Comparing the Old and New Lectionary

  • Thread starter Thread starter commenter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think that’s reaching a bit to imply that many Catholics don’t adhere to the Church’s teaching on homosexuality simply because one passage from Romans isn’t read at Mass once every 3 years (and probably not even preached on as most priests tend to focus on the Gospel rather than the epistle in their homily).

I don’t have a problem with some criticism of passages being edited from the Lectionary, but I find it sort of irreverent to refer to is as “dumbing down.” It’s still Scripture. That phase seems a tad disrespectful to me. [It’s been corrected; comment no longer applies]
 
Last edited:
I accept your correction. The phrase “dumbing down” was chosen by me, and it was a mistake.
Hopefully that shouldn’t reflect on the article cited. I don’t think I am able to change the thread title anymore.
 
Last edited:
Ah, I didn’t realize that. I was able to change the topic title. Do you like that one better? You may be able to change it yourself if you see the little pencil icon to the right of the title.
 
Okay, I read the article now. 🙂 That seems like a useful book. I’m always interested in seeing tables and charts, and seeing a comparison between the old and new Lectionary is interesting to me. This article looks to be the complete foreword to the book (written by someone else), which also usefully points out many of the passages from the old Lectionary that are not found in the new.

I would have liked to see him talk more about all the passages that are now in the new Lectionary that were not in the old one.

Whenever the topic comes up, I guess I can see both sides as far as the passages that are omitted from the current lectionary. Some seem to paint it as some nefarious watering down of Catholic teaching. But then it seems to me more likely that they were seeking to avoid including passages that could lead to confusion.

For example, with the passages where God commands the Israelites to annihilate their pagan enemies down to the last woman and child, I can see how including them would do more harm than good considering how many people struggle with the passages when they do come across them. I suppose a case could be made that it would force priests to articulate a good response to these passages, which could be worthwhile. But I can also see how it would just be confusing to people in the pew.

Some of the criticisms he makes have merit, such as the exclusion of the passage on receiving the Eucharist unworthily.

But other criticism seems to be reaching. He points to the reduction of the occurrence of the passage of Mary at the foot of the cross as though it indicates the Lectionary reformers are trying to downplay the role of Mary. He says it’s only the “12 Gospel option for the Common of the BVM.” To me, that makes me think, “Wow, there are loads of choices for Marian feast days!” Just because that one particular passage (which I love) is not read as often doesn’t necessarily mean it’s being downplayed. It just means that other passages are also being brought out.

Interesting read.
 
The author of the foreward previously wrote in an article I can’t find, about the change in Epistle readings for Lent. They are now much less specific, much less challenging the hearer to conversion. This was combined with elimination of Septagesima, Sexagesima, Quintagesima, which gradually prepared people for Lent.

One gets the feeling the liturgists were minimalists. The path of least resistance.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top