Matthew in the Pre-Vatican II Lectionary

RomanticStrings

One of the resources at my current music director position is Cry Out with Joy, a psalm etc. book from GIA. The statement is made.

Prior to the Second Vatican COuncil, the vast majority of Catholics rarely placed much emphasis on the Bible. While in retrospect this may seem surprising and even shocking for some of us, the role of the scriptures in the spiritual life of Catholic Christians was seen as far more secondary to the sacraments, especially in the Eucharist.

I am willing to accept that a vast majority did not read scripture personally, though to state that the scriptures exerted little influence on Catholics is to ignore the many uses of scripture that shaped sacramental life.

However, it goes on to say, " Our exposure to the Bible was pretty much limited to what we heard read at Mass, and even that was minimal: some parts of the epistles and exclusively, the Gospel of Matthew." Not being knowledgeable about the historical lectionary, I looked up the various readings, which of course proves that false, but to what extent is false? What would suggest to them that Matthew was the only Gospel from which the readings were taken?

To round out this post, the paragraph concludes,

Although the proclamation of the Word of God has always been a part of the Eucharist since the most ancient of times, for many years it was a very distant part of our faith life, especially in the praying of the liturgy. As a result of the prohetic vision and reform of the council, we have come to understand how Scripture is an essential grounding of our Christian faith, and its proper centrality in the liturgical life of the Church has flourished greatly over the past 50 years.

Again, I'll accept that many didn't read scripture, and didn't get much intellectually from the readings and Propers (sung scripture) or even the scriptural references woven throughout the liturgical texts. I even accept that knowledge of Scripture is beneficial to our faith life, though the way most completely remove it from orthodox interpretation has surely damaged our liturgical life, not made it flourish.

What thoughts do folks have on this mindset? I don't think we need to hash out the benefits of a pre- or post-V2 lectionary, but I guess I want to know if it's just me, or if this is an obvious source of the misunderstanding of the purpose of Vatican II?

~Conor

Liam

I could push back on the thrust and tone of a lot of that quoted statement, but on the other hand it will no do simply to do that. Among other things, the Propers being sung was the exception rather than the rule in most of the Masses that the laity attended in USA. That said, the preconciliar lectionary for Sundays demonstrated a preference (not exclusive) for the Gospel of St Matthew among the Synoptics, but St Luke was also well represented - St Mark was nearly absent.

http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Roman_Missal.htm

I am sensitive to this issue because my parents came from two very different parishes in the same city, and they would poke each other about the differences in their respective Catholicisms. My mother's was the big Irish-American parish, which became the cathedral parish when their city became the seat of a new diocese after World War II. My father's was a small German national personal parish (though its emphatically German character got significantly toned down after the USA entered World War I). My father's family grew up learning to regularly read Scripture, and parish Masses featured a lot of hymn singing. My mother's parish was dominated by the low Mass, though she sang in the school choir that sang at school Masses; they were not encouraged to read Scripture at all. My impression in the Eastern Seaboard is that my mother's experience was more typical; my father's experience may have been more typical in parts of the Great Lakes and Upper Midwest.

RomanticStrings

Growing up on the East Coast and living in the Midwest, I can relate to those assessments, even post-conciliarly(...?).

Liam

I'd be curious to see what an anachronistic (in the descriptive, not pejorative, sense of the word) survey of preconciliar American Catholics would have been with how much they tended to agree with the following statement:

"High Mass is a punishment for people who sleep late on Sundays."

I would imagine there would be regional tendencies in the responses.

CCooze

All Sunday Masses should be High Masses. It is Sunday, after all.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

I think that the idea that no one read Scripture, or that most people were ignorant of Scripture is a premise masquerading as a conclusion. It's based on the idea that Vatican II opened up both a greater quantity and a greater knowledge of Scripture. I wasn't alive in the pre-conciliar era, so I won't base myself on some fanciful notion of a golden age in the past.

If we listen merely to the work of Fulton J. Sheen, he makes reference to all sorts of passages in Scripture. If we read his 7 Last Words and other similar works, we see that there is a wide knowledge of some parts of Scripture.

Being able to quote Scripture verses isn't the same thing as knowing Scripture. (Protestants, for example, can quote St. John's Gospel: "For God so loved the world...", and somehow skip over "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood...."

Certainly the experience of the Mass was different in diverse places, both in this country and abroad. That's still true, today. One parish can have a clown Mass. One can have cotton candy homilies. Another can have the 45-and-drive hour with God on Sunday. Thomas Day provides anecdotal evidence.

Perhaps it would be fair to ask the writer what constitutes putting emphasis on the Bible?

Maria Montessori's The Mass Explained for Children, written in the ignorant past, clearly takes some level of knowledge as a given.

If we read speeches in other generations, both Catholics and non-Catholics make reference to Scripture without saying "Now, I'm going to quote from the Bible."

I don't think GIA's thesis holds water, even acknowledging that knowledge of Scripture varied from person to person, parish to parish, and decade to decade.

CharlesW

I read scripture before Vatican II as did many others. I even owned - gasp, shudder - Bibles. By allowing the Divine Office to fall into disuse, the Church in the U.S. did a disservice to all its members. Attending and praying the hours gives a much greater exposure to scripture. Somehow, it became something restricted to the clergy in this country and that was everyone's loss.

CHGiffen

Well said, Charles.

ProfKwasniewski

The revised Lectionary is largely a disaster. That was the upshot of the paper I gave this past summer at Sacra Liturgia. The old lectionary worked far better for its liturgical purpose, and had been around for close to 1,500 years -- not a bad track record. Small improvements could have been made, but Vatican II's indication that changes should be organic was ignored here as elsewhere.

MatthewRoth

Lectionary Study Aids by Matthew Hazell is dedicated to this topic. There is also a website (the name and author of which escapes me) that has a page which shows the Sunday and festal readings in the old and new calendars and corresponding lectionaries.

rich_enough

You could say it's a question of being familiar with a greater amount of Scripture versus knowing certain passages very well (since they were read every year). Which of these constitutes a "better" knowledge of Scripture is an open question - though I tend to think the latter option is preferable. And as with many things supposedly inaugurated by Vatican II, a revival of lay interest in the Bible pre-dates the Council.

Of course, if you take into consideration the fact that far fewer people now go to mass than right before Council, it's about a wash at best.

johnmann

The 3-year cycle has been around for over 2000 years. If it was good enough for Jesus...

MatthewRoth

The revised office is also less conducive to the formation of pious memory because the psalter has been redistributed. It was better when the minor hours and Compline didn’t change, but at least the Psalms were all prayed in a week in the pre-conciliar office.

Paul_Dang

johnmann, you don't know what you're talking about when you say the 3-year cycle was around for over 2000 years. That is simply not TRUE! All liturgies, both East and West, have 1-year lectionaries (prior to the 1971 Missal); none have 3-years.

And BTW, at the time of Jesus, all they had was the Old Testament, so your comparison again doesn't hold water at all! They wouldn't have needed 3 years to cover the OT at all, as well!

Chris Garton-Zavesky

Paul,

I think he's pulling your leg. My father tells the story of a fellow serviceman, decades ago, who said something like this: "If the St. James Version was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me".

hartleymartin

Would it have not been better to have kept the old 1 year lectionary and then allow alternate readings for each day? For example, where the gospel reading has an equivalent passage in another gospel, that would be allowed as an alternate reading?

I see both advantage and disadvantages to the 3 year lectionary. That said, I don't think that the holy mother church is going to change it any time soon and it is "above my pay-scale" to speculate on such matters.

ClemensRomanus

johnmann is partially correct. There actually was a three year Jewish lectionary along with a one year lectionary; however, scholars, based on the evidence, are now questioning when it was finalized, some even suggesting just before the destruction of the temple. In fact, several prominent scholars believe the lessons in Jesus' time were still chosen by the presider or reader of the Torah. The earliest sources we have do not lend impressive support to the idea of a fixed lectionary whether annual, biennial (which very few believe existed), or triennial.

CHGiffen

I grew up with this version of Chris's story:

Years and years ago, when the Revised Standard Version of the Bible had been first published, it was not uncommon for door-to-door booksellers to ply their trade, at least in the southern Midwest. Of course, these booksellers jumped on the chance to peddle copies of the RSV, since the Bible was the most bought and owned book in typical households. One such bookseller, having knocked on the door of Grammy Eugie (short for Eugenia), showed her the new version of the Bible and proceeded extol its virtues and improvements in a comparison with the King James Version that Grammy owned. She listened very patiently and seemed to be considering the bookseller's offer and presentation very carefully. Finally, the bookseller said, "It seems as if you must be ready to acquire this marvelous new Bible, aren't you?" Grammy Eugie just smiled and looked kindly at the bookseller and replied, "Well, I think not. Because, you see, it seems as if the King James Version was good enough for Jesus, then it's good enough for me."

johnmann

No leg pulling. My comment should be taken literally. While not certain, if we were forced to guess, it's more likely than not that Jesus and the apostles used a 3-year Torah reading cycle.

Whether 1, 2, 3, or 10 years, the cycle should serve the Word of God and not the other way around. Exposure to more Scripture, especially now that it's invariably understood readily in the vernacular, is undoubtedly an advantage to be weighed against better familiarity with fewer sections of Scripture. The familiarity advantage is sometimes exaggerated by apologists for the 1-year cycle. Don't forget that, given our longer life-expectancy, the typical cradle Catholic may hear the readings of the 3-year cycle 20 times or more over a lifetime. There are movies I've watched fewer than 20 times that I've recorded to memory practically word-for-word. In my view, altering the length of the cycle is well within the rather nebulous concept of "organic development," on par with altering the more minor rubrics of the Mass. In this case, small-t tradition should serve as a tie-breaker and not a trump card.

CharlesW

The 3-year cycle has been around for over 2000 years. If it was good enough for Jesus...

Dang, these pagans don't know anything, do they? What's the matter with these revisionists? Jesus did all this while playing Bach and singing Solesmes chant in square notes. Everybody knows that.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

that it's invariably understood readily in the vernacular,

Utter rot. Nonsense. Horsefeathers. Copies of the Kasper Proposal.

Seriously, if better understanding derives from the vernacular, and if this better understanding makes better Catholics, then Mass in the vernacular should have filled the pews with wonderfully holy Catholics. Since that conclusion is everywhere in abeyance, the necessary good of the vernacular is called into question.

Jesus did all this while playing Bach and singing Solesmes chant in square notes

Funny, Charles. Thank you.

ClemensRomanus

There's a fascinating paper on the Jewish lectionary here.

johnmann

if better understanding derives from the vernacular

If? That one needs to understand in order to understand shouldn't be a point of debate. The readings aren't like the Canon where there's at least liturgical actions to accompany the words.

if this better understanding makes better Catholics, then Mass in the vernacular should have filled the pews with wonderfully holy Catholics.

I can just as easily claim that the vernacular prevented an even greater exodus.

Look, I prefer Latin (though not for the readings), but not because of these spurious traditionalist arguments blaming all social ills on the use of the vernacular.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

I can just as easily claim that the vernacular prevented an even greater exodus.

You could claim such a thing, but it would be without evidentiary foundation.

johnmann

You could claim such a thing, but it would be without evidentiary foundation.

Ditto.

Liam

Clemens

Thanks for that link. It's even more interesting if one gives any credence to doing a calculation of the likely time of year Jesus was born by parsing the references in Luke with such knowledge as may be currently had of the Temple service schedule of priestly tribes - giving a reconstructed chronology of the Nativity of our Lord occurring at Sukkoth (with the nativity of St John the Baptist occurring around Pesach, the Annunciation to the BVM occurring around Chanukkah, and the annunciation to St Zechariah occurring at Shavuot).

CharlesW

What gets lost in the Latin/vernacular debate is that Latin WAS the language of the people at the time. The object in translating from Greek and other languages was so the people could understand. Unfortunately, in an overreaction to Protestantism that only made matters worse than they could have been, Trent institutionalized language and practices that should have died a natural death much earlier.

Now I expect to hear from the "Old Believers," which is what some of the traditional crowd has become. If you are not familiar with them, they were a group that broke away from the Russian Orthodox Church over the most trivial of things.

Today, our biggest problem is the loss of souls to secularism. This is something Latin can not resolve.

RomanticStrings

I don't think we need to hash out the benefits of a pre- or post-V2 lectionary, but I guess I want to know if it's just me, or if this is an obvious source of the misunderstanding of the purpose of Vatican II?

Whether there is a one- or three-year cycle, was it V2 that saved the Bible from Catholic dumpsters? Do Catholics truly have a better understanding (comprehension, not simply acknowledgement of a flow of vernacular words of which one knows the meaning) of Scripture now? I allow that vernacular readings are better for comprehension, though hearing Scripture read in Latin gave a better connection to the music in Latin (and vernacular Scripture can be read before or after Mass, or in the homily).

Today, our biggest problem is the loss of souls to secularism. This is something Latin can not resolve.

Perhaps not Latin in the Mass, but Canon lawyer Ed Peters makes the point that discussions of doctrine ought to be based upon the Latin original documents so that we don't have the case of debating English translations of Italian originals (if they are even the originals). Vernacular discussion of Latin doctrine prevents against major slippage.

CharlesW

Vernacular discussion of Latin doctrine prevents against major slippage.

Good luck with finding lay people in any quantity who understand Latin. Why not go for better English translations of the originals? Surely, this is not impossible.

Do Catholics truly have a better understanding (comprehension, not simply acknowledgement of a flow of vernacular words of which one knows the meaning) of Scripture now?

We had 60+ people attend the beginnings of a 24-week parish study of St. Matthew just last week. Education is the best way to increase understanding of scripture. Prayer for guidance from the Holy Spirit before each training session is a must.

RomanticStrings

CharlesW, of course, you're right on both counts.

What we need are faithful translations, originals not far off, and Latin-English dictionaries close at hand. Not every lay Catholic needs it to discuss doctrine, but academic consideration and application of doctrine is faulty without it.

Scripture is not better understood by reading it or hearing it, even in the vernacular (it helps), but by studying it. Hearing it proclaimed at Mass does not aid in understanding (it aids in spiritual growth, etc.). Only study, and that with the aid of sound commentaries, can deepen understanding.

CharlesW

Only study, and that with the aid of sound commentaries, can deepen understanding.

Our official text is the Revised Standard 2nd Catholic Edition which is very good. I picked up the Navarre Bible St. Matthew which has some commentaries by St. Josemaria Escriva and have been reading his comments along with the scripture. His comments are incredible! They are so good I have been sharing them with the group.

Liam

"Hearing it proclaimed at Mass does not aid in understanding (it aids in spiritual growth, etc.). Only study, and that with the aid of sound commentaries, can deepen understanding."

Nifty conclusion sans argument.

Paul_Dang

I admit my error about the Jewish lectionary, but we are talking about Catholic liturgy. No Catholic liturgy had a 3-year lectionary; they had at the most continuous readings that didn't span 3 years at the most! The earliest lectionaries all invariably had 1-year cycles! If you want to go back to the Apostles and early Jewish Christians, they still attended Synagogue and temple services until kicked out. The Eucharist had no readings except what Jesus did and extempore prayers. The synaxis and Eucharist weren't joined til around the 2nd-3rd centuries.

In any event, we are not at Mass to learn Scripture as the primary function; it is for praise of God. That is why in the 1962 Missal, appropriate texts are used for the various mysteries and feasts, not continuous Scripture for mere instruction!

And also, how many people attend daily Mass to get their full dose of the 3/2 year lectionary? Very few, I imagine. I should know.

RomanticStrings

Liam, I admit I'm not sure how to argue my point there. I see "understanding" as having two meanings, one being the acknowledgement of words whose meaning is known, and the other being comprehension of the meaning of the passage as a whole. We can understand the words of Scripture without really "getting it."

That said, understanding is a gift of the Holy Spirit (see here for the delightfully lucid workings out of Aquinas), and, as such, understanding can be given by the Spirit to those who hear Scripture, regardless of study.

By sound commentaries, I suppose I just mean consultation with Catholic thought on the meaning of Scripture, be it in discussion with friends, in the homily, in foot/endnotes, published commentaries, etc. One can read Scripture without ever coming across Catholic interpretation of it, and the danger of conflicting "understandings" with orthodoxy is real.

mahrt

My experience, growing up before the council was that we attended a low Mass in Latin, following the Latin lessons in an English translation in a hand missal. Before the sermon, the priest read the lessons from the Mass in English. So we had the lessons twice. The parables from those Sunday lessons have remained as a most fundamental part of my religious understanding. The reason the cycle used Matthew mostly was because his version was often the more complete, viv-a-vis the other synoptics. The repetition of the same lessons yearly was a greater means of assimilating the Gospel values than the three-year cycle. When I attended a Jesuit college (before the council) we had a requited year-long course in scripture, in which we read most of the scripture seriatim. Pretty good.

ProfKwasniewski

One thing many commenters in this thread are missing is the HUGE difference between studying the Bible and proclaiming it liturgically. None of the traditional liturgies of East or West ever tried to "get through" as much of the Bible as possible; they understood well that the proclamation of the Word is intimately tied with the offering of the Eucharistic sacrifice and the veneration of the saints, which immediately limited to a fairly narrow compass the pericopes that were going to be read. But this, it seems, is now esoteric knowledge, so badly have we been formed by the Novus Ordo and its rationalistic presuppositions.

ClemensRomanus

Which brings us back to the Divine Office...
Much could've been solved, I believe, if that were promoted and prayed as much as possible.

johnmann

The Bible can also be proclaimed in a 3-year cycle.

In any event, we are not at Mass to learn Scripture as the primary function

The Mass has many functions. We're talking only of the readings. The primary function of the lessons is in fact to serve as lessons.

Salieri

One thing many commenters in this thread are missing is the HUGE difference between studying the Bible and proclaiming it liturgically.

THIS. The lessons are lessons. But lessons about what?

The point of the scriptural readings in the Liturgy is to bring into sharper focus a particular aspect of the Mystery being celebrated that day: they are lessons about that particular Mystery, not lessons about the bible itself. Otherwise there really isn't a reason why we have to use the Nativity account on Christmas or the Resurrection account on Easter.

If the lessons are simply to hear the Bible, it could be argued that the readings on those days should simply be part of the lectio continuo, even if that means that we would read about the curing of the centurion's slave on Pentecost.

This is an issue that I have particularly with the ferial readings during the time Per Annum: it seems like the sole purpose is to get through as much as possible, and often the lections will have precious little in common with the orations and processional propers for a given Mass. And if the priest uses the ferial readings on the memorials of saints, there is an even greater disconnect: you could end up hearing about the woman caught in adultery on the feast of Teresa of Avila! (NB: slightly hyperbolic example, but don't have time to go digging through the Calendar, Missal and Lectionary for examples.)

johnmann

You could also hear about the woman caught in adultery on the feast of Teresa of Avila without a ferial lectionary. Besides, this criticism doesn't apply to the 3-year Sunday lectionary. The readings are tied to the mystery being celebrated that day. In fact, the OF is better at "theming" the propers which is a criticism that traditionalists often level at the OF.

Liam

While there are some changes I might suggest if anyone in authority were to invite my opinion on the matter, *overall* I strongly prefer the current Sunday-festal lectionary over the preconciliar course of lections. Fortunately, I don't think it's going away any time soon.

Salieri

You could also hear about the woman caught in adultery on the feast of Teresa of Avila without a ferial lectionary

That NEVER would have happened before the Novus Ordo: she would either have had her own proper proper readings, or proper readings form the common of Virgins or Religious, whichever the Missal specified. This is why we have the now-seldom-used Sanctoral lectionary cycle.

My problem with the multi-cycle lectionary (3-year Sunday + 2-year Ferial + 1-year Sanctoral) is that there is too much. I attend Mass every day, and I don't remember what the readings were yesterday evening, let alone what was read on Sunday.

a_f_hawkins

Before there was a set lectionary there was this:

And on the day called Sunday, .... and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.

Rather different from an experience my wife had in Dublin, admittedly on a weekday about 60 years ago, of the approach of the priest to the altar being accompanied by one of his brethren ascending to the pulpit, from which he lead a recitation of the rosary pausing (and genuflecting) only at the consecration.

Paul_Dang

If I want Scripture, I turn to the Office. As Salieri has stated, the lessons pertain to the mystery of the feast. It is NEWS to me to hear that the OF allegedly has better theming to the mystery than the EF. Prof. Dobzsay has shown the defect of that opinion, even while stating some of the themings were good.

Andrew_Malton

Lesson means lection, means reading. The readings are not lessons in the modern English sense of a teaching unit, any more than Ordinary Time is ordinary or the eucharistic species is some kind of antipodean bird.

MatthewRoth

In Pitt, Fr. Cipolla and Dr. Mahet had good things to say on the lessons as proclamations of salvation history and as prayers to the Father from the Son who is reminding the Father of his promise of mercy given to Abraham and his children forever.

The Divine Liturgy never features the Old Testament. Even the more ancient Roman form, i.e. the cycle of the EF does. But both are one year cycles.

The propers and readings of the older form are connected but not explicitly and programmatically.

Although, it is interesting. Dr. Mahrt says correctly that Matthew is most complete... We also have to recover the traditional understanding of Scripture (the authorship, dating, etc.) and only take the best of modern scholarship. That has yet to happen.

Robert

Liam wrote:

the preconciliar lectionary for Sundays demonstrated a preference (not exclusive) for the Gospel of St Matthew among the Synoptics, but St Luke was also well represented - St Mark was nearly absent.

This brings up an interesting question. According to this resource:

Over 90% of Mark is included in Matthew, and about 50% is included in Luke, so there are only very few unique passages in Mark’s Gospel.

So all of these unique passages must be in the lectionary, right? I was surprised to find when taking a quick look through them that this isn't the case, for Sundays and Solemnities at any rate:

Passages unique to Mark:

Introduction:
The beginning of the good news (1:1) included
Jesus being with the wild beasts during temptations (1:13) included

Miracles:
Healing of deaf and mute man in Decapolis (7:31-37) included
Healing of blind man in Bethsaida in two stages (8:22-26) NOT included

Conversation with father of demonised boy throwing himself in to fire (9:21-24) NOT included
Boy being like a corpse and people thinking he was dead (9:26-27) NOT included
This kind of demon can only come out through prayer (9:29) NOT included

Other incidents during ministry:
Calling disciples to mountain to preach, and cast out demons (3:13-15) NOT included
Jesus’ family trying to restrain him (3:20-21) included

Eye-witness details:
Jesus being asleep on a cushion during storm (4:38) included
Jesus saying, “Peace, Be still” to the storm (4:39) included
Details about strength of Gerasene demoniac (5:4-5) NOT included
Jesus being aware that power had gone from him when healing woman with bleeding (5:30) included (but may be omitted in the shorter form of the reading)
Departure to Tyre, and entering a house, not wanting anyone to know he was there (7:24) NOT included
Jesus being indignant when disciples sent children away (10:14) included

Parables:
Parable of seed growing secretly (4:26-29) included
Analogy of man going on journey and leaving doorkeeper to be on watch (13:34) NOT included

Teaching and comments:
Sabbath made for man, not man for the Sabbath, so Son of Man is lord of Sabbath (2:27) included
James and John being given the name “Boanerges", meaning "sons of Thunder” (3:17) NOT included
Everyone salted with fire. Salt losing its saltiness - be at peace (9:48-49) one verse, included, the other not
Blessings include persecutions for those who give up everything (10:30) included
Scribe’s reply to Jesus about importance of loving God and neighbour (12:32-34) included

Incidents during passion and resurrection:
The naked young man running away (14:51-52) included
Pilate asking whether Jesus was already dead (15:44) included
Question about who will roll away the stone (16:3) included
Disciples afraid and not telling anyone (16:8b) included

Liam

Robert

But consider also that the tone in St Mark's in "common" material can be rather different. It doesn't take much.

Personally, I find it illuminating to always remember the opening verse of St Mark's Gospel as a filter through which to understand the rest of the Gospel. St Mark takes a form that leaders used to announce their worldly victories and triumphs and under Divine inspiration transforms it cosmically, to the announcement of the Son of God's definitive triumph and victory over sin and death. It helps one understand why there is repeated emphasis on immediacy (euthus) and secrecy in this Gospel that are not present in St Matthew's and St Luke's inspired Gospels. There's no redundancy, only greater fullness, in having them all. That's one of the reasons I strongly prefer the postconciliar lectionary. The cursus in Ordinary Time allows us to be with our Lord on his journey to the Cross and out of the Tomb as revealed through a fair bit of each of them.

YMMV. So sue me.

Paul_Dang

And the cursus in the EF doesn't?!! I myself don't see the superiority of the new lectionary at all, even for Ordinary Time! As I said, if I wanted more Scripture, I would have used the readings of the pre-conciliar Office.

Liam

Paul,

Be my guest. My reference to cursus was meant to refer to course reading (with interruptions) through the long narrative of each Synoptic Gospel devoted to Jesus' pre-Paschal public ministry, which is not a feature of the preconciliar lectionary.

Paul_Dang

My question is this: was it really needed to introduce the new lectionary, with that feature among others, at the expense of a 1500-year tradition, for alleged advantages for more Scripture? All the answers I have seen here do not address that well, IMHO.

Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!

Categories