Questions about the Three-Year Lectionary
I touch upon a sensitive subject here, because I know that some of our TAC bishops and priests favour (without obliging their clergy in the matter) following the three-year lectionary used in the modern Roman rite, the current Anglican Use and most Anglican liturgies in use since the 1970’s.
I find it pointless to go into reasons for my reserves about the three-year lectionary when things are expressed that much better in the New Liturgical Movement – Doubts About the Three-Year Cycle. The article and the comments are food for thought.
There are a couple more considerations. I don’t think the lectionary for Mass should compensate for the absence of faithful from the Offices. More importantly, the lectionary of the Roman rite (or that of the Prayer Book) could have been improved along the lines of the early eighteenth-century Parisian missal or the medieval Norman uses including Sarum. Ferial Wednesdays and Fridays have their proper Old Testament lessons, Epistles and Gospels.
My other main reserve is the change made to the temporal cycle made in 1969 by the late Archbishop Bugnini: particularly the Sundays after Epiphany and Sundays after Trinity (Pentecost) becoming “ordinary” Sundays per annum, the abolition of Septuagesima and the Ember Days, the suppression of all the Octaves other than Easter. One positive aspect of the Pauline reform is the wealth of propers for ferias when no saint’s feast is appointed, and another is the wealth of prefaces.
I hope, in a future reform of the reform, that the old temporal cycle will be restored. I am much less bothered about saint’s feasts being displaced. Those of us who follow the Sarum Use find feasts celebrated on different days to what is prescribed in the classical Roman rite. For example, we celebrate the Holy Name of Jesus on August 7th instead of January 2nd.
I would also hope for a return to a single-year liturgical cycle, not only for the Scripture Readings, but also for the Gradual psalms, Alleluia verses and so forth.
about 1 month ago
I spent considerable time reviewing the 3-year lectionary before tossing it into the trash. The reason for the trashing was simple. I am a single-issue guy. It was the deletion of Scripture that indicated there are roles for men and women. I noticed also a deliberate skipping of Scripture that calls sin sin.
AND no Sunday is “ordinary”.
about 1 month ago
Fr Bill: there is nothing to stop you using the 3 year lectionary (supposing you had wished to use it) but using a decent Bible. (Query: will the AV be allowed as part of our patrimony? Presumably yes, if we are to keep the Coverdale psalter?)
I don’t think the “wealth of prefaces” turns out to be all that much of a positive aspect, when you actually come to use them. Many of them have a rather didactic air, and we already have quite enough of that sort of thing.
about 1 month ago
“I don’t think the lectionary for Mass should compensate for the absence of faithful from the Offices. ”
That the faithful ought be present at the Offices (or at least Lauds and Vespers) is true enough. Even truer is that a parish ought offer the offices in the first place. That said, the Gospel reading isn’t part of the Offices, save for Vigils. And all four Gospels need to be read, and read completely. That takes three years for Sunday Mass.
about 1 month ago
I had the Anglican Prayer Book Office in mind, in which there are extensive Old and New Testament readings at Mattins and Evensong. I assume most Anglicans already using the Prayer Book for morning and evening prayer will continue to do so.
about 1 month ago
I agree that many of the prefaces of the modern Roman rite have a ‘didactic air’ about them. There are many prefaces in the old Gelasian and Gregorian Sacramentaries that could have been used, along with the Prefaces of Advent, Dedication, Saints and others that have been authorised in France for a long time.
Following Sacrosanctum Concilium and its recommendations, many good things can be done to improve the traditional rite: allowing the vernacular in given pastoral situations, adding prefaces, bidding prayers, augmenting and improving the lectionary, leaving the essential Comes of Murbach structure intact. Many things, but respecting the traditional rite and not making a new one.
Whilst the modern Roman rite is perfectly valid and orthodox (viz. it contains no doctrinal errors), it needs the criticism the best scholars (Gamber, Bouyer, Ratzinger, etc.) have levelled against it, even when considering the official Latin books. The bad translations into English and other vernacular languages is another question, and a very serious one. The question of the orientation of the Mass is of paramount importance – restore the eastward position and the altars of old churches (follow the directives of Sacrosanctum Concilium for new churches). Apart from the Order of Mass, which contains many deficiencies (offertory prayers, communion rite, etc.), my criticisms stand in regard to the botched temporal cycle.
This rite is in urgent need of revision in the light of the immemorial liturgical tradition of the Latin Church.
May Pope Benedict XVI reign for a very long time, as long as possible, and live as long as the Patriarchs of the Old Testament!
about 1 month ago
And all four Gospels need to be read, and read completely.
Why? That is, why does this need to occur in a liturgical context? And is it even true of the three-year lectionary that is now used with the Ordinary Form, or does even that need to be expanded?