lectionary or the mass needs to be "adapted" to suit modern congregants, nor do we need to "create" liturgies or lectionaries that have an agenda as opposed to flowing from the perennial devotion ignited by the heritage of the Church.

Edited June 16, 2005 by son_of_angels

[conservativecatholic]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 15 2005, 09:28 PM']I use that every day.....It is a Scepter Publishers product.  A product of the Work.
[right][snapback]612956[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes sir...The Daily Roman Missal is published by Scepter. That's so cool. I had no idea it had an association with Opus Dei. Very nice!

[Snowcatpa]

While I whole-heartedly share your concern, son of angels, for preserving the Church's beautiful heritage, and understand your reluctance to adapt the lectionary or mass to suit modern congregants, I don't know that I agree that avoiding or ignoring this issue is the proper course of action. At the very least, scholarly teaching and understanding in the faith and reasonings of the Church are necessary. It is difficult for people to understand and many concerns of women are a problem in the Church, and while we may disagree on what to do about it, that doesn't negate the necessity for discussing or approaching the topic, including the possibility of approaching such topics on the altar.

[son_of_angels]

Some discussion do not merit acknowledgement, and even recognizing the value in discussing them leaves room for the opposition to propagate their argument, arguments in which the Church has a hard time getting sympathy for their position. Sometimes it is better to, as John Paul II did concerning women's ordination, simply recognize it as outside the scope of possible debate.

The problem is that by our very actions after the Second Vatican Council, a Council which, though I greatly appreciate it's teaching and accept its authourity, managed to obscure as much as reveal, we have encouraged debate on the whole range of constitutional issues which are the pillars of our church: salvation, liturgy, holy orders, church government, etc. In other words, we have opened the flood doors for the modernist and novel conceptions about the Church. The only way to close this door, which will lead many only to ruin (not the whole Church, as that is impossible, as our Lord has said), is to ride out the wave, let it all calm, and then make a move when the tide has passed. Meanwhile we have to let ourselves maintain a certain balance in all of this and not let ourselves be changed by the problems which face our church, through the fostering of a good and orthodox piety that flows from Catholic tradition.

So, if we acknowledge this threat, it grows, just as what Paul said about the Law, not that the Law was sinful, but that by it he knew what was sinful, and was thereby tempted more strongly.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Snowcatpa' date='Jun 20 2005, 11:31 AM']While I whole-heartedly share your concern, son of angels, for preserving the Church's beautiful heritage, and understand your reluctance to adapt the lectionary or mass to suit modern congregants, I don't know that I agree that avoiding or ignoring this issue is the proper course of action. At the very least, scholarly teaching and understanding in the faith and reasonings of the Church are necessary. It is difficult for people to understand and many concerns of women are a problem in the Church, and while we may disagree on what to do about it, that doesn't negate the necessity for discussing or approaching the topic, including the possibility of approaching such topics on the altar.
[right][snapback]616800[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Snocatpa, you confuse the "concerns of women" with the demands of radical feminsists. Coming from a largely orthodox parish, I know many women who are not feminists and who do not want the Church to change to fit feminist demands.

The Church does not need to change to fit contemporary fads. It's the dissenters who need to change.

The problem isn't that the Church "excludes" or drives out women. The Church in many places has become too feminized. There is more of a problem of men not going to mass or being involved with the Church, than there is with women. And the Church further giving in to feminist demands isn't going to fix this.

The aging feminist nuns and such who are always making such a fuss are pushing a political agenda on the Church, and are not addressing the genuine problems. They are the problem, not the solution!

Edited June 20, 2005 by Socrates

[son_of_angels]

To be fair, the new lectionary was NOT based on the Revised Common Lectionary but vice versa. Actually, before the RCL there were a good number of Protestant Congregations that used the Vatican II Roman Lectionary, so the new one has done something for ecumenical relationships (not that I see it as a justifiable end in and of itself).

[Snowcatpa]

[color=purple]I am not trying to provoke attack here I'm just really, really... confused. Why is being a Catholic concerned about being equated with evil in the Bible or wondering why there aren't a lot of women in the readings only professing the tenants of dissenting radical feminists?

I acknowledge that there are a large number of woman to whom this doesn't apply but, regardless, this deeply affects me, which is why I'm posting about it. I'm not trying to advocate some political agenda and I'm not trying to speak for Catholics who are. Vatican II was not about liberalizing the Church, right? It was about involving the laity, which includes women. There might be a problem with male involvement but that's not a solid argument for not addressing the above issues and others.

In what ways has the Church become too feminized? Harkening back to one of my earlier questions, does anyone know of any changes to the liturgy pre/post Vatican II that deal with this. Why is this so scandelous to even talk about or propose talking about? Is this such a terrible thing that it classifies as something that "doesn't even merit acknowledgement"? How does that help me learn? It just makes it harder for someone like me to understand.
[/color]