A serious issue and a serious concern about Feast continuity Post-V2

Ragueneau

Friends,

I can no longer refrain from posting on a subject that has bothered me for some time.

My understanding is that we are on a 3-year Feast cycle (ABC) and a two-year Readings cycle. Correct?

So that means, for many feasts, the only time they are identical to each other is every three years, correct?

Then, too, as we know, sung Propers are different than spoken Propers: so if the priest chooses to read them one time, but have them sung another year, that means the only time the feast is identical to itself would be once every six years.

How can this be a good thing? To me this seems very bad. Our brains don't become familiar with something that happens only once every six years.

I strongly feel that a wonderful thing about the Old Rite is the yearly continuity.

Also, I feel compelled to point out, the only time in the history of the Church that there were ever different assignments for Mass parts (Introits, Communions, etc.) based on whether they are SUNG or SPOKEN is in the Post-V2 Liturgy. To me, this seems to be a serious rupture and major blunder on the part of the reformers.

Again, for myself, I really don't feel this is pastoral, and I feel that the time has come to start voicing these opinions, so that a pastoral change can be made for our confused people in the pews (of which I am one!!).

matthewj

Is there anyplace that uses the spoken propers except at daily Masses?

Ragueneau

That brings up, of course, another issue: people don't even know what the Propers are, because everyone everywhere simply substitutes random hymns in their place. I suppose the first step towards reform would be to practically eliminate this option, except in extreme circumstances.

CharlesW

I suspect, that if English propers had been available after Vatican II, they would not have become nearly extinct.

matthewj

But they would have been folk-ized. If the texts of the Mass (Ordinary) were altered and inclusivized and made tacky with guitars and cartoonish melodies, the propers would have been too. Almost nobody would have been doing Gregorian propers in English... they'd have been doing St. Louis Jesuit propers with bongos.

smvanroode

Browsing through my Ordo Cantus Missae, I can't see a three-year cycle for feasts. Sometimes, another proper is assigned to a Sunday to match the readings (anno A, B, C) or a different proper is assigned to a weekday to match its readings (anno I, II). See page 62-74 of the Ordo Cantus Missae. As far as I can see, for the Proprium de Sanctis no three or two-year cycle is used – the propers (and readings) are the same every year.

So, as I understand it, Sundays are identical every three years, weekdays every two years and the feasts of saints every year. Am I correct?

Steven

Jam

Twelve years? That's crazy, if true. But, honestly, I think three years is too much, too. People in my Orthodox parishes (I move a lot) have troparia memorized because we sing them every year, and also because we sing the troparion about a million times on the day of the feast itself, and in the case of Pascha, about a trillion times during the paschal season (in about as many languages). Repetition is key to memorization. That explains about 99% of Orthodox liturgy ("and let us complete our prayer unto the Lord..." = still at least an hour of liturgy). I walk out of church all the time with parts of the liturgy floating around in my head. It's good for me.

So, first of all, the OF Mass is only about an hour, so you don't repeat anything on the same day (except the Psalm response.) But then on top of that, you only repeat stuff once every three years, AND the congregation usually doesn't sing propers with ya... I don't know if I'd ever recognize propers when they came around under those conditions, unless there was something very memorable about it, or I was particularly struck by it.

In the EF Mass, the schola repeats the propers a couple times in a row, usually, and antiphons several times. They're the same each year. But, they're in Latin... it's nearly impossible to remember something that was in another language unless you hear it a LOT (Mass ordinaries, "dominus vobiscum," etc.).

What I still don't understand is, why couldn't y'all have started by just translating your existing Mass into the vernacular and then working from there? (making more of the Mass audible, etc.)

rogue63

JeffO,

The ABC--Three Year Cycle refers to the readings proper to Sundays throughout the year, and major solemnities---Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, Immaculate Conception, etc.-----have the same readings for Years A, B and C. Year A's gospel is mostly from Matthew, Year B from Mark, Year C from Luke, and John is spread out through Easter, Christmas, Lent, Advent, and so on, where appropriate. The big downer, as many folks acknowledge, is that every Sunday includes an OT reading AND a NT epistle, and frequently these two plus the gospel don't quite line up thematically, so the pastor has the challenge of weaving together three different and sometimes contradictory texts for his homily. I viewed this as scriptural richness when I was a new convert, but it now appears to me to have been poorly thought out.

The Two-Year Cycle is for daily readings, and is structured similar to the readings in a Traditional Mass: Epistle/OT/Revelation (or Apocalypse, as one prefers)---which changes according to Year I or Year II----followed by Gospel, which is the same every year for the daily readings. The daily readings and Sunday readings do not quite coincide, and can be covering vastly different material at different times of the year.

Unsolicited opinion: if this new lectionary had been promulgated as a Catholic bible study, or Catholic scriptural exegesis, or whatever one might call it, it would have been an excellent exercise in learning more about Holy Scripture, certainly worthy for the faithful to follow or examine at their leisure but SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OBLIGATORY. I, too, agree that the stability of the traditional lectionary sows very deep roots for the faith, and the new lectionary simply does not------there's far too much variation to feed one's soul.

Your math about the recurrence of feasts and readings was not quite right, since the readings are the same every year for Christmas, Easter, and so on, but for the rest of the year it certainly FEELS like it's been six or twelve years since we heard that particular epistle or Gospel. The only suggestion I could possibly offer to changing the saints calendar/lectionary for the EF is that the cycle of saints frequently includes saints that are local Italian heroes, and the inclusion of martyrs such as St. Charles Lwanga, St. Andrew Dung-Lac, St. Thomas More and several others in the OF sanctoral cycle impart a truly catholic sensibility to the general calendar.

Jam

The only suggestion I could possibly offer to changing the saints calendar/lectionary for the EF is that the cycle of saints frequently includes saints that are local Italian heroes, and the inclusion of martyrs such as St. Charles Lwanga, St. Andrew Dung-Lac, St. Thomas More and several others in the OF sanctoral cycle impart a truly catholic sensibility to the general calendar.

Well, it is the "Roman" Catholic Church which has officially put out the cycle of saints... it's natural to want to celebrate your local saints, isn't it? In my Serbian parish we regularly pray for unqiuely Serbian saints; in most American parishes, St. Herman of Alaska is widely celebrated...

Is there a way, in the centralized Catholic church, to make it possible for particular places to celebrate their particular saints in a special way?

David Sullivan

rogue63 is correct in pointing out that the 3-year cycle refers to the Sunday and feast day readings, not the feasts themselves. Those are on an annual cycle. There is also the 2-year cycle for the weekday readings (first reading only). When it comes to propers (speaking only of Sundays and major feasts), these are on an annual cycle, with exceptions where particular propers were felt to coordinate well with one of the lessons. Opening my 1974 Graduale at random, the 26th Sunday has the introit "Omnia quae fecisti nobis," except in year A, when the introit is "In nomine Domini."

However, Jeff Ostrowski's concern is a legitimate one, I think. One of the principles of Sacrosanctum Concilium was to increase the scope and variety of Scripture readings presented in the liturgy. This set of cycles was the solution that followed. Dobszay has an interesting and provocative chapter on the cycle of readings in his book on the liturgical reform. Basically, he argues for sharply curtailing the variety, especially for the seasons outside "ordinary" time.

JenniferGM

The only suggestion I could possibly offer to changing the saints calendar/lectionary for the EF is that the cycle of saints frequently includes saints that are local Italian heroes, and the inclusion of martyrs such as St. Charles Lwanga, St. Andrew Dung-Lac, St. Thomas More and several others in the OF sanctoral cycle impart a truly catholic sensibility to the general calendar.

Well, it is the "Roman" Catholic Church which has officially put out the cycle of saints... it's natural to want to celebrate your local saints, isn't it? In my Serbian parish we regularly pray for unqiuely Serbian saints; in most American parishes, St. Herman of Alaska is widely celebrated...

Is there a way, in the centralized Catholic church, to make it possible for particular places to celebrate their particular saints in a special way?

While I do like some of the Lectionary changes of the OF (adding extra weeks in Ordinary Time so weeks aren't repeated like the EF does), I really have appreciated the General Liturgical Calendar Reform of 1969. There was much effort to make sure most countries were represented on the General Calendar. And I also appreciate that saints are continually added. If there's one thing I would really, really love to see change with the EF is updating the calendar.

There are particular, or what is known as proper feast days, they just don't show up on the General Calendar. See Table of Liturgical Days to see the order of precedence and what all the possibilities are for celebrating feast days. What isn't even listed are all the saints for each day in the Roman Martyrology.

The General Calendar is for the Universal Church, the saints that would have universal appeal or application. The proper feasts can be for a diocese, a church, a religious order, a city, state, or country, etc.

There is an excellent OOP book called The Saints In Season by Austin Flannery, O.P., 1975, Liturgical Press. It breaks down the revised General Liturgical Calendar by feast, giving readings, collect prayers, etc. But the treasure of the book is the compilation of the documents and explanations of how and why the calendar got changed. Austin Flannery compiles the new revised calendar, and also includes partial translations of the document that explain the revision and reasons behind the changes. As I'm no Latin scholar, I've found his translations quite helpful.

This little excerpt explains what I mean:

HOW THE PROPER OF THE SAINTS WAS REFORMED

The Calendarium Romanum, which was published in 1969 by the Sacred Congregation of Rites, is in two parts. The first part contains the decree of promulgation, the Apostolic Letter of Pope Paul VI, Mysterii paschalis, the revised regulations on the liturgical year and the Roman calendar, the revised liturgical year and the litany of the saints. All this (pages 5 to 49 in the Latin original edition) is described in an introductory note as official documentation. The remainder (pages 53 to 177) is described as unofficial commentary. However, since the commentary was prepared by the Consilium for the Implementaiton of the Liturgy Constitution, it carries not inconsiderable authority. It explains the principles behind the reform of the liturgical calendar. In particular, chapter two of the section on the reform of the calendar explains how the members of the Consilium went about the reform of the proper of the saints and the principles which guided them. What follows is a translation of chapter two, by Austin Flannery, O.P. -- pages 65 to 83 of Calendarium Romanum, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1969.

And to me, it's fascinating reading to see how the saints and the feast days were revised.

I'm sorry for digressing...you just touched on a favorite topic of mine....

Michael O'Connor

I think the EF and OF calendars could be mutually beneficial. The OF lost so much of the richness of the preLenten season, the Epiphany Season and Passiontide. Why we gave up the feast of the Circumcision (essentially Christ's name day), I'll never know. We already have plenty of Marian feast days.

Re: Lectionary, I think adding a second reading to the EF would be positive, but the cycle should be stable. The original readings were chosen because they were the best. Variety is not end in itself.

David Sullivan

JenniferGM, thanks for the info about Flannery's book. Isn't he the fellow who translated the documents of Vatican II? I see used copies are available on Amazon.

It has long been a source of frustration to me about why the saints got moved around. St Clare, for instance was moved from August 12 to August 11 ?? The Clear Creek priory, a daughter house of Fontgombault, follows the traditional Missal, using the traditional calendar for the Temporal cycle (Sundays and seasons), but they use the new calendar for the saints. When you arrive for Mass, there's a little note in the vestibule along the lines of:
September 3, the feast of St Gregory, the Mass will be found in our missals under March 12.

incantu

There is nothing to prevent you from following the propers for the EF in the OF, except (perhaps for the Gradual and Alleluia). In fact, there is nothing to prevent you from singing only one or two sets of propers for an entire liturgical season. Of course, there are reasons why you wouldn't want to or perhaps shouldn't, but isn't it remarkable that individual music directors have that much control over what as you say is really a liturgical calender issue? An excellent example is the commonplace practice of turning Mother's Day into a virtual Marian feast day by replacing all of that Paschaltide propers with hymns to the BVM. Isn't it odd that what is practically forbidden in one form of the Rite (replacing propers) is generally accepted as the norm in another? How can the rules for one form not apply to the other? All I can do as a music director is to use the highest standard established in either form, and to do nothing other than the best that I am capable of with my given resources.

Ragueneau

I guess that's what I'm saying, incantu. To a large degree saying, "Sing or speak whatever you want for the Introit, Communion, Offertory, etc. for each and every Sunday" is, de facto, the destruction of the Rite, because everybody will be doing something different each Sunday. Even the Solesmes 1974 Graduale is technically a "private edition" (read the Preface) . . . All the various options, plus the sung/spoken Propers debacle, plus the 3-year cycle . . . it's no wonder so many are confused.

JenniferGM

David Sullivan wrote:

JenniferGM, thanks for the info about Flannery's book. Isn't he the fellow who translated the documents of Vatican II? I see used copies are available on Amazon.

Yes, the one and the same Austin Flannery, O.P.

David Sullivan:

It has long been a source of frustration to me about why the saints got moved around. St Clare, for instance was moved from August 12 to August 11 ?? The Clear Creek priory, a daughter house of Fontgombault, follows the traditional Missal, using the traditional calendar for the Temporal cycle (Sundays and seasons), but they use the new calendar for the saints. When you arrive for Mass, there's a little note in the vestibule along the lines of:
September 3, the feast of St Gregory, the Mass will be found in our missals under March 12.

When you read the document on the ways and whys they changed the date, it makes sense.

In the revision of the calendar, the celebration of each saint has, as far as possible, been assigned to the date of his or her death. If, however, it was found that that day was already occupied by a solemnity, a feast or an obligatory memorial, or if the date of his death was not known:

(a) The nearest free day, before or after the day of the saint's death was chosen. For example, St. Pius X died on 20 August, 1914. However 20 August was already assigned to the feast of St. Bernard (who died 20 August, 1153), so the following day has been assigned to St Pius X -- two obligatory memorials may not be celebrated on the same day.

(b) Or, the anniversary of the transfer of the saint's body (translation) was chosen -- as with St Francis de Sales, for example; or, the dedication of a church in his honour -- as with St Michael the Archangel; or, the day of his ordination -- as with St Ambrose.

(c) With many oriental saints, the day on which they are venerated in their own region has been chosen -- as, for example, with St Ignatius of Antioch.

The anniversaries of the deaths of three very important saints fall during Lent. Since obligatory memorials may not be celebrated during Lent, the feast of St Thomas of Aquin has been assigned to 28 January (the day on which his body was transferred to Toulouse in 1269), the feast of St Gregory the Great to 3 September (the day of his ordination to the priesthood in 590) and the feast of St Benedict to 11 July (the day on which his solemnity has been celebrated by monks since the eighth century).

For the case of St. Clare of Assisi, her actual death day is August 11 so that's the reason for the tweaking of one day difference.

There was also consideration for feast days that fall consistently in Lent, like St. Benedict EF feast on March 24. July 11 gives more freedom for celebration for this major saint.

JenniferGM

I guess that's what I'm saying, incantu. To a large degree saying, "Sing or speak whatever you want for the Introit, Communion, Offertory, etc. for each and every Sunday" is, de facto, the destruction of the Rite, because everybody will be doing something different each Sunday. Even the Solesmes 1974 Graduale is technically a "private edition" (read the Preface) . . . All the various options, plus the sung/spoken Propers debacle, plus the 3-year cycle . . . it's no wonder so many are confused.

I agree with you, Jeff, it's a problem. Familiarity and repetition is a big part of the Church's liturgy and this 3 year cycle doesn't help that. But wasn't this a bit of a problem before Vatican II with all the varying rites with different regions and religious orders and picking and choosing?

I guess it can't be done, but it sure would be nice to unite the EF and OF calendars and lectionaries to get the best of both worlds.

Chrism

Even the Solesmes 1974 Graduale is technically a "private edition" (read the Preface)

Huh?

Ragueneau

@Chrism:
"Illae melodiae in hac editione privata omittuntur"

Jam

Since when can't you celebrate people's feasts during Great Lent? We celebrate tons of people during that time. St. Mary of Egypt is one I remember in particular. And the first Sunday of Great Lent, the "Sunday of Orthodoxy" celebrates the fathers of the seventh ecumenical council.

I don't think it's so important to have feast days on the saint's death day. It's more important to keep the days the same so that communities who have always celebrated that saint on that day won't get totally miffed/confused/disappointed. The when isn't as important as the what. I mean, Christ probably wasn't actually born on the 25th of Dec (or the 7th of Jan, for that matter). But we celebrate his birth on that day nevertheless. If scholarship somehow found the date of his birth specifically would the Catholic church change the date of Christmas (again) to that?

JenniferGM

I was referring to the order of precedence of feasts or occurence of feasts, which would make some feasts not celebrated depending on the Lenten seasons. In both EF and OF this applies. The higher ranked feasts will be the ones celebrated. Because Easter falls at different times, St. Benedict's former feast day on March 24 could be "outranked" by Holy Week. Also the Sundays of Lent outrank memorials, so in the OF it wouldn't be celebrated.

For the revised calendar there was a lot more thought than just the saint's death day, but also weighing the historical data, such as in different locations and rites when the saint was honored. The 1969 calendar reform was certainly not first time the General Calendar has been reformed, nor will it probably be the last.

The fact that St. Clare's feast is still on the calendar would agree with your statement "the when isn't as important as the what". We can celebrate her feast on the new date, too.

But I also think you're comparing apples to oranges with a Feast of Our Lord to a saint's day on moving the dates.

Chrism

Jeff, that's a footnote, and from Google searches I think "editio privata" refers to the fact that the book was published in-house by Solesmes, instead of at a proper publisher like Desclée. I understand that the copyright (1974) is held by Desclée, but I think they were out of business by that time, and from the plate the publishing house is clearly the Abbaye Saint-Pierre de Solesmes.

The status of the Graduale Romanum (1974) within the Church seems to be attested to by the Decretum quo Approbatur "Ordo Cantus Missae", signed by Arthur Card. Tabera, the prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship (and co-signed by the enigmatic A. Bugnini). I'm not enough of a canonist, or Latinist, to know precisely what that status is, but it looks impressive enough, and I wouldn't be deterred by that one footnote. If anyone has a source for an English translation of that front material, including the Praenotanda (Rubrics), I'd love to see it.

Paul F. Ford

Chrism asks

If anyone has a source for an English translation of that front material, including the Praenotanda (Rubrics), I'd love to see it.

Salieri

I think that there is a difference between substituting hymns for propers, and having readings only occur once every three years and a multiplicity of Traditional Usages (after Pius V.) But that's another debate. (There's a great little article about reviving the Sarum Rite on Fr. Anthony Chadwick's (TAC) website Civitas Dei.)

I agree that there is too much variation from year to year in the lectionary. I have been working as a music director for about 6 years and I have the readings for Christmas, Easter Vigil, funerals, and some other feasts, and from attending the EF for a couple of years, the begging of St John's Gospel memorized. But generally speaking, on Monday I can't remember what Sunday's Gospel was.

My favorite problem with the weekday lectionary is when you read the first part of a particular OT story on Tuesday that ends rather abruptly without any kind of 'resolution,' like old television shows from the 50's - "Don't forget to tune in next week!", but Wednesday's completion is replaced by the proper readings for the feast of St. So-and-so. And them Thursday's reading is what came after what was supposed to have been read on Wednesday. "Huh? What DID happen with David and the wife of Uriah?"

I think an annual cycle of readings/propers like in the EF with today's revised Calendar would be a step in the right direction. I have nothing against reading the Bible more, but as far as the liturgy is concerned the ABC & I-II reading cycles are too much of a good thing.

Paul F. Ford

Salieri's favorite problem would be solved by the priest taking advantage of the powers he has been given in the following article from the Lectionary for Mass: Introduction: [my emphasis in Article 2, second paragraph]

2) The Longer and Shorter Forms of Texts

80. A pastoral criterion must also guide the choice between the longer and shorter forms of the same text. The main consideration must be the capacity of the hearers to listen profitably either to the longer or to the shorter reading; or to listen to a more complete text that will be explained through the homily.

3) When Two Texts Are Provided

81. When a choice is allowed between alternative texts, whether they are fixed or optional, the first consideration must be the best interest of those taking part. It may be a matter of using the easier texts or the one more relevant to the assembled congregation or, as pastoral advantage may suggest, of repeating or replacing a text that is assigned as proper to one celebration and optional to another.

The issue may arise when it is feared that some text will create difficulties for a particular congregation or when the same text would have to be repeated within a few days, as on a Sunday and on a day during the week following.

4) The Weekday Readings

82. The arrangement of weekday readings provides texts for every day of the week throughout the year. In most cases, therefore, these readings are to be used on their assigned days, unless a solemnity, a feast, or else a memorial with proper readings occurs.

In using the Order of Readings for weekdays attention must be paid to whether one reading or another from the same biblical book will have to be omitted because of some celebration occurring during the week. With the arrangement of readings for the entire week in mind, the priest in that case arranges to omit the less significant passages or combines in the most appropriate manner them with other readings, if they contribute to an integral view of a particular theme.

Chrism

Thank you, Dr. Ford!

Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!

Categories