Lectionary History

[diggerdomer]

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

So, in the end, you’re saying less Scripture at Mass is better than more Scripture at Mass, during a 3 year period? Yes or no?

I definitely think Catholics are more familiar with the Bible now than they would be with only the pre-Vatican II Mass. They hear more readings. The music (especially the psalms) in the vernacular means they hear/sing Biblical passages even if they don’t know or immediately associate such with the Bible.

For instance…ask anyone you know to recite Psalm 91. I doubt many if any could. Can they?

Now, for instance, ask anyone (and I’m writing in the U.S., so this may only apply to the U.S.) if they know the song “On Eagles Wings” (Joncas)–and by the way, I am not commenting on the worth of this song…but ask them. Can they cite a passage or two? I bet they can. And it’s straight from psalm 91.

 

[japhy]

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.

Hearing Scripture does not imply that they are also reading Scripture, and exposure to more Scripture (whether by hearing or reading) does not necessarily equate with comprehension of Scripture, which is a big part of the real benefit of the Word of God. Many Catholics are like Ethiopian eunuchs when it comes to the Word of God.

 

[diggerdomer]

Hearing Scripture does not imply that they are also reading Scripture, and exposure to more Scripture (whether by hearing or reading) does not necessarily equate with comprehension of Scripture, which is a big part of the real benefit of the Word of God. Many Catholics are like Ethiopian eunuchs when it comes to the Word of God.

So comprehension of Scripture is better attained how? If hearing more Scripture proclaimed at Mass, and having homilies more focused on Scripture, as all post-Vatican II instructions and laws require, are not serving this goal…then what do you suggest?

Or are you simply preferring the pre_Vatican II liturgy to the current Catholic liturgy? Regardless of the Scriptural basis?

 

[japhy]

So comprehension of Scripture is better attained how?

I think Catholics need to be strongly encouraged by their pastors to read Scripture on their own, in their families, and in groups.

If hearing more Scripture proclaimed at Mass, and having homilies more focused on Scripture … are not serving this goal…

If “hearing more Scripture proclaimed” is necessarily part of the equation, why don’t we add another reading at Mass? Too many readings would be overload. I’m not completely sure about this, but I think we might be at overload stage right now. Does the average Catholic leave Mass remembering what all the readings were? Does the average homily cover all the Scripture that was proclaimed?

I have a feeling that the Psalm and the Second Reading are generally overlooked: the Psalm, because some musical settings of it make it hard to understand the verses, and thus people’s attention drifts; and the Second Reading, because it’s not always closely thematically linked to the First Reading and the Gospel.

It is also really worthwhile to know the context of the First Reading. Not many homilies I’ve heard do that.

Or are you simply preferring the pre_Vatican II liturgy to the current Catholic liturgy? Regardless of the Scriptural basis?

First, the pre-Vatican II liturgy is also a “current” Catholic liturgy, celebrated alongside the post-Vatican II liturgy.

Second, there are characteristics of the Extraordinary Form that I prefer, and there are characteristics of the Ordinary Form I prefer. I do not straight-up prefer one form to the other. In terms of Scripture readings, I think I am at an advantage over the “average” Catholic, because I do read Scripture in study groups, and I read the Mass readings ahead of time; therefore, I do not find the current structure of readings to be overload for myself. That said, I see the value in a one-year cycle. Perhaps a one-year cycle with an additional reading would be useful. I do like the OT-to-Gospel relationship evident in the Ordinary Form’s Sunday Lectionary, and I also like hearing from the epistles. I’m not as enthusiastic about the weekday sequential reading; I think I’d have lobbied for more thematic selections.