The Lectionary

[cmoran]

I am curious how the daily readings are selected, because sometimes it seems arbitrary/random.
For example, today’s selection of the responsorial Psalm 22 starts at 26b and goes through v. 32, but skips v. 29.

Does anyone know the reasons for this?

 

[BrotherPaulMary]

There are two parallel calendars in the lectionary.

One is the calendar that has all of the readings and psalms for the saints whose feast days are dated.

Then there is the proper of seasons where each week is laid out with readings for the mondays etc.

Now when a Saints day falls on a weekday - if the feast has a certain rank then the readings from the Saints replace that of the proper of seasons.

God Bless

 

[cmoran]

So how was the proper decided? Who sat down and determined which parts of Scripture would be read on which days? is it subject to change, or has it been the same for 100s of years?

 

[Samuel63]

Be aware, liturgical abuse is so pervasive today that you have to account for it. Many parishes have that special “creative” liturgical minister, or music minister that has co-opted the liturgy, that amazingly finds a way to change the readings.

In my highy liberal parish, we rarely follow the prescribed psalm. I keep trying to correct this and other similar problems but progress is very slow.

The first reading, second reading, are changed on occasion too. In rare instances I am really stumped at the gospel reading. It appears our pastor is switching these around too!

 

[runningdude]

So how was the proper decided? Who sat down and determined which parts of Scripture would be read on which days? is it subject to change, or has it been the same for 100s of years?

The current lectionary is about 40 years old, and was compiled around the time that rite of the mass was updated. I’d image it was put together by several advisory committees of scholars, and of course the priests and bishops, based on traditionally observed feasts and the goal of presenting the scripture in a coherent manner.

 

[alexander_pope]

The music librarian was most likely hungover.

 

[PJD1987]

This is unrelated to the OP but a comment on the last poster’s remarks, forgive me. What bothers me the most is the switching around the Responsorial Psalm. It is the inspired Word of God, yet the music director at my church switches around the words to make them rhyme and throws in flowery music with an upbeat faster tempo. It irritates me to no end!!! GRRRR

 

[Joe_Kelley]

The current lectionary is about 40 years old, and was compiled around the time that rite of the mass was updated. I’d image it was put together by several advisory committees of scholars, and of course the priests and bishops, based on traditionally observed feasts and the goal of presenting the scripture in a coherent manner.

As I recall, a camel is a horse put together by a committee.

 

[John_Lilburne]

The Introduction to the Lectionary has:

"4) The Omission of Certain Verses

1. The omission of verses in readings from Scripture has at times been the tradition of many liturgies, including the Roman liturgy. Admittedly such omissions may not be made lightly, for fear of distorting the meaning of the text or the intent and style of Scripture. Yet on pastoral grounds it was decided to continue the traditional practice in the present Order of Readings, but at the same time to ensure that the essential meaning of the text remained intact. One reason for the decision is that otherwise some texts would have been unduly long. It would also have been necessary to omit completely certain readings of high spiritual value for the faithful because those readings include some verse that is pastorally less useful or that involves truly difficult questions."

For a better understanding of the this I suggest reading Chapter IV, paragraphs numbers 58 to 91. This is available at ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWLECT.HTM#Ch.4 .

 

[amdgbvmh]

It is very hard to find out who exactly is responsible for omitting certain lines from the readings. I always look them up and you know what I found? The omitted lines, almost 100% of the time, have to do with sin and punishment for sin or God’s displeasure and consequences for it.

My own opinion is that it is just a further watering down of the faith. God is kind and merciful but He is also just. Hearing about God’s wrath in the readings is just, well, not something we want to hear (according to the editors) but we sure need to hear it!

Sometime in the last year, one of the readings about driving out demons ended with “…this sort can be driven out only by prayer”. It ended right there. I heard no less than 3 people around me whisper "“and fasting”! Now, who else but the devil himself would not want us to know that prayer AND fasting is what will drive them out? I believe in certain cases of omission, it is downright purpose driven and diabolical.

Occasionally, I can see omitting for purposes of time, as long as it isn’t changing the meaning… But just because the text might be “difficult”? Give me a break.

Sincerely,

 

[MarkThompson]

It is very hard to find out who exactly is responsible for omitting certain lines from the readings. I always look them up and you know what I found? The omitted lines, almost 100% of the time, have to do with sin and punishment for sin or God’s displeasure and consequences for it.

My own opinion is that it is just a further watering down of the faith. God is kind and merciful but He is also just. Hearing about God’s wrath in the readings is just, well, not something we want to hear (according to the editors) but we sure need to hear it!

Sometime in the last year, one of the readings about driving out demons ended with “…this sort can be driven out only by prayer”. It ended right there. I heard no less than 3 people around me whisper "“and fasting”! Now, who else but the devil himself would not want us to know that prayer AND fasting is what will drive them out? I believe in certain cases of omission, it is downright purpose driven and diabolical.

Occasionally, I can see omitting for purposes of time, as long as it isn’t changing the meaning… But just because the text might be “difficult”? Give me a break.

Sincerely,

This is not an issue with the Lectionary. Rather, the words are absent from the NAB itself. That verse reads:
Mk 9:29: He said to them, “This kind can only come out through prayer.”[fn7]
The footnote explains: “This kind can only come out through prayer: a variant reading adds ‘and through fasting.’” You can see here how a variety of other major translations treat this verse.

There must be others, but I’m only actually aware of one instance where a part of a verse is omitted from a reading due to being “too hard”: on the Easter Vigil, the seventh reading emits the second half of this verse from Ezekiel 36:
17 Son of man, when the house of Israel lived in their land, they defiled it by their conduct and deeds. -]In my sight their conduct was like the defilement of a menstruous woman./-]

 

[amdgbvmh]

Thanks for pointing that out! Good to know the NAB is the source there.

My other comments about lines omitted because they are about punishment for sin still stand though. Look them up yourself for awhile and you will see.

God bless.

 

[SKWill]

This is unrelated to the OP but a comment on the last poster’s remarks, forgive me. What bothers me the most is the switching around the Responsorial Psalm. It is the inspired Word of God, yet the music director at my church switches around the words to make them rhyme and throws in flowery music with an upbeat faster tempo. It irritates me to no end!!! GRRRR

Changing the words to the Responsorial Psalms, either the verses or the response itself, also drives me crazy. I wonder how many music directors/cantors try to get away with using psalm settings with lyrics that don’t match the lectionary/missalette by claiming “if it wasn’t okay, the music publisher wouldn’t have published it.”

[On a somewhat-related note, I know it is authorized, but I’m not a fan of substituting a seasonal psalm for the psalm of the day. The OF lectionary is designed through the three-year Sunday cycle and the two-year weekday cycle to present all of the scriptures. My personal opinion is using seasonal psalms defeats that goal.]

 

[MarkThompson]

Changing the words to the Responsorial Psalms, either the verses or the response itself, also drives me crazy. I wonder how many music directors/cantors try to get away with using psalm settings with lyrics that don’t match the lectionary/missalette by claiming “if it wasn’t okay, the music publisher wouldn’t have published it.”

It actually is okay. The GIRM states:
In the dioceses of the United States of America, the following may also be sung in place of the Psalm assigned in the Lectionary for Mass: . . . an antiphon and Psalm from another collection of the psalms and antiphons, including psalms arranged in metrical form, providing that they have been approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.
As I understand it, the USCCB has delegated the responsibility for approval to the respective bishops of the places where such collections are published. That means that if the bishop of the diocese of publication approves the texts, they are approved for use nationwide.

 

[Will_S]

It is very hard to find out who exactly is responsible for omitting certain lines from the readings. I always look them up and you know what I found? The omitted lines, almost 100% of the time, have to do with sin and punishment for sin or God’s displeasure and consequences for it.

My own opinion is that it is just a further watering down of the faith. God is kind and merciful but He is also just. Hearing about God’s wrath in the readings is just, well, not something we want to hear (according to the editors) but we sure need to hear it!

The the case of the Psalm the OP was talking about, the missing verse is:

1. For kingship belongs to the LORD, the ruler over the nations. (NAB)

I think it’s pretty safe to say this was something the committee that produced the lectionary preferred to omit because they didn’t like the concepts presented.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

…

I think it’s pretty safe to say this was something the committee that produced the lectionary preferred to omit because they didn’t like the concepts presented.

maybe the reader should conclude the readings with: “The Word of the Committee”; rather than: "The Word of the Lord".

 

[MarkThompson]

The the case of the Psalm the OP was talking about, the missing verse is:

1. For kingship belongs to the LORD, the ruler over the nations. (NAB)

I think it’s pretty safe to say this was something the committee that produced the lectionary preferred to omit because they didn’t like the concepts presented.

Why is that safe to say? After all, the verses used here include
All the families of the nations
shall bow down before him.
To him alone shall bow down
all who sleep in the earth;
Before him shall bend
all who go down into the dust.
So “the concepts presented” include bowing down, all bending toward the Lord, and death as represented by returning to “dust.” Not exactly flowers and guitar-strumming, is it. I’m not really sure what kind of a committee you’re imagining that finds “Before him shall bend all who go down into the dust” perfectly fine, but is just too challenged by “For kingship belongs to the Lord, the ruler over the nations.” Maybe, just maybe, verse 29 was omitted for the following two reasons: (1) it merely states as a conclusion what the other verses which have been kept actually illustrate, and (2) we already have a whole bloomin’ Sunday every year devoted to the explicit image of Christ the King.

 

[SKWill]

It actually is okay. The GIRM states:
In the dioceses of the United States of America, the following may also be sung in place of the Psalm assigned in the Lectionary for Mass: . . . an antiphon and Psalm from another collection of the psalms and antiphons, including psalms arranged in metrical form, providing that they have been approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.
As I understand it, the USCCB has delegated the responsibility for approval to the respective bishops of the places where such collections are published. That means that if the bishop of the diocese of publication approves the texts, they are approved for use nationwide.

Thanks for the clarification. I’ll have to combine that with my other complaint about psalm substitution under the “legal, but not a good idea in my opinion” category – I say this because when the wording of the psalm used in a Mass doesn’t match the psalm of the day as printed in the missalette, I find it distracting. Maybe I’m being too fastidious, but I’m sure I’m not the only one who finds a disconnect between what we’re reading in the missalette and what we’re hearing from the cantor jarring.

 

[Will_S]

Why is that safe to say? After all, the verses used here include
All the families of the nations
shall bow down before him.
To him alone shall bow down
all who sleep in the earth;
Before him shall bend
all who go down into the dust.
So “the concepts presented” include bowing down, all bending toward the Lord, and death as represented by returning to “dust.” Not exactly flowers and guitar-strumming, is it. I’m not really sure what kind of a committee you’re imagining that finds “Before him shall bend all who go down into the dust” perfectly fine, but is just too challenged by “For kingship belongs to the Lord, the ruler over the nations.” Maybe, just maybe, verse 29 was omitted for the following two reasons: (1) it merely states as a conclusion what the other verses which have been kept actually illustrate, and (2) we already have a whole bloomin’ Sunday every year devoted to the explicit image of Christ the King.

I think it is safe to say because there is no other reason to remove the verse. The verses you cited don’t include the explicit notion of kingship and of the ruler of nations, concepts which are offensive to liberal democratic values.

The creators of the new Mass did things as they did for a reason. None of it was arbitrary, and the main motivation behind most of their decisions was to “update” the Mass and make it “relevant” to “modern man”. And “modern man” doesn’t believe in kings and rulers.

 

[MarkThompson]

I think it is safe to say because there is no other reason to remove the verse. The verses you cited don’t include the explicit notion of kingship and of the ruler of nations, concepts which are offensive to liberal democratic values.

Well, there are the following reasons: (1) length, and (2) an unnecessary shift in the focus of the portion of the Psalm selected. Note that the verses used are all about things that we do: “fulfill my vows,” “praise him,” “remember and turn to the LORD,” “bow down,” etc. Verse 29 interrupts that active focus by providing a purely descriptive statement as a sort of explanation.

The creators of the new Mass did things as they did for a reason. None of it was arbitrary, and the main motivation behind most of their decisions was to “update” the Mass and make it “relevant” to “modern man”. And “modern man” doesn’t believe in kings and rulers.

I suspect your prejudices are firmly in place on this issue, but for whatever it’s worth your conception on this is pretty well exploded by the following:

1. We have an entire Sunday called “Christ the King” devoted to the image of Christ as king.
2. Who ever heard of a “modern man” who would find the generic-sounding statement “kingship belongs to the Lord” too difficult and un-modern, but is totally cool with direct calls to bow down and bend before the Lord? And speaking of kingship . . .
3. The OP’s question was asked on Tuesday, February 1. Let’s look at the psalm on the very next day, Wednesday, February 2, shall we?
   R. Who is this king of glory? It is the Lord!
   Lift up, O gates, your lintels;
   reach up, you ancient portals,
   that the king of glory may come in!
   R. Who is this king of glory? It is the Lord!
   Who is this king of glory?
   The Lord, strong and mighty,
   the Lord, mighty in battle.
   . . . [etc.]
   R. Who is this king of glory? It is the Lord!
   Who is this king of glory?
   The Lord of hosts; he is the king of glory.
   R. Who is this king of glory? It is the Lord!
   Not only is it all about the Lord as King (“mighty in battle,” even), but the people are forced to say it themselves in the response.