Lectionary History

[luciasclay]

“The three-year lectionary was developed as a result of the Second Vatican Council, initially appearing in 1969”

In researching some stuff about the lectionary I discovered the 3 year lectionary was a result of Vatican II. This is what the Lutherans state anyway on the page explaining why they then adopted the 3 year lectionary with a few changes.

My question is what is the history of Lectionary revisions with the Catholic Church. Is this discussed anywhere. I know in the Orthodox its been prominent for a long time and fixed for a long time. But I know in the west its easier to revise things when it makes sense to do so.

So what is the history of changes to the Catholic lectionary ?

Thanks much!

 

[Justin1224]

I think I figured out that when we started using the new Lectionary, we started with Cycle B.

 

[dixibehr]

My question is what is the history of Lectionary revisions with the Catholic Church. Is this discussed anywhere<<

I assume you mean the Mass lectionary. Read THE SHAPE OF THE LITURGY by Dom Gregory Dix.

I know in the Orthodox its been prominent for a long time and fixed for a long time. <<

Actually, it’s been tinkered with for centuries. The latest, which has spread gradually except in the Russian Church is the so-called Lucan Jump after the Feast of the Holy Cross.

orthodoxwiki.org/Lectionary

 

[diggerdomer]

“The three-year lectionary was developed as a result of the Second Vatican Council, initially appearing in 1969”

In researching some stuff about the lectionary I discovered the 3 year lectionary was a result of Vatican II. This is what the Lutherans state anyway on the page explaining why they then adopted the 3 year lectionary with a few changes.

My question is what is the history of Lectionary revisions with the Catholic Church. Is this discussed anywhere. I know in the Orthodox its been prominent for a long time and fixed for a long time. But I know in the west its easier to revise things when it makes sense to do so.

So what is the history of changes to the Catholic lectionary ?

Thanks much!

Not sure what you’re asking exactly, but for the most part nothing changed in the Roman Catholic Church from the mid-16th century until following Vatican II…so for those hundreds of years the history is easy.

Prior to VII, at Sunday Mass, there were two readings (plus the psalm), with very few readings from the Old Testament and all in all Matthew being the preferred Gospel. It was a one-year cycle.

Vatican II recognized the need and desire to get Catholics more familiar with Scripture and so changed the Sunday Mass readings to the present 3-year cycle with 3 readings (plus the psalm) at each Mass. This resulted in Catholic hearing much more of the Old Testament, and hearing the majority of all 4 Gospels. To say the least.

 

[jebeau]

When Protestant churches use the lectionary, are they using one they created for themselves that just happens to coincide with the RCC’s, or or are they using the RCC lectionary without realizing it?

 

[japhy]

When Protestant churches use the lectionary, are they using one they created for themselves that just happens to coincide with the RCC’s, or or are they using the RCC lectionary without realizing it?

Many have adopted an amended version of the Roman Rite’s three-year Lectionary. (They’ve replaced deuterocanonical readings, of course, and sometimes provide a fuller excerpt from the Scriptural text where the Roman reading skips some verses…)

 

[Digitonomy]

When Protestant churches use the lectionary, are they using one they created for themselves that just happens to coincide with the RCC’s, or or are they using the RCC lectionary without realizing it?

Here’s the Wikipedia entry on the Revised Common Lectionary.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

When Protestant churches use the lectionary, are they using one they created for themselves that just happens to coincide with the RCC’s, or or are they using the RCC lectionary without realizing it?

I know that the Church of England adopted the two-year cycle Latin Catholic Lectionary for Mass for weekdays (but not the Sunday cycle).

 

[Chatter163]

Prior to 1970 there was no separate lectionary. The readings for all Masses were simply contained within the Roman Missal.

 

[diggerdomer]

I think I figured out that when we started using the new Lectionary, we started with Cycle B.

No, the Roman Catholic Church started with Cycle A when the revised lectionary following Vatican II was approved.

 

[diggerdomer]

Prior to 1970 there was no separate lectionary. The readings for all Masses were simply contained within the Roman Missal.

Yes, but the salient point is that it was not a three year cycle prior to the reforms following Vatican II.

 

[Chatter163]

Yes, but the salient point is that it was not a three year cycle prior to the reforms following Vatican II.

Yes, I know, and over time I have come to believe that the old system of readings was better.

 

[Bran_Stark]

I really dislike the three-year cycle. The old calendars like that in the Book of Common Prayer were much nicer - you always knew what you’re getting.

 

[diggerdomer]

Yes, I know, and over time I have come to believe that the old system of readings was better.

Ok, thanks. I think the important point to consider is that the Church, following the teaching of Vatican II, desired to make the Scriptures more available to the faithful. So…we now hear so much more Scripture at Mass than we used to. I doubt anyone could claim that’s a bad thing.

 

[Chatter163]

Ok, thanks. I think the important point to consider is that the Church, following the teaching of Vatican II, desired to make the Scriptures more available to the faithful. So…we now hear so much more Scripture at Mass than we used to. I doubt anyone could claim that’s a bad thing.

I don’t recall anyone here claiming that was a bad thing. I stated that I have come to believe that the older form ws better. I used to accept the notion that the three-year cycle was exposing the faithful to more scripture, but my observation has been that most people seem to be no more familiar with scripture than they used to be, despite hearing more of it. In fact, in many ways, they are less familiar, as the passages do not come up as frequently, giving them less chance to remember and internalize it. When I reflected on my own knowledge of scripture, I realize that I know the passages that I do from hearing and reading them over and over in the old cycle. This is especially true of the lesser known passages from the old testament.

 

[laszlo]

Vatican II ordered

35

1. In sacred celebrations there is to be more reading from holy scripture, and it is to be more varied and suitable.
   vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

The first document related to to this was the Ordo Lectionum Missae, the typical edition issued in May 1969
openlibrary.org/books/OL4194813M/Ordo_lectionum_Missae.

In went true on several editions till the current versions.

 

[diggerdomer]

I don’t recall anyone here claiming that was a bad thing. I stated that I have come to believe that the older form ws better. I used to accept the notion that the three-year cycle was exposing the faithful to more scripture, but my observation has been that most people seem to be no more familiar with scripture than they used to be, despite hearing more of it. In fact, in many ways, they are less familiar, as the passages do not come up as frequently, giving them less chance to remember and internalize it. When I reflected on my own knowledge of scripture, I realize that I know the passages that I do from hearing and reading them over and over in the old cycle. This is especially true of the lesser known passages from the old testament.

I just think more exposure to Scripture for the faithful is better than less. And following the reforms of Vatican II, there is so much more of the Old Testament proclaimed at Mass, that would seem to affirm your point.

 

[Chatter163]

I just think more exposure to Scripture for the faithful is better than less. And following the reforms of Vatican II, there is so much more of the Old Testament proclaimed at Mass, that would seem to affirm your point.

I am not sure what you are saying. I stated that the knowledge of scriptures that I have, especially from the OT, comes from hearing and reading the sciptures in the old missal (both at daily Mass.and from reading them privately on a daily basis). Because they were repeated yearly, and also the Masses from common of the saints are repeated more frequently in the old rite, I learned them. The new lectionary, with its three-year Sunday cycle and two-year weekday cycle, does not have the same level of repitition. Hence, there is a reduced opportunity for internalization.

Another factor is the use of the antiphons at Mass. These are almost entirely scriptural, taken largely from the psalms, but not completely. The older form of Mass includes them at every Mass, high and low, and if one uses a missal, one learns these fairly well over the course of a year. These are not an integral part of the Ordinary Form of the Mass, and most places use them little or not at all, depriving people of a huge amount of scripture at each Mass. People’s hand missals only include an introit and communion antiphon, and these are barely used in most places, especially at Sunday Masses.

So while it sounds good in theory to say that people are exposed to more scripture through the OF missal and lectionary, I submit that the reverse is actually true in practice, due to the design and practical use of the OF books. I also believe that the average Mass-goer today knows no more scripture than an EF counterpart, and in some cases arguably less. There is also an historical component here, but that will have to wait for another time.

 

[ASD]

Yes, I know, and over time I have come to believe that the old system of readings was better.
diggerdomer;7181792:

Ok, thanks. I think the important point to consider is that the Church, following the teaching of Vatican II, desired to make the Scriptures more available to the faithful. So…we now hear so much more Scripture at Mass than we used to. I doubt anyone could claim that’s a bad thing.
Chatter163;7182065:

…but my observation has been that most people seem to be no more familiar with scripture than they used to be, despite hearing more of it. In fact, in many ways, they are less familiar, as the passages do not come up as frequently, giving them less chance to remember and internalize it. When I reflected on my own knowledge of scripture, I realize that I know the passages that I do from hearing and reading them over and over in the old cycle. This is especially true of the lesser known passages from the old testament.

I strongly agree with Chatter163.

It’s all very well to say that the new lectionary includes more scripture. In itself, probably not a bad thing.

But, what’s the practical payoff? Has anybody made any attempt to gather evidence that it accomplishes anything? I mean, who honestly believes that Catholics in 2010 know the Bible or their faith better than Catholics in, say, 1950? If there’s anybody who thinks that might be true, I would greatly appreciate some evidence, data, support for claim, etc.

The old approach was like Top 50: What Every Catholic Needs to Know. In principle, not unlike the stained glass, the statues, even the Canon itself: The Ten Most Important Things to Think About.

The new approach is very different. The readings are basically sequential & comprehensive. Like, the whole thing straight-through in three years.

• I think it teaches very little. I mean, is there any other serious subject that people think can be taught that way? Any examples?
• Furthermore, it frequently seems out of joint with liturgical calendar. Like, we stick to straight-through comprehensive thing even when liturgical calendar is marking something interesting. Especially noticeable at OF daily Mass.

ASD​

Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

 

[diggerdomer]

I am not sure what you are saying. I stated that the knowledge of scriptures that I have, especially from the OT, comes from hearing and reading the sciptures in the old missal (both at daily Mass.and from reading them privately on a daily basis).

I’m simply saying that Catholics who follow the Lectionary as you (admirably) do would gain much more benefit following Vatican II than pre-Vatican II, as they would hear (read) more Scripture. That’s all.