Tuesday, January 17, 2017

A Reading from the Book of Numbers (against the Variable Lectionary) UPDATED

I read them the Numbers....
source: Cornell Catholic Community's Facebook page
"Oh, Rad Trad! How are you today, Rad Trad?"

A doey, dopey eyed student asked me as I walked into the chapel for a weekday Mass during my student days. This shorts-wearing man was the perfect JP2 Catholic: young, pro-life, liturgically liberal, Ultramontane in all matters, and he read the new Catechism every night before going to sleep. A kind, simple soul of exceptional devotion whose capacity for creative thought had been circumscribed by too many sports related concussions.

"Would you like to prepare a reading today, Rad Trad?"
"If it will make you feel better, alright," I acquiesced.

I reviewed the material in the lectionary for any Hebraic words or turns of phrase that might rattle my dyslexic eyes and found none. After the Collect Opening Prayer I assumed my place at the ambo and began with the immemorial words, "A reading from the book of Numbers."

A rare thought, gentle and fleeting, like a dandelion petal, that comes to a man only a few times in his life if he is careful enough to nurture it, came to me: "What the hell am I doing?"

The year was 2011, the apogee of Benedict XVI's pontificate, which in retrospect shared much with Pius XII's in looking much better on the outside than on the inside. We were reviving the "never abrogated" 1962 Missal and calling it the "extraordinary form," sticking the Big Six on the altar of Pauline Masses, and telling ourselves that the average parish Mass is not how Paul VI really wanted it. Liturgical conferences with Scott Alcuin Reid abounded and "mutual enrichment" was the defining phrase of obedient clergy. The new Mass could learn much from the old form's prolix reverence, mystery, orientation, and sense of the sacred. But, so the other side of the enrichment went, the old Mass could be inferior to the new in any number of ways, not least of which was the expanded lectionary. As I read figures for building dimensions and storage capacity to the JP2 generation and some paid staff, I concluded the benefits of the expanded lectionary were doubtful.

Peter Kwasniewski rightly points out that the expanded lectionary has allowed grave passages of Holy Writ to be omitted or relegated to obscure times of the year so that they do not appear whenever the church is full; most infamously, St. Paul's admonition against unworthy participation in the Lord's Supper never made it into the lectionary of Paul VI. Dr. K likens the new lectionary to a Cliff Notes version of Shakespeare that includes a large quantity of material, but which censors any passages unsavory to modern ears and modern morals. Quantity over quality.

Another, less often considered problem of the new lectionary is that it drowns any sense of rhythm and thematic continuity with its "Scripture for Scripture's sake" methodology. Keeping with the motif of the Bard, Shakespeare's sonnets are best understood when read aloud so that the pattern of speech and repeated images may mature line to line. The old lectionary used a few sonnets in whole; the new lectionary reads them all in sequence, but never more than five or six of the fourteen lines at a time.

Criticism of the older lectionary and support for the pedantic three year cycle of Paul VI rest on the ahistorical assumption that the Eucharistic sacrifice is the appropriate place for ad libitum readings of Scripture. The original setting for Scriptural lessons, East and West, was the Mattins of the all-night vigil, from which only the Roman rite retained consistent readings; the Byzantine rite does maintain extensive pericopes during Vespers of Great Lent and major feasts. As with the Mass, Romans initially observed the vigil only for Sundays and great feasts, which is reflected in the coherence of the passages for the most ancient feasts (Pascha, Pentecost, Theophany, Christmas, Peter & Paul, Andrew, John the Baptist, and the like). Rome eventually followed the Constantinopolitan custom of observing the vigil every night and began to read Scriptures sequentially through different books each month. Mass, with its instructive lessons geared toward the solemnization of a particular mystery celebrated on a given day, remained unique to feasts, Sundays, and days of penance; there was no daily Mass in St. Peter's Basilica, but there was a daily Office. Local churches had particular Masses for saints more often than the Roman Church, which contented itself with Common Mass formularies for martyrs, bishops, and virgins; by the time of St. Pius V's Missal, half the days of the year were still of either Simplex of Ferial rank, so the repetition of the numerous Commons was hardly as dull and numbing as it was by the time of Papa Sarto's reforms and the rite of Iste Confessor. The considerable number of Ferial and Simplex days also permitted votive Masses of Saints and of Requiem when appropriate, providing a variety of Mass options with unified Scriptural lessons concerning the saint or mystery observed. All of this would gradually change, and perspective with it, in the years after Trent.

The Tridentine Council required the Breviary of every ordained cleric in the Latin Church. Pius V's breviary lessons are similar to those in medieval books, but subsequent popes shortened many readings to lessen priests' burden; contrary to the curt Roman Office, Cluny covered such extensive passages of Holy Writ that a monk with a bat would roam the choir during Mattins to tap anyone who had fallen asleep during the daily reading of many chapters. Mass replaced the Office as the daily observance of parishes and cathedrals, especially Mass in the spoken form, wherein words are less audible to the faithful, faithful who were often speakers of Romance tongues descended from Latin. Similarly, the number of saints multiplied and their feasts were almost always assigned a Duplex rank with a Common Mass, compelling priests to recite the same Masses week after week. By the time of Vatican I one could hardly go a week without a Mass or two that began Os iusti. Vatican I considered a two year lectionary, yet nothing came of it. The 19th and early 20th century Liturgical Movement and Ressourcement revived chatter about the limited use of Scripture in the Roman liturgy, especially when contrasted with the supposedly more Biblical protestant churches. A more tempered perspective might have led these reform-minded gentlemen to realize the Roman liturgy utilized Scripture very effectively in its structures, just not in its contemporary incarnation.

There are a few possible solutions for the limited use of Scripture in the old liturgy, at least in its various forms since the 20th century began. First and foremost would be to reduce the rank of feasts so as to allow the Ferial Mass to be repeated or a votive Mass to be said; the occurring Scripture, at least in the genuine old rite, could also be said in the Office under this scheme. Second, if Ferial Masses can be repeated provide alternative, cogent readings on the same mystery or event from other parts of Scripture, as was the Norman praxis in the middle ages; were the Roman rite to revive the octaves Pacelli removed, different readings pertaining to the feast could also be read during the eight days. Third and finally, Mattins needs to return to cathedrals, collegiate churches, and parishes, even in a reduced form for non-obligatory settings that would permit just one nocturne with the assigned readings; the rhythm of the liturgy is not in the Mass, it is in the Office, which Byzantine churches have managed to keep while Roman counterparts have to bribe the faithful with Communion to get anyone interested in a service.

One must also consider that a practicing Roman Catholic need only attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days. Not even the most devout are able to attend Mass on a daily basis. The average Roman Christian who does what is required of him will likely hear different lessons at each Mass. Just before Pius X's changes about half of "green Sundays" would have been exceeded by feasts, often from Commons, but not the same Commons. From 1911-1955 feasts of Our Lady, St. Lawrence, the parish patron, and the Apostles could still be celebrated on Sundays, but in practice this only happened a few times a year. Since 1962 only half a dozen feasts can replace the Sunday Mass and none of them probably use Commons. The issue of a limited lectionary was belonged to a narrow segment of the Mass going population from the beginning.

If a Catholic wants to hear a variety of Scripture in a Church, would he not have been better off attending the Office all along?

Update: I seem to have neglected one other possibility for expanded, reasonable use of Scripture at Mass. What of the unique Masses for dioceses and congregations for Counter-Reformation saints that did not make it into the Roman Missal after the saints' canonization? And what of the unique Masses for pope saints suppressed by Papa Pacelli in 1942? Both could be revived without disturbing ancient texts (in the former case) and would even revive some (in the latter case).

47 comments:

  1. "Roman counterparts have to bribe the faithful with Communion to get anyone interested in a service."

    Or Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament (although in the case of Vespers, I don't mind at all).

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Criticism of the older lectionary and support for the pedantic three year cycle of Paul VI rest on the ahistorical assumption that the Eucharistic sacrifice is the appropriate place for ad libitum readings of Scripture." - TheRadTrad

    "And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things." - TheStJustinMartyr

    Guess whom i'm gonna believe...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Must we necessarily reject the developed praxis after the year 155?

      St Justin is doubtless describing what eventually became segmented into the vigil and the Eucharistic sacrifice.

      Delete
    2. No we must not reject the developed praxis, but to say that to think that "Eucharistic sacrifice is the appropriate place for ad libitum readings of Scripture" is ahistorical, is not true.

      Also, he's not doubtless describing what eventually became segmented into the vigil and Eucharistic sacrifice, but only the Eucharistic sacrifice because the structure is still there in all rites of the Sacrifice. What i cited is the Mass of Catechumens.

      Delete
    3. Sometimes, I think Marko just likes to be contrarian.

      Makes the place more lively, at any rate.

      Delete
    4. What St. Justin the Martyr describes is a far cry from the revised Lectionary. A 3 year cycle for Sundays and 2 years for weekdays is unknown to any Eastern or Western tradition.

      Delete
    5. What St. Justin the Martyr describes is a far cry from the revised Lectionary.

      To say the least.

      At any rate, while Marko is right to say that a precedent for ad libitum readings can be found if one looks hard enough, citing any pre-Nicene liturgical source is a deeply fraught exercise, even where we have strong reason to believe the source is credible. The ancient rites were still rather inchoate, and the formation of the faithful quite different from what obtains now.

      Delete
    6. I'm not advocating an ad libitum lectionary. I'm trying to convey that st. Justin says that the readings were read as much as time permitted it. That seems to me to mean that a rather large portion of Scriptures was read.

      Thus i'm trying to counter those who bash a larger lectionary with the argument: "hurr durr people stupid information overload head expload".

      I'm not saying that a 3 year lectionary is a recovery of a historic practice. But i'm saying that a wish that a larger portion of Scriptures is read at Mass is not based in ahistoric assumptions but that it's right there.

      And need i remind you guys of Coptic liturgy with it's set of 5 readings, second to last of which is from a patristic source?

      Eucharistic sacrifice is not for reading Scriptures my foot...

      Delete
    7. Thus i'm trying to counter those who bash a larger lectionary with the argument: "hurr durr people stupid information overload head expload".

      But that argument *does* have some value in the context of ethos and lived reality of the Pauline Missal.

      Context matters. What is the purpose of the liturgy? Is it latreutic or didactic? A hand goes up in the back of the classroom to say "both." But the traditional understanding is that the Mass is primarily latreutic. In the East, that assumption is, if anything, even more emphatic. Geoffrey Hull's work here is on point.

      What we have with the Pauline missal is instead a liturgical rite intended to be primarily didactic. It's chatty, informal, and heavily discursive, and of course admitting of almost endless options.

      And need i remind you guys of Coptic liturgy with it's set of 5 readings, second to last of which is from a patristic source?

      I am not terribly familiar with the Coptic Rite. But my understanding is that its lectionary (such as it is) is quite ancient, and its selections have stood the test of time; but more to the point, are embedded in a rite in which they can be better and fruitfully absorbed.

      Delete
    8. To me that argument is bogus. I've never experienced anything similar nor the people to which i've talked to.

      Mass is primarily latreutic but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be didactic. Look at eastern rites and their troparia and kontakia. They're terribly didactic. For God's sake they inserted the Creed into the liturgy for didactic and apologetic purposes. Look at western prefaces - they're didactic as they can be.

      Also here's what Apostolic Constitutions, 2nd book, section 7 says:
      "In the middle, let the reader stand upon some high place: let him read the books of Moses, of Joshua the son of Nun, of the Judges, and of the Kings and of the Chronicles, and those written after the return from the captivity; and besides these, the books of Job and of Solomon, and of the sixteen prophets. But when there have been two lessons severally read, let some other person sing the hymns of David, and let the people join at the conclusions of the verses. Afterwards let our Acts be read, and the Epistles of Paul our fellow-worker, which he sent to the churches under the conduct of the Holy Spirit; and afterwards let a deacon or a presbyter read the Gospels, both those which I Matthew and John have delivered to you, and those which the fellow-workers of Paul received and left to you, Luke and Mark. And while the Gospel is read, let all the presbyters and deacons, and all the people, stand up in great silence; for it is written: “Be silent, and hear, O Israel.” And again: “But do thou stand there, and hear.”In the next place, let the presbyters one by one, not all together, exhort the people, and the bishop in the last place, as being the commander."

      No. Pauline missal is not "chatty, informal, and heavily discursive, and of course admitting of almost endless options.". If you know anything about eastern liturgies you know how chatty and informal they are. Constant singing and responding, not a shred of silence. Just because there are several more responses made by the people in a rite, doesn't mean it's supposed to be primarily didactic.
      And no, there aren't endless possibilities. I don't know which missal or rubrics you've been reading.

      Delete
    9. Most of us Americans have been exposed to the "endless options" that was never allowed in the Pauline Missal, or at least options that make the Mass shorter than it already was in low Masses. And many of us had the abuse of the priest going at it with the people during the Sermon in a kind of dialogue back and forth. And many of us also got the expurgated Lectionary of ICEL infamy, which made our experiences of the Pauline missal very cringeworthy.

      Delete
    10. Is it so hard to transcend your own experience and to just look at what the text and rubrics say?

      Delete
    11. I mean most of you abhor the low Mass culture which is prevalent today as it was back in the day, but you don't call for abolishing the old Rite.

      You transcend the bad experience and long for an ideal of what is written in the text.

      Is it that hard to apply the same principle when discussing the New Rite?

      Delete
    12. True, but still I agree with Msgr. Gamber that the revised Lectionary was poorly prepared, and an absolute break with an at least 1500 year old Tradition, in part. And also that most faithful do not have the necessary background to understand the more obscure parts of Scripture.

      Delete
    13. It wasn't an absolute break of course. There are still many readings which are the same or even expanded upon.
      But the multi-year idea is an innovation.

      Also, where people themselves can't comprehend, therein comes the priest and the homily.

      I would say that the concept of expanding the lectionary is an awesome concept, but that the job was done poorly in many instances, while in many other instances it had an improvement over the old lectionary.

      Delete
    14. Hello Marko,

      1. At least with the traditional Roman Rite, an ideal actually *did* once exist, before Irish pietism took over; Rad Trad has discussed it at length here. If there *is* an ideal with the new rite, I have yet to see it, let alone imagine what it might be. I only know what the lived reality has been, at least 99% of the time here in North America. Chatty, casual, therapeutic, with horribly banal music.

      Perhaps it's very different in Croatia. (I will add that when I lived in Poland, it wasn't quite so bad, on average.) But it's still the same basic missal, informed by the same modernistic principles.

      2. If you know anything about eastern liturgies you know how chatty and informal they are. As a fairly regular attendee of the Melkite Rite from time to time, I must respectfully disagree. Dialogic? Absolutely! But that is not the same as "chatty." Likewise, the fact that one can (and sometimes does) have the liberty to move about to pray before various icons does not make for "casual." It also does not admit room for creativity on the part of the celebrant (let alone lay liturgist).

      3. Mass is primarily latreutic but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be didactic. Which I didn't deny, but affirmed. Perhaps our difference is more one of emphasis. But latreutic remains the primary end of Mass. I read the readings and propers of the day before Mass begins - I hardly need Mass for that, after all. Christ is present in the Eucharist, and that is why I go: to adore Him, to offer atonement, to petition.

      Delete
    15. 1. I'm sure that if you compared the Tridentine Rite with the previous iterations Rite of Rome (as the TheRadTrad did) you would find many things lacking, as TheRadTrad did.

      When i say chatty, i mean exactly that - dialogic.

      What modernistic principles? I read the Missal, i read the rubrics and i don't see modernism. I don't see heresies or denial of faith.

      With your logic about Mass, your liturgical theology, if we reduce it to an absurd, we should ditch the readings altogether.
      You don't even need the Office for Psalms or other readings either. You can do all that with your own copy of Sacred Scripture. So why bother?

      Delete
    16. 1. I'm sure that if you compared the Tridentine Rite with the previous iterations Rite of Rome (as the TheRadTrad did) you would find many things lacking, as TheRadTrad did.

      And I do!

      2. What is "chatty?" Chatty comes in the form of "opening remarks," invariably impromptu, by a lay liturgist or cantor, at the opening of Mass; additional remarks by a lay preacher after the homily; impromptu remarks by the celebrant at various points of the Mass; or requests for intentions by laity in the pews during the offertory. All of these are permissible under the Pauline Missal - I am not talking about actual abuses, which are (of course) rife in many American parishes, to say nothing of what you will find in many parts of Latin America and Western Europe.

      "Dialogue" in the Mass is something else - we are talking there about formal responses by the congregation. And yes, there's arguably too little of it in the old Roman Rite as it has existed by the 20th and 21st centuries; too many trads with pathological resistance to any whiff of dialogue thanks to traumatic experience of how it is generally conducted in the Novus Ordo.

      3. "Modernistic principles." Start with the theologically dubious Offertory of the Pauline Missal, and go from there. Gregory DiPippo had a worthwhile discussion in a 4 part series at NLM two years ago.

      Delete
    17. 1. Well then. It's the same. In both cases, things are lacking.

      2. Even Tridentine Council itself presupposes an instructor who would instruct people during the rite.
      From the decree on the Mass
      "CHAPTER VIII.
      On not celebrating the Mass every where in the vulgar tongue; the mysteries of the Mass to be explained to the people.
      Although the mass contains great instruction for the faithful people, nevertheless, it has not seemed expedient to the Fathers, that it should be every where celebrated in the vulgar tongue. Wherefore, the ancient usage of each church, and the rite approved of by the holy Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all churches, being in each place retained; ***and, that the sheep of Christ may not suffer hunger, nor the little ones ask for bread, and there be none to break it unto them, the holy Synod charges pastors, and all who have the cure of souls, that they frequently, ****during the celebration of mass, expound either by themselves, or others****, some portion of those things which are read at mass, and that, amongst the rest, they explain some mystery of this most holy sacrifice, especially on the Lord's days and festivals.***"

      3. Theologically dubious Offertory? The non-gallicanized Rite of Rome had none apart from the secret prayer. This one has the all the same ideas. The "offerimus" idea is still there, plus the whole In spiritu humilitatis and Orate fratres sacrificial language.

      Gregory DiPippo had a presentation of medieval offertories and had the Orate fratres of medieval rites translated wrongly. More specifically, he interpreted the "pariter" from the many of the "Orate fratres"es to say that the sacrifice that the priest is offering is pariter/equally the sacrifice of the faithful, which is nonsense which is clear to anyone who has read Mediator Dei. What "pariter" meant is that the priest asked the faithful that they pray that his and theirs sacrifice may be pariter/equally acceptable to God.
      Apart from that, it was worthwhile.

      Delete
    18. A drive-by response:

      The non-gallicanized Rite of Rome had none apart from the secret prayer.

      True enough. And if I had the alternative of *that* versus the Novus Ordo offertory (which is really just a souped up Jewish meal prayer that is at pains to avoid much of a sense of holy sacrifice, mostly for ecumenical motives), I would take *that*, which by omission at least does no harm.

      But since we *have* had a formal offertory (not just in the Roman Rite, but in other Latin Rites related to it) in some form for over a millennium, its deliberate removal or replacement risks sending a troubling theological message where the primitive form of the rite did not. We do not live in a historical vacuum. The Pauline offertory by contrast bears almost no relationship to any of the medieval offertories with which I am familiar.

      If I could replace only one item of the normative text, it would be to remove the present offertory, preferably to restore the old Roman offertory. If I could replace only one rubric, it would be a tie between restoration of celebration ad orientem (at least of the Canon) and reception exclusively on the tongue, which is normative even in the Divine Liturgy.

      I think there's a danger in over-reading Trent on this point of theological instruction; in any event, the great danger of liturgy in our age is the loss of sense of worship of God, rather than learning His teaching. Absymal as the latter is, it becomes a moot point where there is so little sense of the divine and our necessary response to it.

      In other respects, I think we're perhaps not so far apart as appeared. I think a lot of this is off the beaten path of Rad Trad's discussion, and I apologize for my responsibility in moving it off that path.

      Delete
    19. But aside from the Jewish inspired prayers (which were present in some of the earliest anaphoras), there are also two very sacrificial prayers: In spiritu humilitatis and Orate fratres. How is that omitting the sense of sacrifice?

      The Carthusian Rite had the "De latere" prayer for preparation of water and wine. Then the In spiritu humilitatis prayer for simultaneous offering of bread and wine. It had the classic Lavabo. It had the Orate fratres pro me peccatore ad Dominum Deum nostrum which had no response and that's it. That's the Offertory. No explicit mention of sacrifice although Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross is remembered at in "De latere" - but that still doesn't amount to saying "this is a real sacrifice, not just a memorial of the sacrifice on the Cross", which is the idea which the present Roman offertory certainly conveys. Carthusian offertory is thus even shorter than the present Roman one.

      What you call the old Roman offertory is actually just a series of Gallican additions - none are of Roman origin.
      What has been done is this: the offertory prayers for each element were replaced, the Suscipe Sancta Trinitas has been removed because it essentially repeats the theology of an anaphora (oh look - a didactic prayer; :P), Veni Sanctificator is removed because it makes no sense to make an explicit Epiclesis outside an anaphora.

      Ad orientem is still presupposed by the actual rubrics.

      The reception of Communion varied during the centuries - in the East as, well at West it was received on the hand until at least 7th century (St. John Damascene and the Synod of Trullo prescribe it). On Catholic Encyclopedia it says this: "Up to the ninth century, it was usual for the priest to place the Sacred Host in the right hand of the recipient, who kissed it and then transferred it to his own mouth;".
      I'm not advocating the Communion in the hand, but the practice isn't evil in itself as it is sanctioned by the use of Church.

      What is there to over-read in that instruction of Trent? It's plain and simple. Instructions during Mass so that people would know what's happening. Nothing more, nothing less.

      I don't think there is anything to apologize for :)

      Delete
    20. @Marko: could the "during the celebration of Mass" mean stopping for a homily? I'm a bit rusty, but didn't homilies become mandatory after Trent (maybe I'm imagining this...)? I've seen in quite a few post-Trent Portuguese rituales recommendations that the Mysteries be explained to the faithful, as you've cited.

      Delete
    21. It could, maybe since the place of the homily wasn't fixed. But the text says "expound either by themselves, or others". Who are those others? Certainly i can envision a priest stopping in the middle of the Rite to briefly explain to the faithful what is going on, or if they need to form a procession or whatever...

      I don't think Trent make homilies mandatory. It doesn't mention them. The GIRM on the other hand, says in n. 66: "On Sundays and Holydays of Obligation there is to be a Homily at every Mass that is celebrated with the people attending, and it may not be omitted without a grave reason. On other days it is recommended, especially on the weekdays of Advent, Lent, and Easter Time, as well as on other festive days and occasions when the people come to church in greater numbers."

      Delete
    22. I'm not advocating the Communion in the hand, but the practice isn't evil in itself as it is sanctioned by the use of Church.

      Perhaps not evil in itself, but the fact that it disappeared by the end of the Patristic Era should tell us something; as should the fact that its return as normative in the Latin Rite Church has coincided with a broad scale collapse in belief in the Real Presence (to say nothing of Mass attendance or other indices of Catholic practice). It is surely not the only reason these disasters have struck, but there's enough reason to think it has been a major contributor.

      It's long past time to put an end to this practice (whatever its intrinsic theological nature), whose terrible fruits have become impossible to deny.

      Delete
  3. The picture you attached at the top reminded me of something. An acquaintance of mine was considering converting to Catholicism or Orthodoxy since he found that his atheism was no longer satisfying. He told me that he went to his college Newman center and then visited a Russian Orthodox Church a few minutes away from campus.

    He never returned to the Newman center or any other Catholic church ever again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There was an Orthodox church in Ithaca, where Cornell is. For a while I considered sitting in the very back during the Divine Liturgy just to be in the presence of some traditional liturgy. On Sundays I would usually consider skipping Mass and reading Mattins instead, but I usually went to the terrible, narcissistic Masses out of well beaten obedience.

      Delete
    2. "On Sundays I would usually consider skipping Mass and reading Mattins instead, but I usually went to the terrible, narcissistic Masses out of well beaten obedience."

      Oh how I can relate!

      Delete
    3. Newman Center? St. Andrew Newman Center? I know that place; what an unfortunately ugly place to pray and worship in, though things may have changed (doubtful). I graduated from that college, UCR. The Russian Orthodox Church is Saint Andrew Orthodox Church in Riverside, CA.

      Delete
    4. I'm quite sympathetic. But it is a pity he could not find his way to (say) a Melkite or Ukrainian (Catholic) Rite parish.

      Delete
    5. Paul, it was the Newman Center/Hall at UC Berkeley. He started attending St. John the Baptist ROC.

      Athelstane, yes, it is regrettable. He was simply blown away by the beauty of the Divine Liturgy more than anything. He told me that being compliant to the doctrines was simply an easy exercise after that.

      Delete
    6. He told me that being compliant to the doctrines was simply an easy exercise after that.

      Perfectly understandable, of course; as it was to the envoys of the Kievan Rus, when they first experienced the Divine Liturgy at Hagia Sofia.

      Delete
    7. My mistake, but your friend's Newman Center sounded a lot like the one at UCR, and incidentally as I said, there was an Orthodox Church just only a few minutes from campus as well.

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Marko: The Gallican & other rites certainly had OT prophetic lessons at Sunday Mass, but surely the available evidence is that these were chosen and interpreted as mystagogy rather than merely as sequential Scripture reading.

    One could restore the office very simply by going back to 1911 and downgrading all feasts that were added to the calendar after, say, A.D. 800 by one notch, i.e. simple feasts become commemorations, semi-doubles simple etc.

    If anyone is remotely interested in my idle hours I am constructing a thematic office lectionary for the Sarum office which runs through Holy Scripture in a year. It has longer scripture lessons for Matins, a lesson after the Capitular Office at Prime, and two lessons for Vespers (like Anglican evensong). It has been great fun to do and is mostly finished but needs fine-tuned. I would love to get feedback on its mystagogical value.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not suggesting that the Gallican Rites had sequential readings of the OT.

      Delete
    2. Mea culpa - but I think that given the absence of evidence for any development of an office in the 2nd C, it is fair to suggest that longer OT lessons were siphoned off into Matins as part of the development of the office over the next few centuries.

      Delete
    3. Here's what Apostolic Constitutions, 2nd book, section 7 says:
      "In the middle, let the reader stand upon some high place: let him read the books of Moses, of Joshua the son of Nun, of the Judges, and of the Kings and of the Chronicles, and those written after the return from the captivity; and besides these, the books of Job and of Solomon, and of the sixteen prophets. But when there have been two lessons severally read, let some other person sing the hymns of David, and let the people join at the conclusions of the verses. Afterwards let our Acts be read, and the Epistles of Paul our fellow-worker, which he sent to the churches under the conduct of the Holy Spirit; and afterwards let a deacon or a presbyter read the Gospels, both those which I Matthew and John have delivered to you, and those which the fellow-workers of Paul received and left to you, Luke and Mark. And while the Gospel is read, let all the presbyters and deacons, and all the people, stand up in great silence; for it is written: “Be silent, and hear, O Israel.” And again: “But do thou stand there, and hear.”In the next place, let the presbyters one by one, not all together, exhort the people, and the bishop in the last place, as being the commander."

      Delete
    4. Marko: I said that "ad libitum" readings are inappropriate, not extensive Scripture reading in a general sense (where would that leave Ember days, the Pentecost vigil, Holy Saturday and their ilk?). We do not know how Justin Martyr and his house church were using Scripture in 155 and in what context, but we do know definitively how the tradition they started crystallized over the succeeding centuries. I would like to think that in a time when Christians only gathered on Sundays—or Saturday nights—he did not read the Book of Numbers simply for the sake of reading it. The aforementioned Coptic cycle does have some sequential readings (they are going through the first two chapters of John's Gospel now), but even that is themed (the Baptism in the Jordan and Wedding Feast at Cana, both part of the Theophany celebration that they are entering in the Julian kalendar).

      But even so, we are not discussing the merits of the Coptic liturgy for Roman use. The general mandates to read Scriptures (i.e. the Old Testament) and the specific arrangement of the Epistles and Gospel indicates, to me at least, that the OT readings were indeed spun off to Mattins and while the Eucharistic part retained its cogency. Without having lived in the second century, we cannot say if and how they separated the Old and New Testament readings, although I hypothesize psalms 148-150 may have been a part of it.

      As far as anything concrete can be said of the age when the Eucharist and Hours existed as separate, defined services as we have them today, the readings of the former have been more thematically and latreutically selected than the latter. I prefer to drink a fine wine with age on it rather than speculate on what the grapes tasted like fresh off the vine twenty years ago.

      Delete
    5. "where would that leave Ember days, the Pentecost vigil, Holy Saturday and their ilk?" - well some of the commentators on NLM don't have the intellectual honesty you have and they say: "Those are exceptions.".

      About Justin Martyr. We know how he used Scriptures. They read it as long as time permitted it and then the homily followed, just as it is described in the Apostolic Constitutions i quoted there: readings (from both testaments) and then homily.

      I mentioned Coptic liturgy as an example of extensive Scripture use - something which you seemed to say is not to be placed in the context of the Eucharist.

      As for Matins - Stuff repeats there, especially the Gospel, as you would know. Even the epistles are in Matins. So, although the origin of Matins can be traced to the Mass of Cathecumens and all night Vigils, that doesn't mean that when it developed, it took a part of it's origin away from the origin. There are many prophetic readings even in the old lectionary, especially in Lent.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. And also, in the new lectionary it's always the OT reading with the Psalms and the Gospel which are thematically connected which shows that it doesn't lack thematicism and latreuticism. Occasionally, for feasts and sollemnities the epistle matches too.

      Delete
    8. I apologize for spamming, but something struck me.
      You say: "Criticism of the older lectionary and support for the pedantic three year cycle of Paul VI rest on the ahistorical assumption that the Eucharistic sacrifice is the appropriate place for ad libitum readings of Scripture. The original setting for Scriptural lessons, East and West, was the Mattins of the all-night vigil, from which only the Roman rite retained consistent readings; "

      Where does this notion that the new lectionary is ad libitum come from?

      And although Mass once had ad libitum reading, of course, the readings became standardized as they did in the matins.
      So i think you're comparing apples and oranges here. The notion of reading Scriptures ad libitum,
      with
      the original and therefore, upon development, a better place for reading Scriptures.

      For that, i can just refer to the upper comment in the - as for Matins - section because i would say the same things here.

      Delete
    9. About Justin Martyr. We know how he used Scriptures.

      We know *something* about it, but only from him; and even from that, it is difficult to extrapolate assessments of how the liturgy was celebrated in the rest of Rome, let alone anywhere else. There's simply too little evidence on hand to say. The liturgical tradition of most of the pre-Nicene Era must remain largely opaque to us, I'm afraid.

      Delete
  6. Local churches had particular Masses for saints more often than the Roman Church, which contented itself with Common Mass formularies for martyrs, bishops, and virgins; by the time of St. Pius V's Missal, half the days of the year were still of either Simplex of Ferial rank, so the repetition of the numerous Commons was hardly as dull and numbing as it was by the time of Papa Sarto's reforms and the rite of Iste Confessor.

    This really is an excellent insight.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Are the Apostolic Constitutions available on-line in English?

    ReplyDelete
  8. That removes nothing, Marko, from the fact that the Novus Ordo liturgy and lectionary are not in direct continuity with the praxis of the Church, East and West. For me, that is enough. If - and it is a big 'if'- the intention of the Reformers was not in and of itself bad,so to change "the boundaries set by our fathers" is still presumptious.

    If you want liturgical archeologism, it is fine. A more extensive Mass lectionary has not been part of the tradita of the classical Roman liturgy for more than a millenium and a half, and for me that is enough.

    ReplyDelete