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 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
and certain other days. 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,
when it assumed the form still in use today.
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.
4.
The
Lectionary’s development is such that, while the Sunday Gospels and Epistles
each form a discernible series,
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, 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.
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.
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. 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’,
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.
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.
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. 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,
as is the Code of Canon Law.
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’.
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.
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.
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,
and there are a great many quotations of, and references to, the Scriptures
throughout the Mass. 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.
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), 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. 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…
