Lectionary
  • ClemensRomanusClemensRomanus
    Posts: 1,023
    I much prefer the one year lectionary, since my lowly human mind comprehends things better in relation to other things, for example, the seasons, etc. The yearly calendar is, I'd say, the standard by which we measure things both sacred and secular, so it seems more logical to use a one year cycle. I have the 1967 weekday lectionary, and I must say that I like it. It left the Sunday's and Holyday lections alone. Seemed good to me.
    Thanked by 2Gavin rich_enough
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    I strongly oppose the three-year lectionary. It is silly. Made-up. The old testament lessons are an intrusion, as is the psalm which has, in practice, replaced the venerable Gradual.

    That being said, such an opinion is in the fringe minority of the wider church. It is not shared by most traditional-minded folk. It is not shared by Pope Benedict. It was not shared by the fathers of Vatican II.

    The three-year lectionary isn't going away, and it's likely coming to an Extraordinary Form Mass near you. The one-year lectionary is a lost cause, and will, sadly, become an accident of history.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Gavin,

    Thomas More once opined that if he counted the thought of England alone, in the 1530s, he was outnumbered, but if he counted the saints in heaven, he was in good company.

    Measure the 3-yr lectionary against the standard: "finally there shall be no innovations unless....."

    Thanked by 1Ben
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    I am afraid the 3-year-lectionary now IS the standard - unless some of you think you have the authority to adopt your own. You think we are Baptists and get to vote on it? LOL.
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Charles,

    The standard lectionary -- is this like the "norm" for receiving Holy Communion? Those who use the liturgical books in force in 1962 are permitted to continue to do so.

    No, I don't think we get to vote on it.

    In OF land there are many rules which encourage variation -- so it's hard to know (but probably not impossible) what the rule's correct interpretation is.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,945
    In the OF, the choice of postconciliar vs preconcilar lectionary is not one of those difficult areas of interpretation.
    Thanked by 4CharlesW CHGiffen Spriggo Gavin
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    The standard lectionary -- is this like the "norm" for receiving Holy Communion? Those who use the liturgical books in force in 1962 are permitted to continue to do so.

    No, I don't think we get to vote on it.

    In OF land there are many rules which encourage variation -- so it's hard to know (but probably not impossible) what the rule's correct interpretation is.


    Again, I am amazed at EF proponents who would be outraged at importing anything from the OF, but willy-nilly want to bring EF practices into the OF. The post-conciliar lectionary is the "standard" for the OF - the overwhelming majority of masses said in the U.S. The 1962 liturgical book have little relevance and certainly no authority outside of the EF - wishful thinking to the contrary. One can debate whether or not they were "better" readings, but they are no longer backed or prescribed by legitimate authority and are not any kind of "standard" outside of the EF. I suspect anyone using that earlier lectionary in the OF would quickly be summoned to the chancery.
    Thanked by 1PaxMelodious
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    In OF land there are many rules which encourage variation -- so it's hard to know (but probably not impossible) what the rule's correct interpretation is.


    I'm having trouble understanding what is hard to understand about how to "implement" the current lectionary. Of all the things I've seen at all the churches I've been to, the one thing I haven't seen is people confused about how the lectionary works.

    (I have seen such with Protestants, mind you --- but that has been due to either the two-track option after Pentecost or the discrepancy between the RCL and the BCP.)
    Thanked by 8CharlesW Gavin Liam melofluent Salieri CHGiffen PaxMelodious OraLabora
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    I have seen little glitches: the priest/sacristan marks the book for Sunday XXIV A rather than XXIV B, or on Monday Advent I the Year I book is mistakenly retained rather than switching to the Year II book. Not causes for invalidity, but little problems.

    And to be honest: while I am very passionate about the 1-year lectionary, I do believe that the vast majority of people in the pews don't know that there are different lectionary cycles (3 Sunday, 2 Weekday, 1 Sanctoral). And I also believe that the vast majority of people don't realize that there are set formularies for Masses in the Missal, or that the color of vestments means something - possibly the music may have something to do with it? I mean, the music is generally chosen at random so why can't the orations and lections, or color of vestments? Basically what we have here is the problem of a people who are even less "formed in the liturgy" now than they were before the council that mandated that the people be "formed in the liturgy".

    That's really the principal problem: before we can discuss implementing the Graduate Romanov, or reverting to a one-year lectionary cycle, or removing all anaphoras except the Roman Canon, we need to work on forming people in the liturgy. Otherwise all of our talk about propers and so on will fall on deaf ears, and we will accomplish nothing except expelling a lot of hot air.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    More Diabolical Disorientation comes to the fore...
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934

    If only those heretical liberals at Trent had not messed with the liturgy...

    Thanked by 2Adam Wood CHGiffen
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,945
    Don't forget the Carolingians.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW CHGiffen
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    If only those heretical liberals hysterical reactionaries at Trent had not messed with the liturgy...


    now it can be unpurpled
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,945
    I am not going to diss the Merovingians, though. Long-haired best-sellers that they are.
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • johnmann
    Posts: 175
    Wasn't the 1967 lectionary on a 2-year weekday cycle?

    Why do you need to comprehend the cycles? What difference does it make to you? "Because a year is more commonly used in other contexts," is the weakest possible justification. It's up against the interest of reading more Scripture.

    I think the worst thing you can say about the OF lectionary is that perhaps it's unnecessary.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    I think the worst thing you can say about the OF lectionary is that perhaps it's unnecessary.


    I do find reading more scripture to be an admirable practice. The worst thing I can say about the OF lectionary is that some parts of it seem disjointed and unrelated to much else.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    The worst thing I can say about the OF lectionary is to point out the extant to which many people have come to see the lectionary readings + responsorial Psalm as encompassing the essence or theme of any particular day or feast, and then treating them as the sole source material for hymns, songs, prayers, preaching, and any other texts which may adorn the rite, and judging everything based on how well or poorly it "harmonizes" with the readings.

    I am all for this sort of thing --- I have written more than a few hymns which are, in one way or another, based on the lectionary texts of a particular day. And one certainly should read the lectionary texts before selecting any hymns to insert into the Mass (if one is doing that sort of thing).

    I object to the hegemonic hold the lectionary has on some people's liturgical imaginations. (On the other hand, I object to the lack of connection with the lectionary I sense in some music programming. So there's that on the other hand.)

    The second worst thing I can say about the OF lectionary is that I almost always wish it were year A.
    Thanked by 3Caleferink CHGiffen Jazzer
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    The worst thing to say about the 3-yr cycle is that it's inorganic. It didn't develop from that which priorly existed.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    The worst thing to say about the 3-yr cycle is that it's inorganic. It didn't develop from that which priorly existed.


    Must be an Old Calendarist. LOL.

    Again, no vote was taken in the parishes on either the new rite or the lectionary. I am old enough to remember when it happened, but no one consulted any of us.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,945
    Salt is inorganic. If the worst that can be said is that the 3-yr cycle is inorganic, then that's not a big mountain. The very same document that mentioned organic development also specified a multi-year course of readings. There being no existing multi-year lectionary, the development of it would necessarily be "inorganic". Just one of many examples where organic development is not a universal solvent of changes made in the postconciliar rites.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    Salt is inorganic.


    Not according to the liturgical definition of organic.
    That is: "Things I like."
    Thanked by 2MarkThompson jeffinpa
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    Salt is inorganic.


    Not according to the liturgical definition of organic.
    That is: "Things I like."
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    I repeat myself when under stress.
    Thanked by 2Spriggo Adam Wood
  • Spriggo
    Posts: 122
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od91ESn96YM
    Thanked by 1SarahJ
  • G
    Posts: 1,397
    the liturgical definition of organic.
    That is: "Things I like."

    Ya sure?
    I think it's more like, "Things I like that are only somewhat like what my forbears liked but that they likely would have liked if they'd thought of them since my likes and their likes are pretty much alike."
    But that's just me.

    (Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,151
    I mean, the music is generally chosen at random so why can't the orations and lections, or color of vestments?
    The music being generally chosen at random doesn't make it right.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    Well no. What I meant was that there is a likely-hood that "the people" - that wonderfully nebulous creature we all seem to know so much about - think, and generally quite rightly, that the music is picked by the DM based on what he/she like or what the people like, etc., and so what's to say that "they" don't also think, then, that the choice of colours of Mass vestments or choice of readings for any particular Sunday is not simply based on what Father likes - after all, generally speaking, the anaphora is chosen based on which one Father likes. I know myself, until I was taught about liturgical seasons and colors, I thought that it was all based on what Father felt like wearing at any given moment. And doubtless many un-formed people have the same thoughts.

    Basically my main gist is that all of this talk about lectionary cycles, choral propers, chanted propers, anaphoras, ad orientem, etc. doesn't matter at all, at all, if we are doing nothing to educate "the people" about the liturgy. I feel that there is far too little being done in that department - what little liturgical knowledge many people I know have was taught to them in the fourth grade, and nothing was ever mentioned after that. Not even from the priest.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,945
    My experience has been that liturgical seasons and the 3-year lectionary are typically addressed in bulletin articles first and foremost, with occasional reinforcement over the course of the year by celebrants. For example, it will not surprise me to hear a preacher this coming Sunday refer back to this past Sunday's pericope from Mark, and explain that it stops just before Mark's account of the miracle of the feeding of the 5000, and note that we now take a break from Mark's gospel to jump into the Gospel of John's account thereof, which is followed by much more elaborate teaching by Jesus on himself as the Bread of Life, which we'll hear more of in the next few Sundays. (For me, this is one of best choices the crafters of the Ordinary Time Sunday lections made in the course of the three-year cycle. I fully understand others may disagree. So sue me.)

    Btw, if Jesus had merely inspired stingy....um...Jewish people to share more (I do love to remind homilists who take this interpretation how anti-Semitic it can sound....) they would not have rushed to make him king. The reaction of the people indicates what they experienced was other-worldly. Oh, well, some people can't read.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    If the worst that can be said is that the 3-yr cycle is inorganic, then that's not a big mountain. The very same document that mentioned organic development also specified a multi-year course of readings. There being no existing multi-year lectionary, the development of it would necessarily be "inorganic". Just one of many examples where organic development is not a universal solvent of changes made in the postconciliar rites.
    ahhh, no, not the 3 year cycle... the entire NO and all of its innovations to boot.
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 1,033
    The very same document that mentioned organic development also specified a multi-year course of readings."

    This is one of the frustrating things about the constitution on the liturgy. While it states in one place (no. 23) that "care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing," it then mandates a change - a multi-year cycle of readings - which is unprecedented in liturgical history. How this can be said to "grow organically from forms already existing" is a puzzle at best.

    Change being "organic" is not some shibboleth of over-punctilious trads, but is spelled out in the document itself. Pointing out that "organic development is not a universal solvent" is more an indictment of the way in which the reform of the liturgy was carried out than a rebuke of traditionalists.
    Thanked by 1MatthewRoth
  • johnmann
    Posts: 175
    There is less opposition to a weekday lectionary which would necessarily have been created from scratch. It's an adaptation insofar as you're merely changing the readings. Same logic can apply to the multi-year lectionary.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,704
    I am sure we will still have the EF lectionary in 500 years time... I cannot say the same about the OF 3 year version.

    Just because the OF 3 year lectionary is the main form now does not tell us anything about tomorrow. The PIPs are now used to change the English translations come and go, how many would notice if there was a change, and how many would complain about it a year later.

    One question that has been asked and will continue to be increasingly important,
    Has the Reforms of the Liturgy been a success?
    How we quantify this is a problem, Mass attendance, Baptisms, Level of knowledge of Scripture, familiarity of the texts...

    Other questions also could to be asked,

    Was the EF 1 year cycle a success?
    Is more scripture better?
    Is the familiarity possible with a 1 year cycle better?
    Do we (or have we ever) really understand the Scriptures?
    Has the reading of translations of the scriptures improved understanding?
    What Translation should be used?
    What is the vernacular in a modern multicultural parish?
    Do we have to read translations of the scriptures in more than one language at a Mass to aid understanding?
    Does the reading of the scriptures in Missals / sheets assist understanding more than listening?

    N.B. in France in only a few years time the most common lectionary used will be the EF!
    Unless vocations increase to replace our ageing clergy, and said clergy are willing to say the OF, the EF lectionary may also come to be the most commonly used lectionary elsewhere.

    I have no memory of the 3 year lectionary I grew up with, even though as a teenager I was one of the lectors in my parish. I am more than happy with the 1 year lectionary I hear each week.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,959
    One particularly mind-boggling change is the assignment of Good Shepherd Sunday, necessitating the Alleluias being changed, and in year C there being no mention of Christ himself as the Good Shepherd.

    I would think that if an Advent lectionary were created for the EF, it could be a great success, but the number of mandatory feasts would have to be cut for it to be effective (leaving them as commemorations), and they can’t afford mistakes... I think the cycles get to a point where it really stops making sense and you just want the next season to begin.
  • OraLabora
    Posts: 218
    Here's my take on the lectionary: Roma locuta est, causa finita est. I can't get worked up about something over which I have no control. The official Latin chant books have been adapted to the 3-year lectionary. As far as I'm concerned, our schola has all the tools it needs to chant the OF in Gregorian chant, as well as the Divine Office. It's not perfect, liturgy never is, but at my age I've learned to pick my battles! I'm just thrilled that some parishes let us practice our craft and let us chant for them. In this day and age, in very liberal Quebec, that's no mean feat.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Adam Wood
Add a Comment