If you've not consulted it, you should also consult the General Instruction to the Lectionary:

http://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/Rites/Lectionary.pdf

I would hope that the current OF cycles are retained.

Just an academic exercise. I've been thinking through the ways the two forms can enrich each other.

In a similar vein, is there anything Vatican II said that ought to be applied to the EF?

Is there any document that specifies that the readings at Mass in the OF must be taken from the revised 3-year lectionary?

Yes, the General Instruction of the Lectionary.

Since we are speaking in absurdities, would it, um, be alright to use the readings from the three year cycle at an EF mass? After all, we are, um, speaking of mutual enrichment. Felipe is quite right. This is more than a stretch. Further, what is the point? That there is something wrong with the three year cycle?

would it, um, be alright to use the readings from the three year cycle at an EF mass?

The Ecclesia Dei commission has indicated that it could be done, but that it should not be imposed on congregations that don't want it:
http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/11/DocumentIndex/412

I bring this up because I indeed have heard complaints of the three-year lectionary, for reasons stated above by MatthewRoth, among others (I was not aware of the Antiphonale Romanum issue).

There is a tidiness to the EF cycle that is lost in the new cycle, even if it took the new cycle to discover it. That said, there is much to commend the expanded exposure to the Bible that comes from the three-year cycle that also expands the number of readings in a given Mass.

Like I said, an academic question that popped into my head.

In a similar vein, is there anything Vatican II said that ought to be applied to the EF?

Yes: all of it was intended to be applied to the EF. For better or for worse, it was the application of Vatican II to the EF that produced the OF.

Isn't the point of the Missal of Paul VI to be flexible?

No; who ever said that?

Since we are speaking in absurdities, would it, um, be alright to use the readings from the three year cycle at an EF mass?

Why not? The priest reads the Latin readings quietly, and then at the sermon he can read aloud and preach on anything he wants: a cookbook, the modern lectionary, etc.

Dr. Mahrt says that there is evidence against the view that there were regularly 3 or more readings...

The office at any rate is where we need to be didactically exposed (as a first or second principle: at Mass the readings seem to be didactic at the tertiary level).

If I were POPE OF THE LECTIONARY I would decree that we have the current three-reading schema in context of a one-year cycle.

Oh, I forgot to add:
I am not POPE OF THE LECTIONARY.
So I don't really spend any energy thinking about how the lectionary should be fixed.

Do you and he travel through time? Because if so, you could check out various time periods and see who was happiest/most upright because of their lectionary.

Continuing from above, here are a few gleanings from St Augustine's Lectionary, by G.G. Willis (Alcuin Club, no. XLIV) -

>St Basil speaks of lessons on a given day as Isa. 1.16, Ps. 33.6, Acts 2.38, Matt. 11.28
>Justin Martyr, in his Apology, refers to lessons from epistles and the prophets, in addition, presumably, to the gospels.
>St Ambrose attests that first the prophets, then the apostles, then the gospels were read.
>At Milan, during the time of Ambrose, a lesson from the prophets was read, and to this day the Milanese rite retains three lessons for the most ancient celebrations.
>The Mozarabic and Gallican churches retained a lesson from the prophets until late, up into Carolingian times. These were likely dropped in the rush to copy Roman practice during Charlemagne's time.
>At Rome the prophecy was 'in process of extinction' as early as the fourth century. Only on very ancient feasts does the Roman rite retain lessons from the prophecy.
>According to L. Duchense (Christian Worship), the prophecy was retained at Rome for masses of the vigil and night of Christmas down to the time of Charlemagne.
>In Africa, during Augustine's time, the third reading was commonplace but on its way out.
>There is more.

Jungman probably has more, but this will do for now.

Apparently decorum at mass in these early times was, by our standards, quite raucous. People talked loudly during the readings, some reclined as if on a couch at home, and there was anything but the air of devoted reverence which we have cultivated in more modern times. The purpose of the (loudly proclaimed) greeting, 'the Lord be with you', was nothing more than a repeated and insistent effort to get people to stop their noise whilst the scriptures were read.

And, this will seem strange to us: in these early times people had to be exhorted to stay for the anaphora instead of leaving after the readings. Today the unfortunate custom of many is to stay for the elevation or for their communion, then 'eat and run'. One reluctantly is left pondering if the theological concept of 'the People of God' assembled for liturgia as a complete communal act from beginning to end is of recent vintage. Of course, it really is quite primitive (and even has pre-Jewish Semitic antecedents), but getting 'the people' on board seems an on-going project - one not altogether aided by the extreme clericalism of some.

There is no need for a three-year cycle of Sunday Readings, with a simultaneous two-year cycle of Ferial Readings, and a simultaneous and oft-ignored one-year cycle of Sanctoral Readings. Not to mention the possible readings for votive Masses. The year is the longest natural cycle that we measure time by, the liturgical calendar is one year, and having a three+two+one-year lectionary cycle is unnatural and unnecessary. And it is arguable as to whether or not the revised lectionary is even doing what it intends to do. Most Catholics only come to Mass on Sunday, so most aren't even exposed to the lectio continuo of the ferial lections.

Not to mention, that the idea of a certain Mass formulary being made up of Proper texts which include Antiphons, Responsories, Lessons, and Orations, is missing. There should be, among people who pay attention, an almost immediate recognition of what is going to happen as soon as one hears the Introit. After a few years of exposure to High Mass one should hear 'Dum clamarem' and immediately know what the lessons, orations, etc. are, presuming that the cycle is one-year. With a three-year cycle this is unattainable, since the lections only recur once every three years.

@MatthewRoth: "it also has made it next to impossible to finish the new Antiphonale Romanum with antiphons needed for Sunday Lauds and Vespers over three years plus ferial offices over two. "

Not so. The 3-year cycle of Gospel canticle antiphons has been developed thoroughly since the appearance of the Antiphonale Monasticum I of 2005, and also the one-year and two-year cycles of biblical antiphons for the Magnificat of First Vespers (which corresponds to the reading at the Office of Readings/Vigils depending on whether the 1-year or 2-year lectionary is used). These antiphons are in fact in the new Antiphonale Romanum II (Vespers of Sundays, Feasts and Solemnities throughout the year), straight from the work done on the Monastic antiphonale. Presumably the Lauds series from AM I will also be used with the Lauds volume of the AR is complete. ARII does seem to use the First Vespers antiphons corresponding to the 1-year lectionary only for the Office of Readings, while the AM I gives both cycles as options depending on which lectionary the monastery uses.

The issue with the Antiphonale Romanum is not the Gospel canticle antiphons (which are tied to the lectionary) but the new divisions of psalms which requires some antiphons to be composed, plus the New Testament canticles at Vespers. The Vatican catch 22 was that all antiphons had to come from traditional sources, but there were no traditional antiphons for the new divisions. Solesmes finally broke through that by simply making new compositions and adding them to the Ordo Cantus Officii.

Prior to AM I being released in 2005, the 1934 Monastic Antiphonary was used for the Gospel canticle antiphons. Solesmes put out a book called "Documenta" that ensured that the antiphon selected from the old AM corresponded to the Gospel reading of that specific Sunday in the OF Mass; the biggest challenge of course being Year B (the year where the Gospel of Mark is featured).

For the ferial offices, as well as Sundays throughout the year, the source of the antiphons from the psalmody including the Gospel canticles has long been established except for the issues with the psalm divisions noted above. Typically these antiphons are not related to the Biblical readings, but are taken from a verse of the psalm or canticle itself (they may seem different because the antiphons use the Vulgate text as opposed to the Neo Vulgate of the current psalms).

Exceptions would be the last week of Advent and Holy Week, and the proper antiphons of Sundays of Advent and Lent. Again, these have been well established in the Monastic Antiphonary which is the basis for the Roman Antiphonary, since the lectionaries are the same in both cases save a few saints proper to monastic orders.

Ora

I wasn't under the impression that we could pick and choose the lectionary that suits us.

I wasn't under the impression that we could pick and choose the lectionary that suits us.

Only if you are the POPE OF THE LECTIONARY (or his sidekick, the CARDINAL ARCHDEACON OF THE LECTIONARY).

There is nothing "natural" about a one-year cycle. The lectionary isn't a product of nature. Without a hand-missal, few, if any, Catholics who attend the OF or EF would notice if the readings changed from year to year.

How do you know all this?

This isn't hard and fast proof, but it is anecdotal evidence I find quite compelling.

I am friends with a man who was a Benedictine monk, he's actually my precentor; he's told me on several occasions of conversations he had with his older confreres who were in the monastery before and after the liturgical changes. They told him that before the council they actually knew what the readings would be at the Mass simply by hearing the introit, since they lived the liturgy with it's annually recurring cycle, with the added benefit that the ferial Masses were the Sunday Mass repeated.

After the council these same monks could no longer make the connections: Those readings no longer went with that Introit or Offertory, and when it did, it only occurred once every three years on Sundays, and never during the week, since the Sunday readings are never read on Ferias. In their eyes there was a unity, a cohesiveness, in the Traditional liturgy that allowed the Propers (antiphons, responsories, lections, orations) to really sink-in that they found missing in the new rite.

I have to say, that I am not bothered by more scripture in the Mass, I'm all for three readings on Sundays and Solemnities, and while we're at it, we should bring back the Ember and Rogations Days, which have Seven, but rather I'm bothered by the lack of repetition. The way things get passed down, traditionally, is by repetition. That's the way the Chant got passed down, the way epic poetry got passed down; it's the way most people learned anything until the modern age. I think we over-estimate our ability to comprehend things today. Yes, there is more information available to us now, but, conversely, most people can't be bothered to read anything longer than four pages, and couple that with our culture's almost pathological fear of repeating ourselves (everything has to be NEW or IMPROVED, a constant novelty), and you have a good recipe for an un-educated people.

I think people would benefit more from liturgical repetition/recapitulation than by (near-)continuous change.

Just my .o2; do with it what you will.

I do find an inordinate focus on the readings, to the detriment of everything else

This.

And the priest is expected to preach on only them

Not so.

If I were POPE OF THE LECTIONARY I would decree that we have the current three-reading schema in context of a one-year cycle.

When this comes to pass, you will have female cardinals, and I offer my services as Cardinal Archdeacon of the Lectionary.

three-reading schema in context of a one-year cycle.

So let it be written, so let it be done.
I have heard priests complaining about coming up with material for the homily praise the 3 year cycle for this very reason, so that they "need" not preach the same sermon every year. They seem unaware that there are options other than the Gospel or NT reading on which to preach.
If only I had been consulted on this... (MY consilium would have fabricated a 1 year Sunday and Solemnity lectionary, a 4 year weekday, and default to readings in the sanctoral cycle.)

I am not bothered by more scripture in the Mass, I'm all for three readings on Sundays and Solemnities, and while we're at it, we should bring back the Ember and Rogations Days, which have Seven, but rather I'm bothered by the lack of repetition. The way things get passed down, traditionally, is by repetition.

Amen. You can name me Cardinal, too, if you like.

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

I have some cardinal red socks, does that count?

Many people are surprised to learn that, ever since the 13th century reforms, CARDINAL DEACON OF FOOTWEAR is largely a ceremonial appointment.

You know I don't even like the NL in the bigs, grew up Yankees, moved into A's, storied franchises each in their own way. But if I have to endure one more St. Louis fan posting anything about the Cards.....well, the SF Giants are still the reigning champs, last I checked.
Carry on with the "If I were King of the Forest" dialogues.

Don't worry, Melo, I'm from MA, so I'm a Red Sox fan by birth. After that, Baltimore. So no NL team is even on the radar . . .

Born and reared in southern Illinois - Cardinals country - Stan "The Man" Musial, Red Schoendienst, Enos "Country" Slaughter, Wilmer "Vinegar Bend" Mizell, Dizzy and Daffy Dean.
During my years in Virginia, added allegiance to the Orioles, but still remained a Cardinals fan.
Moved to Western Wisconsin - Twins territory - love and cheer for the Twins, but always and forever a Cardinals fan.

Bob Gibson was the same age as my sister and, as such, was pretty much a generation later than the redbirds I grew up with. I should have added Joe Garagiola, Solly Hemus, though and probably a few others. I didn't go with people of my generation and later, such as Bob Gibson, Ozzie Smith, Ken Boyer, Curt Flood, Lou Brock, Harvey Haddix, Wally Moon, Bill White, Joe Cunningham, Jim Edwards, and (of course) Albert Pujols.

I have a complete abhorrence for the three year lectionary. I share with those monks the same feeling that it has been destructive of catholic liturgical identity. It has been an exercise in rationalism and pseudo protestantism.

I have no strong feeling one way or the other on an old testament reading in the mass. I was told by someone that supposedly there it does exist in some old manuscript. If so, fine, one way or the other, it does not bother me if its there or not there - but the three year lectionary has brought nothing of merit to the faith, nothing at all. only destruction.