A thought on the TLM and the Liturgical Calendar

I don’t want to start another poll, but a thought crossed my mind.

Katolik in another thread said:

It won’t be as easy as saying, I want to say the TLM and you will receive. Here in Detroit, many people have in the last 20 years fought for one TLM per sunday!
Now saying the NO Mass and the TLM simultaneously is a rare,rare, rare sitaution. It will confuse you because the TLM and NO calendars, breviaries[Liturgy of the Hours],feast days, and et cetera et ad multum.
An example of this is if you have to celebrate Ember Days or not? Or Rogation days? Or Septuagesima?

The thing that caught my eye was the difference in the calendars. Mainly because the other things mentioned are really still part of the church, just not emphasized, I know priests still do the Liturgy of the Hours and such.

Anyway, back on topic. Why does there need to be two different calendars? I mean couldn’t the current Liturgical Calendar be used within the TLM? The feast days have always been a matter of discipline, even the TLM had several changes of the liturgical calendar, 1958 was different from 1962. So why does the Liturgical Calendar and the TLM both have to be from the 1962 rite? Any thoughts?

The 1958 calendar is basically the same calendar as the 1962, except for the reduction of octaves.

Now the 1962 calendar and the NO calendar are two hugely different creatures. The New Mass has different readings from the TLM. The TLM readings have been used for over 1600 years while the NO Mass reading are an invention of the 1960’s.

Also, the TLM is a distinct rite different from the New Mass. No one would force Eastern Catholics to use the New Mass readings, would they?

The Breviary[1962] is even more different that the Liturgy of the Hours. The Breviary makes a priest say 150 psalms per week while the Liturgy of the Hours make it say the 150 psalms once per month. That’s gigantic difference!!

while the NO Mass reading are an invention of the 1960’s.

[/font]

Let me get this straight. The Bible was written in the 1960’s? :wink: I have never seen how a person could say that it’s a bad thing to use more of the bible in our Mass. While I don’t agree with many of the ideas some on these forums have on the “Novus Ordo” vs. the “TLM” I can understand what the line of thinking is. The line of thinking on the bibilical readings for the “Novus Ordo” Mass I’ve never been able to even come close to understanding. It just seems like stubborness at best!

I think gelsbern makes a good point, and I’m not persuaded by katolik, but this may just be my ignorance of the issues.

In regard to the calendar, I seem to remember that there used to be about 40 holy days of obligation, but this dropped considerably by the time of Vatican II. That strikes me as a pretty big change in 200 years or whatever the time frame was. On the other hand, maybe those feast days and so forth were retained, just not obligated.

As for the readings, I always thought the readings were more or less “plug and play” - the readings/psalm have some relationship with each other, and the season, but the rest of the mass is largely unchanged from week to week. I don’t see how using the new readings in the old Latin mass would violate the integrity of the mass.

Finally, in regard to the comment about Eastern Catholic liturgies, they are of course distinct from the Latin Catholics. A better comparison would be whether the Mozarabic, Anglican use, Ambrosian, Dominican, etc rites continue to use readings different from those currently used for the Mass of Paul VI. I don’t know the answer - educate me.

[quote=Digitonomy]… Anglican use, Ambrosian, Dominican, etc rites continue to use readings different from those currently used for the Mass of Paul VI. I don’t know the answer - educate me.
[/quote]

Anglican Use readings are identical to NOM.

BTW:
There are normally 7 readings of the Bible for the TLM Mass. They get spread throughout the Mass for that day.

As far as I know the Scriptural readings in the TLM are:

  1. More numerous.
  2. Longer in the Epistles and Gospels.
  3. Are not sanitized. If you look at the NOM you often see:
    Gospel of ST XXXX ch 6 vs 1-6 , vs 14-19.
    The skipped verses; 7-13 are usually the part on hell, condemnation, few saved, punishment, men vs women etc.
    Finally, if the TLM used the NOM readings, they’d have to :
  4. Go to a 3-yr cycle.
  5. Quit all the PC incorrect verses that TLM attendees are used to.
  6. The # of readings during Masss Outside the Epistle & Gospel would have to be reconstructed from scratch since they are related to the existing E & G.
  7. There is no “Liturgy committee or bureaucracy” to handle all this …thank God.

[quote=bear06][/font]

Let me get this straight. The Bible was written in the 1960’s? :wink: I have never seen how a person could say that it’s a bad thing to use more of the bible in our Mass. …
[/quote]

Indeed, you can thank the 6 protestants who were “NOT INVOLVED” in the design stage of the NOM for the extended 3-yr cycle, and “more” Bible readings (which I have not found to be entirely true) and less prayers.
And, of course the Last Gospel still said in the TLM had to go…poof…less “bible reading”.

[quote=TNT] 3. Are not sanitized. If you look at the NOM you often see:
Gospel of ST XXXX ch 6 vs 1-6 , vs 14-19.
The skipped verses; 7-13 are usually the part on hell, condemnation, few saved, punishment, men vs women etc.
[/quote]

I haven’t found this to be true, although I haven’t done a thorough examination of this issue. However, looking for example at today’s readings, the first reading is from Daniel 13, and here are the skipped verses:

10
Though both were enamored of her, they did not tell each other their trouble,
11
for they were ashamed to reveal their lustful desire to have her.
12
Day by day they watched eagerly for her.
13
One day they said to each other, “Let us be off for home, it is time for lunch.” So they went out and parted;
14
but both turned back, and when they met again, they asked each other the reason. They admitted their lust, and then they agreed to look for an occasion when they could meet her alone.

18
They did as she said; they shut the garden doors and left by the side gate to fetch what she had ordered, unaware that the elders were hidden inside.

31
Susanna, very delicate and beautiful,
32
was veiled; but those wicked men ordered her to uncover her face so as to sate themselves with her beauty.

Certainly these would’ve made the story a bit juicier, but the meaning isn’t changed, and the part of the story about condemnation and punishment toward the end of the reading is entirely intact. A quick perusal of other dates in the lectionary shows that the meaning is generally not changed by including the omitted verses. For the most part, as in most of the verses from Daniel I quoted, they strengthen a point through repetition.

I remember a few months ago when I looked up some omitted verses, it was simply a list of the twelve tribes of Israel. Personally, I can do without archaic elements of the verbal tradition like that. On the other hand, I don’t think the verses from Daniel listed above would really hurt, except by distracting hormone-laden teenage minds from the rest of the liturgy.

So I’ll agree they may have been too quick with the knife in cutting some of these verses, but I don’t think your accusation about the subject matter affected stands up to scrutiny in most cases.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.