Today I can publish a Position Paper on the Lectionary, a subject of great importance if only because it is widely held that the 1970 Missal has, in its Lectionary at least, a decisive advantage over the previous liturgical tradition. The paper seeks to show that the ancient lectionary has its own value.
The primary liturgical problem with expanding the lectionary is that the connection between the readings and the other propers - prayers like the Collect and Secret, but above all the chants - is lost. This is true on Sundays, but the effect on the sanctoral cycle is even more serious, since the saints can no longer have readings assigned to their feasts with any particular appropriateness.
I put some more commentary on the issue on my own blog here.
The series of position papers has no covered those issues which we feel to be of particular urgency, including Holy Week, Prefaces, and the Lectionary. We still intend to cover other issues, notably the calendar, which is an issue of outstanding complexity. But from now on I will not attempt to maintain a regular publication schedule, but will publish the papers as they become available. The next one likely to be published is on the reading and singing of the lections in Latin.
I would like to draw attention to the magazine Laudamus Te, which is very kindly printing a shortened version of the paper on celebration 'ad orientem'. This magazine, which is a new venture dedicated to commenting on the traditional liturgical year, is worthy of readers' attention and support; it is in great need of subscribers in this early stage of its existence, to defray its printing costs.
It can be downloaded as a pdf here. The whole series can be seen on the FIUV website here. The collected set of papers 1-13, printed as a short book, is available from Lulu here.
Comments can be sent to
positio AT fiuv.org
 |
| Solemn Proclamation of the Gospel at a recent Requiem in London ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIUV PP 15: The Lectionary of the Extraordinary Form
1.
One
of the distinctive characteristics of the Extraordinary Form, in contrast to
the Ordinary Form, is the Lectionary. This consists in a single year’s cycle of
readings, providing a single Gospel passage and Epistle[1] for
Sundays, feast days, and the ferias of Lent. On ferias outside Lent the
readings (and Proper prayers and chants) are those of the previous Sunday,
unless a Votive Mass is being said. A greater number of lections are given for
Ember Days[2]
and certain other days.[3] By
contrast the Ordinary Form has a three-year cycle of readings for Sundays, for
which a passage from the Gospel and two from elsewhere are given, and readings
are assigned for every day of the year.
The
Value of the 1962 Lectionary
2.
The
most ancient part of the 1962 Lectionary is the cycle of Sunday Gospels, which largely
corresponds with the subjects of Pope St Gregory the Great’s sermons on the
corresponding days, given between 590 and 604. This cycle, however, continued
to develop, as did the cycle of Sunday Epistles, and cycles of lections for the
ferias of Lent, and other ferias, and the Sanctoral cycle, until the 9th
century,[4]
when it assumed the form still in use today.[5]
3.
The
great antiquity of the Lectionary, coupled with its continuous use, demands our
respect. First, this Lectionary reflects the liturgical and scriptural thinking
of the Fathers of the Church. Secondly, it has been the basis of the liturgical
experience and reflection of countless generations of the Latin Church’s
doctors, saints, scholars, and artists. Thirdly, it is closely connected with the
chants of the day, which frequently refer to its texts and constitute a musical
commentary upon them. Fourthly, it has proven its worth, spiritually,
pastorally, and in other practical ways, in a very wide range of social and
cultural circumstances, over a very long period of time, and is shared with the
historic liturgies of Anglicans and Lutherans.[6]
4.
The
Lectionary’s development is such that, while the Sunday Gospels and Epistles
each form a discernible series,[7]
the two series are independent of each other. We are not presented with connections
between readings dependent on the exegetical preferences of scholars of any
particular age, but rather a more fundamental working-out of the mysteries of
salvation.
5.
The
Lectionary’s limited size allows the Faithful to attain a thorough familiarity
with the cycle, particularly in the context of the use of hand-missals and commentaries
on the liturgy, which expound the passages and their connection with the season,
and the proper prayers and chants of the day. The association of feasts and
particular Sundays with particular Gospel or Epistle passages echoes the
practice of the Eastern churches, where Sundays are often named after the
Gospel of the day.
6.
The
missals and commentaries just mentioned, which are made possible by the limited
set of liturgical texts,[8] are
themselves of great value in developing the spirituality of the faithful, and
any reform which rendered them obsolete would cause the loss, for practical
purposes, of an enormous body of popular liturgical scholarship and
spirituality.[9]
Ferial Cycles
7.
The
1962 Lectionary corresponds (with the exception of newly created feast days)
with that of the Roman Missal of 1570. This, in turn, is dependent upon the Missale Romano-Seraphicum (the Franciscan
Missal) of the 13th century, which did not include the lections for
the non-Lenten ferias found in earlier Roman books, as well as in the books of
other rites and usages. Gallican Missals with lections for non-Lenten ferias
continued in use into the second half of the 19th century.[10]
Typically, readings would be given for some, but not all, days of the week,
such as Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and would include, for example, parallel
accounts of the pericope used in the Sunday Gospel.
8.
The
ancient ferial Lectionary did not displace the readings for feast days, and
given the fullness of the Sanctoral cycle in Rome, and the developing popularity
of Votive Masses, it seems likely that the editors of Roman Missals from the 13th
century onwards thought it was unnecessary: there is clearly little point in a
cycle of readings which is rarely used. The Lenten ferial cycle could only
avoid being swamped by feasts and votive Masses by giving it a greater
liturgical priority.[11] A
relative paucity of feast days is appropriate to the Lenten season, as is the
distinctive character of the ferial Mass formularies, which also include ancient,
complex, and profoundly beautiful chants.
9.
This
points to a major difficulty in expanding the Lectionary by creating a new, or
restoring an old, ferial cycle: it cannot easily co-exist with a full sanctoral
cycle with its own readings. It is for this reason that the 1966 ‘Alternative Lectionary’,[12]
and the Lectionary of the 1970 Missal, entirely displace the readings of the
sanctoral cycle.
10. The loss of the
Sanctoral cycle would be a great blow to the liturgical expression of devotion
to the saints. The more important saints have their own readings and other Propers,
which serve as a commentary on their lives and work; the less important use the
Commons of the Saints, which include formularies of considerable antiquity and
devotional value, and give feasts of particular groups of saints (Doctors,
Abbots, Holy Women and so on) a recognisable and distinctive character.[13]
11. Such a reform
would mean that the readings assigned to Votive Masses, also, would have to
give way to ferial readings, which would be a similar blow to the devotions to
which they pertain, and for the spread of which they have been encouraged by
Popes over many centuries. Both the feasts of saints and Votive Masses, when
celebrated, would be accompanied by lections which might easily be inappropriate,
creating a problematic tension in the liturgy.[14]
12. Further, and
insuperable, problems derive from the Proper prayers and chants of the
Sanctoral Cycle and Votive Masses, which, if they are to survive at all, will
bear no relation in theme or mood to the lections, unless purely by chance.
The Divine
Office
13. Sacrosanctum Concilium called for a
more ‘lavish’ presentation of Scripture to the Faithful.[15] A
way of achieving this in perfect harmony with the liturgy already in place
would be to encourage the wider use of the Office, and particularly Matins.
Indeed, Sacrosantum Concilium is
eager to do this,[16]
as is the Code of Canon Law.[17]
14. The lections of
the liturgy always have both latreutic and dogmatic functions, but the former
function is more emphasised in the Mass, and the latter in the Office. The
ceremonial associated with the readings at Mass encourage us to see them as a
special offering to God: we might call them ‘verbal incense’.[18]
While the Divine Office is primarily a prayer, the didactic function of the
readings is emphasised by, for example, the reading in Matins of commentaries,
from the Fathers of the Church, on the very passages of Scripture just read.
15. Furthermore, the
connection between Matins and the Eucharistic liturgy, particularly of Sundays
and feasts, makes it the ideal supplement to the Mass of the day; indeed Matins
may be thought of as a preparation for Mass.[19]
16. It was not so
long ago that the Faithful thought nothing of going to Church twice on a
Sunday, to attend Vespers as well as Mass; Matins was once widely celebrated in
parish churches.[20]
It is perhaps easier to envisage today the private use of the Office by the
laity, though occasional public celebrations would do much to encourage this. The
considerable success enjoyed by ‘The League for the Divine Office’ in promoting
the (private, vernacular) use of the Office by the laity, in the middle of the
20th century, sets an important precedent.
Conclusion
17. The role of
Scripture in the liturgy is not limited to the Lectionary. Both the Propers and
the Ordinary of the Extraordinary Form make extensive use the Psalms,[21]
and there are a great many quotations of, and references to, the Scriptures
throughout the Mass.[22] It
cannot be maintained that the 1962 Mass lacks a Scriptural dimension, and nor
do the other sacraments and sacramentals of the 1962 liturgical books.[23]
18. The ancient,
one-year cycle of readings, particularly for Sundays, has an irreplaceable
value in representing the thoughts of the Latin fathers, in harmony with the
season and feast, allowing the Faithful to become as familiar as possible with
the cycle, especially in light of the long tradition of liturgical commentary,
and in connection with the Proper prayers and chants of the day.
19. Until the decree
Novum Rubricarum (1960),[24] when
a feast or a Sunday was suppressed by an occurent feast (one occupying the same
day) of greater importance, the Last Gospel would be not the opening verses of
the Gospel of St John, but the proper Gospel of the suppressed Sunday or feast.[25] Given
the importance of the Sunday cycle, the restoration of the older practice would
seem appropriate, and would be one modest way of expanding the number of Gospel
passages read to the Faithful.
20. Most of all,
however, the riches of the Scriptures are already presented in a liturgical
context in the Office, and above all in Matins. The encouragement of the
participation of the Faithful in the existing riches of the liturgy should take
priority over reform: this was the guiding principle of the more cautious
members of the Liturgical Movement, exemplified by the scholar Fr William Busch,
a leader of the League for the Divine Office, whose words are appropriate to
the current situation:
We should not
wish to change in haste what we are only beginning to revive. Let us take time
to learn what the Liturgy is, and then we shall be in a position to judge what
adaptations to modern circumstances may be desirable—perhaps not so many as we
first imagined…[26]
[1] The selection of passages is
not, in fact, entirely limited to the Epistles, but includes passages from the
Acts of the Apostles, the Book of Revelations, and the Old Testament.
[2] Ember Wednesdays have one extra
reading; Ember Saturdays have a total of five extra readings. Ember Days are
celebrated four times a year. (In the 1962 Missal a shorter form of the
Saturday service can be celebrated.)
[3] The Easter Vigil has a large
number of readings (particularly in the form it took before the 1955 reform);
Palm Sunday has an extra Gospel (and, before 1955, an extra lesson), as part of
the Blessing of Palms. On All Souls Day and Christmas Day priests are permitted
to say three Masses, and each Mass has its own lections and other Propers.
[4] Of the manuscript sources for
the Roman Lectionary the earliest and most valuable is the Würzburg MS
(Universitätsbibliothek, codex M.p.th.f.62; ed. Morin, Rev. bén. 27 (1910) 41-74 and 28 (1911) 296-330) – a collection of
16 folios in a probably English hand of around 700 (possibly from the late 7th
century). The Epistle list probably represents Roman usage in the 2nd
half of the 7th century; the Gospel list appears to be later. There
is an extensive set of Gospels for the Sanctoral Cycle, but fewer Epistles,
suggesting a degree of fluidity or free choice. It appears to give alternative Epistles
for some occasions (similar passages from St Paul, for example, which could not
plausibly be interpreted as being intended as extra readings). There is
provision for too many Sundays after Epiphany, and too few Sundays after
Pentecost. There are readings provided for one, two, or three ferial days in
particular weeks. By the 9th century provision is made for the
correct number of Sundays, a complete set of lections for Lenten ferias
(Thursday had been non-liturgical until Pope St Gregory II (d. 731)), a
formalised Common of Saints, separation of the Temporal from the Sanctoral Cycles,
and thoroughly revised systems of ferial readings outside Lent. By this time
also there is a degree of divergence between Roman and Gallican books.
[5] Leaving aside later feasts
celebrated on Sundays, such as Trinity Sunday and the Feast of the Holy Family.
[6] The Lectionary of the Book of Common Prayer is based on
that of the Sarum Missal, which is essentially identical to the Roman Missal;
the traditional Lutheran Lectionary is based on that of the Roman Missal. The
ecumenical value of the ancient one-year cycle gave the architects of the 1970
Lectionary serious pause: see Annibale Bugnini The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975 (Collegeville, MN: The
Liturgical Press, 1990) po415-6.
[7] This is particularly evident in
Advent and Lent; the Season After Pentecost is less obviously thematic, but a
pattern is still discernible. Pius Parsch wrote of it: ‘From the point of view
of content, the …cycle could well be divided into three groups. The first
emphasize miracle-cures. Accounts of Christ’s miracles are related, yet these
narratives are not intended for our instruction primarily, but rather as
indications of the operations of God’s grace in the Mass. Such, too, was the
ultimate aim and end of our Lord when He worked wonders. …
A second group tends to employ
contrast pictures—the kingdom of God versus the kingdom of the world. These ..
are primarily found in the Masses from the seventh to the fourteenth Sunday
after Pentecost. … Ancient piety often employed this pedagogical method. …
The third class, which
concentrates on the parousia, is proper to the Sundays from the fifteenth to
the end of the year. These Masses are exceptional for variety of mood and depth
of doctrine.’
[8] Missals with only the texts for
Sundays and important feasts can be truly ‘pocket sized’; children’s missals
lacking the Latin for some or all of the texts can be very small indeed.
[9] Dom Prosper Guéranger, Abbot of
Solesmes: L’Année Liturgique, in
French, published in 15 volumes between 1841 and 1844 (published in English as The Liturgical Year in 1949; a reprint
is still in print). Bl. Ildefonso Schuster, Archbishop of Milan: Liber Sacramentorum, in Italian,
published in 5 volumes in 1919 (published in English as The Sacramentary in 1924). Fr Pius Parsch: Das Jahr des Heiles, published in 3 Volumes in 1923 (published
in English as The Church’s Year of Grace
in 1953). These works, particularly those of Guéranger and Parsch, were and are
widely disseminated. The text of L’Année
Liturgique is available at least in part online in French
(http://www.abbaye-saint-benoit.ch/gueranger/anneliturgique/index.htm) and
English (http://www.liturgialatina.org/lityear/).
[10] In addition to the Gallican (or
‘neo-Gallican’) missals in use in the various dioceses of France, the Sarum
Missal, used in the British Isles until the late 16th century,
included ferial readings; in Germany, they are found in the Münster Missal as late as 1835.
[11] In the 1962 calendar the ferias
of Lent are of the 3rd Class, while those of the rest of the year
are 4th Class; again, many feasts falling in Lent are a lower
ranking than they would otherwise have, and get only a commemoration.
[12] The ‘Alternative Lectionary’,
published on 12th March 1966 for optional use, consists of a
one-year series of Gospels and a two-year cycle of first lessons for all days
in the liturgical year De Tempore
which might not be impeded by a 1st or 2nd class feast. Thus, the Lectionary
left gaps for the more important feasts to fill. The Sunday and Sanctoral
cycles were not changed. This Lectionary was superseded by the Lectionary of
the 1970 Missal.
[13] Pius Parsch wrote commentaries
on the Commons of the Saints: The
Church’s Year of Grace English edition (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical
Press, 1962) Vol. IV pp372-412
[14] The other Propers would also be involved
in this tension, whether they are appropriate to the feast (and therefore,
potentially, not to the readings), as with the 1966 experiment, or fixed to the
cycle of readings (and therefore independent of the feast), as in the 1970
Missal. The liturgical schola László Dobsay comments: ‘The three-year system
totally dissolved the association between the liturgical day (and its texts)
and the pericopes assigned; this is a loss both in a liturgical and a pastoral
perspective’ (László Dobsay The
Restoration and Organic Development of the Roman Rite (London: T&T
Clarke, 2010) p143.
[15] Sacrosanctum Concilium 51: ‘The treasures of the bible are to be
opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful
at the table of God’s word [more literally: ‘so that a richer table of God’s
word may be prepared for the Faithful’]. In this way a more representative
portion [literally ‘a more excellent part’] of the holy scriptures will be read
to the people in the course of a prescribed number of years.’ (‘Quo ditior
mensa verbi Dei paretur fidelibus, thesauri biblici largius aperiantur, ita ut,
intra praestitutum annorum spatium, praestantior pars Scripturarum Sanctarum
populo legatur.’)
[16] Sacrosanctum Concilium 85: ‘Hence all who render this service are
not only fulfilling a duty of the Church, but also are sharing in the greatest honour
of Christ’s spouse, for by offering these praises to God they are standing before
God’s throne in the name of the Church their Mother.’ (‘Omnes proinde qui haec
praestant, tum Ecclesiae officium explent, tum summum Sponsae Christi honorem
participant, quia laudes Deo persolventes stant ante thronum Dei nomine Matris
Ecclesiae.’)
100: ‘Pastors of souls should see to it that the
chief hours, especially Vespers, are celebrated in common in church on Sundays
and the more solemn feasts. And the laity, too, are encouraged to recite the
divine office, either with the priests, or among themselves, or even
individually.’ (‘Curent animarum pastores ut Horae praecipuae, praesertim
Vesperae, diebus dominicis et festis sollemnioribus, in ecclesia communiter
celebrentur. Commendatur ut et ipsi laici recitent Officium divinum, vel cum
sacerdotibus, vel inter se congregati, quin immo unusquisque solus.’) Cf. Redemptionis Sacramentum (2004) 41: ‘For
encouraging, promoting and nourishing this interior understanding of liturgical
participation, the continuous and widespread celebration of the Liturgy of the
Hours, the use of the sacramentals and exercises of Christian popular piety are
extremely helpful.’ (‘Ad hunc sensum interiorem participationis liturgicae
suscitandum, promovendum et alendum valde utilia sunt assidua et diffusa
celebratio Liturgiae Horarum, usus sacramentalium exercitiaque pietatis
christianae popularis.’)
[17] Code of Canon Law (1983) 1174 §2. ‘Other [literally, ‘The other’,
‘ceteri’: that is, all the other] members of the Christian faithful, according
to circumstances, are also earnestly invited to participate in the liturgy of
the hours as an action of the Church.’ (‘Ad participandam liturgiam horarum,
utpote actionem Ecclesiae, etiam ceteri christifideles, pro adiunctis, enixe
invitantur.’)
[18] Dr Peter Kwasniewski “The Loss
of Liturgical Riches in the Sanctoral Cycle” in The Latin Mass: A Journal of
Catholic Culture and Tradition (Fall 2007), pp. 30-35: ‘Recitation of the
text of Scripture is made decisively subordinate to the historical embodiment
of Scripture's message in holy persons. The readings serve, in other words, to
frame, adorn, and bring to light the face of Christ and the faces of all His
imitators. The use of Scripture is iconic, not homiletic. We are not being
lectured at, but rather summoned to worship, to bow down before mysteries. The
readings are to function as verbal incense, not verbose information.’
[19] See the Catholic Encyclopedia (1917), entry on ‘Matins’: ‘In a certain sense it is, perhaps, the Office which was primitively the preparation
for the Mass, that is to say, the Mass of
the Catechumens, which presents
at any rate the same construction as that Office:—the reading from the Old
Testament, then the epistles and the Acts, and finally the Gospel—the whole being intermingled
with psalmody, and terminated by
the Homily (cf.
Cabrol: Les Origines Liturgiques, Paris, 1906, 334
seq.).’
[20] A tradition which has left its
mark on Anglicanism, where Matins is still celebrated publicly; this practices
was reintroduced by Pius Parsch in his parish. Morning Prayer is also typically
celebrated before Mass in the Eastern Churches.
[21] Notably, part of Psalm 50 (Asperges me) or 117 (the verse to the Vidi Aquam) at the sprinkling of the
Faithful on Sundays; Psalm 42 (Iudica me)
in the Preparatory Prayers; and part of Psalm 25 (Lavabo) at the Lavabo.
[22] To give just one example, the prayer
Supra quae of the Roman Canon refers
to the sacrifices in the Old Testament of Abel (Genesis 4.4), Abraham (Genesis
22.13), and Melchisedech (Genesis 14.18).
[23] To give just two examples, the
Canticle of Zachary is recited in full during burials, and the Psalm Domini est terra (23) at the Churching
of Women (the Blessing of a Woman after Childbirth).
[24] See Novum rubricarum 509.
[25] Thus, prior to 1960, if an
important feast fell on a Sunday, such that the Mass to be said was not that of
the Sunday, the Sunday Gospel would be read in place of the opening verses of
St John’s Gospel as the Last Gospel.
[26] William Busch “On Liturgical Reforms”
Orate Fratres 11.8 (1936-7):
pp352-57, quoted in Reid p105. Fr Busch was active in translating the German
works of Fr Pius Parsch into English, and helped found the ‘League of the
Divine Office’. Another scholar of the Liturgical Movement who makes a similar
distinction between learning to appreciate and reforming the litugy, also
quoted by Reid, was Fr Hans Anscar Reinhold, writing in 1947: ‘The modern
Liturgical Movement is obedient, orthodox, modest. The first thing it demands is that all of us, we ourselves, perform the
Liturgy as it is in the books and conform to it. Self reform and perfection. In
the second place we we expect this to
open our eyes to niceties and rediscoveries that will transform our thinking
into greater dogmatic correctness, proportionality and joy. The third thing will be to see the Liturgy
restored to simplicity and originality. Only in the fourth degree will we prostrate ourselves at the feet of the Holy
Father and ask for reforms.’ (Reid, op.
cit. p141-2).
|
14 comments:
The liturgy is Sacrifice, first and for most ..
Thank you, Mr. Shaw, for sharing here this Position Paper. I very much like the idea of the complementary role of the Matins in providing the 'table of the Word'. Could you tell us more how this 'League for the Divine Office' worked? I have never heard of it.
Public celebration of the Matins with faithful would likely necessitate to have it in vernacular because there are much more changing texts that in the Mass. The structure, too, of the Office, especially Matins, is very complex (lot of juggling with the ribbons in the Breviary). Plus, in most languages, there are currently no translations of large part of the Office texts (not even those of Liturgia Horarum).
When to have such public celebrations of the Office? On the Sundays and Feasts of obligation there are several Masses per day? This needs entirely different formation of the priests, so that they would be willing to do the extra work to arrange such services, take part in them, and encourage the faithful.
Given the fact that most faithful would likely to attend only the Masses of Sundays and obligatory feasts, the whole idea of the reform of the Lectionary apparently was to squeeze as much as possible into those Masses, therefore the 3rd reading and the 3-year cycle.
There are some interesting articles by Fr. B. Harrison on the reform of the Lectionary:
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt116.html
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt154.pdf
The author makes a great number of excellent points about the antiquity of the temporal cycle and its integrity with the Divine Office.
After Vatican II the reformers could have introduced "more Scripture" by merely by adding more formularies to the Propers and Commons of the Saints, and parcelling the formularies out to the saints's feasts in the Calendar.
But their thinly-veiled contempt for the liturgical cultus of the saints – camouflaged under the general principle of insisting the Temporal Cycle take precedence over the Sanctoral Cycle as much as possible — made this unthinkable. So they cooked up an artificial lectio continua system that is utterly cut off from the Church's previous tradition.
Dear Rev., they cooked-up something alright: the cult of man over the worship of God!
Fr. Cekada, the ancient struggle for power between the temporal and the sanctoral calendars is hardly an invention of the 1960s. Over the course of time, the pendulum swings very, very slowly back and forth.
The swing from the sanctoral (which dominated the Middle Ages) to the temporal started, I would argue, with the Missal of Pius V. Local cult saints were very much downplayed there, as were octaves and vigils. This opened up more Sundays and ferias.
This continued with Pius X, who elevated Sundays over all but the highest feastdays. It's a bit amusing to see all these defenses of the Sunday reading cycle when it was only regularly heard between 1912 and 1969, incidentally.
The rubrics reforms of the 1950s and 1960s further simplified the sanctoral and gave precedence to the temporal. This merely continued its momentum in the new calendar.
Thankfully, the pendulum has finally started swinging the other way (or at least stopped swinging toward the temporal), after over 400 years. The ordinary form sanctoral is filling up with all sorts of new saints. At daily Masses, optional memorials are rarely skipped in favor of a feria (at least in my experience), for example.
With all respect to Fr. Cekada, I do not see what more Mass formulae would accomplish. Pius XII replaced a lot of Masses of Popes with that banal "Si diligis me" Common and suppressed some very lovely feasts in the process. Just because the reformers trimmed the Pauline calendar does not be the 1962 (or 1882, for that matter) calendar was better balanced.
As Ellis points out above, the real problem was that there were too many saints in the calendar. When Pius V issued his Missal in 1570 there were about 180 semi-double/double/1cl. double/ II cl double days. By the time of the 1911-1913 reforms there were nearly 300, most of these Masses using Commons. Even with more Commons there would be repetition and the problem would not be solved.
What really needs to happen is that a lot of post-Trent feasts could/should be downgraded to simple rank so some sense of the temporal cycle could be recovered in the old rite (although this would involve a return to the older ranking system as well. Pope John's calendar oddly has many festal Masses and yet an emphasis on the temporal cycle in the office),
I agree with Dr Shaw that liturgical coherence is a great problem in introducing more readings into the old rite of Mass. Why just read for the sake of reading? If certain octaves like Epiphany, Ss. Peter & Paul, Ascension, Assumption, All Saints, and Corpus Christi are ever restored to their former place perhaps additional readings could be put into days within the octaves. This would neither obstruct the feast of Sunday within the octave, and would also present an opportunity to make the readings meaningful. Moreover, it might make the octaves themselves more meaningful, as Easter and Pentecost already have their own unique readings.
Just a thought....
This paper raises some excellent points and while I broadly agree with a lot of its formulations, it fails to address a number of important considerations:
1. The discussion of Sunday and weekday lections are essentially two different considerations.
2. The traditional one-year lectionary does not have a weekday ferial cycle, except for those seasonal ferias that have their own Mass.
3. The modern lectionary does assign lections to Feasts and Memorias of Saints but these are rarely heard, preference often being given to the ferial cycle, thereby exacerbating the disjuncture so acurately noted in this paper.
4. For priests who celebrate the Traditional Mass every day and for those faithful who assist at it, there will often be the reiteration of the same lections on several days of the week, either due to the ferial Mass which resumes the Sunday lections or Masses from the Commons. This could be considered a limitation if the lectio continua is seen as being of primary importance or it could be appreciated as an expression of the integrated nature of these Mass formularies in which the lections are harmonized with the other proper texts.
The important link between the commentary provided by the Matins lections (which in its most complete form on Sunday include the entire reading of the gospel of the day) and the lections at Mass,cannot be sufficiently stressed.
Mr. Ellis is correct about the "pull" back and forth between the Temporal and the Sanctoral Cycles over the centuries. It was the natural outcome of gradually increasing the number of saints' feasts on the general calendar and the reluctance to overhaul the general rubrics in order to prevent new feasts from obliterating the Temporal Cycle.
Practically speaking, however, the Missal of Paul VI leaves little of a saint's feast in the Mass for Memorials and Optional Memorials — usually just a lone Opening Prayer — unless the priest is willing to slog through the Commons in the back of the Missal to pick out a formulary he thinks is appropriate, and then do the same with the Lectionary.
In my own considerable experience with the Novus Ordo many years ago, I know that priests simply did not do this. It was too much work, and the norms for the Lectionary gave preference to the ferial readings anyway.
St. Pius X's reform, to my way of thinking, offered an example of a balanced solution to the Temporal vs. Sanctoral problem, one which managed to give every saint his due, while still keeping the Temporal Cycle mostly intact.
After Vatican II, one could have built on some of the principles of St. Pius X's calendar reform and introduced "more Scripture" with some new Propers and Commons for a good number of feasts.
The aliquibus locis feasts that were consolidated into the last edition of the John XXIII Missal (published under Paul VI) offer an insight as to what was already out there and in use. Making some of these a regular part of the Sanctoral would have solved the problem of the reiteration of Mass formularies that Msgr. Wadsworth mentioned. This would have been a change that even a hardliner like myself would have been hard put to object to.
But such a solution would have played havoc with the lectio continua, which the reformers were determined to have at all costs.
Rad Trad noted correctly that solutions are linked to the perpetually thorny problem of calendar reform. And he is also right about "Si diligis" — which for many liturgical enthusiasts and church musicians would prompt the response "non diligo."
This FIUV paper says "the Lectionary of the 1970 Missal, entirely displace[s] the readings of the sanctoral cycle." Does that mean the "Ordinary Form" lacks a sanctoral cycle? Are there not sanctoral masses in the "Ordinary Form"? Does that mean the "Ordinary Form" lacks, e.g., a "Mass of a Doctor" ("In medio Ecclesiæ"), "Mass of a Martyr Bishop" ("Statuit"), etc.?
Back in my Novus Ordo "daze" I do not recall weekday Mass readings ever matching up with the day's saint.
Fr. Cekada here writes: "Practically speaking, however, the Missal of Paul VI leaves little of a saint's feast in the Mass for Memorials and Optional Memorials — usually just a lone Opening Prayer — unless the priest is willing to slog through the Commons in the back of the Missal to pick out a formulary he thinks is appropriate, and then do the same with the Lectionary."
So, it looks like priests essentially have to recreate sanctoral Masses?
I like how this FIUV paper asks: "The Lectionary of the Book of Common Prayer is based on that of the Sarum Missal, which is essentially identical to the Roman Missal; the traditional Lutheran Lectionary is based on that of the Roman Missal. The ecumenical value of the ancient one-year cycle gave the architects of the 1970 Lectionary serious pause: see Annibale Bugnini The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975 (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1990) po415-6."
I also liked how it promotes the faithful recite Matins. In the spirit of Mediator Dei 150., I liked the FIUV paper's citation of Sacrosanctum Concilium 100. urging the faithful to recite Vespers in common, esp. on Sundays and feast days. This is the true liturgical movement.
Perhaps Dr. Peter Kwasniewski's “The Loss of Liturgical Riches in the Sanctoral Cycle” in The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture and Tradition (Fall 2007), pp. 30-35, cited in this position paper, will help answer my questions.
This is why I love Rorate Caeli: The excelent post by Dr. Shaw and the very erudite and interesting "conversation" between people that deeply know and love our biggest treasure as catholics: The Mass.
Thank you all for your comments, which are interesting and well made.
I confess I didn't know the full story about optional sanctoral readings in the Novus Ordo, despite attending it for a quarter of a century!
It is worth noting that any priest who wishes to avoid saying the Mass of the previous Sunday several times in a week can avail himself of the very edifying Votive Masses, of which there are several options for every day of the week.
This option, like the possibility having new (or restored old) extra sanctoral formularies or commons would preserve the principle that the lections are part and parcel of the propers of the day. They go with the variable prayers and chants, which often quote them or reflect upon them. This is the main point the paper wishes to defend: it is an essential element of the ancient Latin liturgical tradition.
This gives me a greater understanding of what was meant by Bl. John Paul ll when he said, "The Missal of St. Pius V holds a great treasury of prayers that we cannot loose". The Church needs to go back and revisit what the Council Fathers really meant by "reform".
People are enamored of the three year cycle because the laity hear a larger portion of the scriptures. But if you get the same poor quality sermons every week, it doesn't matter what the reading was.
The loss of the analogy of Christ's life cycle, our life cycle, and the cycle of the year had an immediate and visceral connection in the old lectionary which reinforced the soteriologic message and mission of the Church. There was a semiotic in the very structure of the readings. As with the jettisoning of the Ember Days, the disconnection between the natural cycle and the latreutic cycle impoverishes the new lectionary in a way a mere increase in volume cannot replace. Despite the good intent, the three year cycle (especially when coupled with poor homiletics) renders all the readings to a tautologic prolix pablum.
Excellent thread -- this has been a pleasure to read.
I would add a couple things regarding ferial days using the traditional calendar. There seems to be an urban legend that the previous Sunday's Mass, abbreviated, is/was offered a lot on ferial days, therefore the practice needed to be reformed.
Two things on that:
1) most months have relatively few ferial day Masses where the Sunday Mass is said again on a weekday. This month, for instance, has a grand total of three ferial days -- hardly a reason to invent a brand new cycle of daily readings in the name of avoiding boredom. Moreover, all three ferial days this month have something else going on -- May 3 with Saint Alexander and companions, and the option of using the former propers of the Finding of the Holy Cross; May 6 (today) with Rogation Monday and the option of using the former propers of Saint John before the Latin Gate; and May 14 with Saint Bonaventure. Every other day this month is third class or higher. Next month has five ferial days, and three of them have something else on the liturgical calendar.
2) When a ferial day, which is fourth class, does fall on the calendar -- and one does not wish to repeat the Sunday readings -- it is the perfect opportunity for a Daily Mass for the Dead or one of the many votive Masses. These were largely lost using the novus ordo calendar. Was that a good thing?
The novus ordo lectionary can be summed up with one word: novelty. Just look at the recent example of Good Shepherd Sunday in the novus ordo liturgy. The traditional Latin Mass Gospel is John 10:11-16. It is perfect for the day. There is no reason to shuffle this fixed Gospel. Yet the novus ordo chops John 10 up into three pieces and rotates it in a three year cycle for Good Shepherd Sunday (and delays it a week). Why? Novelty.
Talk about change for the sake of change.
Post a Comment