Mythbusting the Lectionaries: Why the Latin Mass's Lectionary Is Superior to the New Lectionary
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 окт 2024
- While almost every other aspect of the liturgical reform following Vatican II has been the target of serious and sustained criticism, the revamped multi-year lectionary is the one element consistently put forward as a notable success, an instance of genuine progress. Yet are there reasons to believe that the ancient lectionary from the first millennium that we use in the TLM today - and, in general, the ancient approach to Scripture in the Mass - has more to be said on its behalf than we’ve been led to think? Could it be that here, too, the Church knew what she was doing for centuries?
Talk given at Velocity All Sports in Mokena, Illinois, on March 7, 2022, sponsored by the Coalition for Canceled Clergy. Includes extensive Q&A after the talk.
FULL TEXT available at Rorate Caeli here:
rorate-caeli.b...
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Personal Website: www.peterkwasn... | Composer site: cantabodomino.... | Publishing: osjustipress.com/
Sign up for my Substack: traditionsanit...
Love all your lectures Dr. K! You are only a few years older than me... I graduated from Mount Saint Mary's College in Emmitsburg in '96. Met some nice Seminarians who became N.O. priests, but for the past 3 years I have liturgically red pilled to the TLM. Actually thankful that Bishops locked the doors bc that was the tipping point!! I have a "Reverent" N.O. in my town, as well as a Canons Regular Augustinian Monastery... Made my choice and feel I have come home.
Thanks be to God for your tradversion! It really is like a coming home: a coming home to the great tradition of the Catholic Church, grievously squandered by her 20th-century prodigal sons.
Whoever has not seen "Mass of the Ages", on RUclips, I urge you to watch it. Episodes 1 and 2 are now available.
Dr. Kwasniewski, you are so amazing as a speaking who knows exactly how to speak in a way which makes sense. Thank you for taking time to share yourself with us.
This lecture is, besides its very rich content, pure poetry. Thank you!
Being a Protestant, I had no idea that the "Lord's Supper" at the "table" was the Holy Eucharist!!!
Thank God for the Roman Liturgy 1958!
The "Lords Supper" originated at the time of the Protestant Reformation to brainwash Catholics into accepting that this was just a memorial of the ancient Passover feast.
The reformers had to convince them that the Mass is NOT the Sacrifice of Calvary, and that they were just receiving ordinary bread and wine. So they removed altar rails, set up a table, and forced people to stand and take the Host into their hands.
It is reported that 75% of Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence!
Lex orendi lex credendi!
Asking from humility and meaning no offense: what then did you think it was?
During my life as a Baptist (from birth to my conversion at age 27), I was taught the Eucharist is a MEMORIAL of Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf, not a sacrifice. They called it “the Lord’s Supper.”
Though Jesus clearly said “This IS my body” and “this IS my blood,” I was taught that He really meant it’s LIKE His body and blood, and meant His Last Supper to be shared as a memorial of Him.
They completely ignored the fact that many were so scandalized by His command to eat His body and drink His blood that they left. Rather than calling them back to say they had misunderstood, Jesus let them go. Then, instead of taking back or modifying His shocking statement, He repeated it!
As a child, my questions about these discrepancies were rejected and never answered. It wasn’t until I became a traditional Catholic that I realized two things:
1. They couldn’t answer my questions.
2. They had no desire to try because the answer upheld the truth of Catholicism while calling their own “easy believism” into question.
This is very enlightening and led me to several “ah-ha!” moments about the Mass as a whole.
Thank you, Dr. Kwaseniewski.
1:21:00
That reminds me of this passage from Chesterton's "Ballad of the White Horse":
"That though you hunt the Christian man
Like a hare on the hill-side,
The hare has still more heart to run
Than you have heart to ride.
"That though all lances split on you,
All swords be heaved in vain,
We have more lust again to lose
Than you to win again."
One great difference in the N.O. is the greatly diminished use of the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible, replaced by passages from St. Paul's epistles, generally, so as to be acceptable to Protestants (see Bugnini). Most of the references to the Blessed Virgin from Ecclesiasticus are discarded, as are so many other beautiful Deuterocanonical passages. As mentioned, "Index Lectionum" by Matthew Hazell is very useful for studying this matter.
I’ve had the opposite experience. Readings from Maccabees like the story of the 7 persecuted brothers were quite stunning in the Novus Ordo which I had never read in a Latin mass.
You are right! 1/ the readings are disparate and redacted 2/ Three readings as well as a responsorial psalm are too much to take in when heard. (In the UK after the changes only 2 readings continued because they overwhelmed the attention span. 3/ Three readings are hard to preach on and tie together. 4/ The cycle of music for antiphons and all that is sung changes in a 4 year cycle and it is hard to remember the music. As a result confusion occurs and banality in music. 5/ The traditional reading cycle was demolished which together with redactions is a type of screening or filtering scripture to suit the tastes of those that invented a 4 year cycle. 6/ Catholics being confused by the vast bombardment of redacted Scripture feel confused and bewildered by the inference they need to know it all verse line and jot. They don't. 7/ The themes of these readings do not harmonise. 8/ The conveyor belt of different lay readers with often comical voices, like a b grade awards ceremony is very aggravating. 9/ The banal lack of skill in preaching and teaching on and about the Faith after the readings is turgid and disinforming.
Your books and lectures are the most enlightening in the field. Thank you for being a witness to the truth. Could you recommend a well rounded must read book list in a future video or blog.
In the TLM the reading of Scripture seemed to be of importance since it was done by the Priest. I don't ever attend the NO Mass, but I do suspect that the Sacred Scripture is intended to seem less important because it is being read by Mrs. Goober!
"It is God in verbal form", a prayer rising as incense to the Triune God. Astounding!
I returned into the church a few years ago and was separated from Her after my baptism as an infant. God has blessed me with a very conservative priest but I often feel myself wanting more. I guess it's time to get more traditional 🤔
I agree entirely; the three year lectionary system is entirely defective.
Dr. Kwasniewski, this was the talk from you I had been waiting for. Over the years I have drawn closer to the roots and traditions of the Church, and have worked as music director in both NO and TLM parishes for many years, as I know you have. With the new Lectionary one of the sole remaining topics I view as a warranted improvement in the NO liturgy, I wanted to hear a thoughtful and intelligent defense of the old Lectionary, and I knew that's what you would offer. However, after listening to the talk I still have some reservations.
I have seen great fruits from the new Lectionary, particularly in the theological realm of drawing parallels between the OT and NT rather than largely ignoring the OT as the old Lectionary seems to do (surprisingly, though one could conjecture historically why this was the case). This 'new' framing of NT in the OT helps unify the OT & NT in the minds of Catholics, and can be an evangelical tool justifying Catholic theology to those of other faiths. You are correct in positing that the purpose of the readings is not to have a Bible study, but over the decades I have found this OT/NT parallelism has greatly enriched my understanding of and relation to the faith. The old Lectionary readings are, as you say, quite short and often have only a fleeting connection to the other proper elements of the Mass, which can make the faithful wonder why they are there in the first place. If this happens, their appearance can't be construed as organic. You posit the readings are giving back to God what is God's, which makes sense in the context that the whole Mass and indeed all the virtues of our lives are doing the same, but in that sense, what's wrong with giving back *more* to God (i.e., more readings)?
I also feel that the two readings OT-psalm-NT-alleluia-Gospel form allows a harmonious alternation that weaves all 5 readings (for they are such) into one unit. For all the elegant alternatim elements in the TLM, the alleluia following directly on the gradual has always seemed a bit odd to me as a musician and liturgist (also the NO practice of standing at the alleluia in preparation for hearing the Gospel always seemed organic - especially since the verse we hear in the alleluia is often taken from the ensuing Gospel...in the TLM there is no distinction through music, posture, or movement between the gradual and the alleluia which always struck me as odd).
You rightly mention early on that the biggest hurdle to understanding the Lectionary is poor catechesis, but that has always been true. A poorly catechized individual would be no better suited to make sense of a 1 year cycle of readings than a 3 year, or a 3 month. Perhaps the core problem is catechesis itself. And how could being exposed to less of scripture help a Catholic's understanding of their faith? True, there is much more to the Church than scripture, but all of sacred tradition, the Church fathers and doctors, theologians and mystics, they all first had the scripture themselves, and then some of them would go on to become part of the Church's tradition or Magisterium - but the scripture was always there, as evidenced by Jesus' constantly referencing the OT to his followers or the NT epistles forming the bedrock of the nascent Christian movement.
You also rightly point out that the new Lectionary is indeed a new invention, and not a retooling of the old version...but it is a new invention made of already extant parts. My mind went to Gregory the Great assembling from the countless disparate and sundry chants in use all throughout Europe a single body of unified worship music we now call Gregorian Chant - he took from what was already in existence and codified a newly organized cycle of their units in a comprehensible order, which is what I think the new Lectionary did.
I do agree that, however much was added or deleted, that censoring or truncating "difficult" passages is inexcusable, and that the new 3-year cycle inevitably fiddled with the (superior) old Church calendar, but those are two issues among many, and I think there is great value in the new Lectionary even if it is an entirely new invention. I am still contemplating your thought that the extended Lectionary may end up placing too much focus on Bible passages, I haven't yet become convinced that it does that to the detriment of the Holy Sacrifice...for me, it's helped enormously, for others it may indeed be a distraction or a hurdle, but again perhaps that is a catechesis issue. Maybe that's what it all comes back to.
Thanks always for your work, your knowledge, and your dedication to the Church.
Dear Patrick,
Thanks for your reactions. Very thoughtful. I appreciate them. There's a lot here to respond to, so allow me to make just a few points.
1. This talk could only present some aspects of the issues, given the limits of time. I would recommend these further articles, all conveniently listed here (scroll to the bottom):
www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2019/05/the-postconciliar-lectionary-at-50.html
Also this one:
onepeterfive.com/floating-in-the-sea-not-drinking-from-the-firehose/
2. The lectionary at Mass was never meant to stand alone. It was the "tip of the iceberg," a piece integrated into the year-round reading of the Bible in the Divine Office. The place of the OT was mostly there. Vatican II called for a repristination of liturgy and a revitalization of the Divine Office but sadly what happened largely destroyed the beautiful organic integration of OT & NT that was already there in the tradition. Moreover, throughout the whole Catholic tradition, lectio divina was practiced as a staple of the spiritual life. If Catholics do not study and pray with Scripture outside of Mass, it's doubtful that any amount of Scripture deposited into them during Mass is going to have much of an effect.
3. It's crucial to see that the old liturgy in general more deeply integrated biblical texts and themes into its substance than does the Novus Ordo. It is therefore not surprising that Jews and Protestants were able to convert through the old liturgy, in spite of its smaller lectionary.
4. As one studies the old rite more closely, one does find many obvious and subtle connections between the readings (esp. for Sundays, special feasts, and saints) and all the other elements of the Mass. It is more organic this way, and teaches better how we should approach the Bible. It's a shame that we have to be, in a sense, "strapped" to the favorite ideas and themes of liturgists from the middle of the 20th century instead of living in a liturgy that bears the marks of Christian thought and prayer over millennia.
5. Most importantly, I think in your comments on the "5 readings" that you may be neglecting what one might call "the hierarchy of verbal moments" and the particular danger of the way the NOM handles these moments:
www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2017/10/homogeneity-vs-hierarchy-on-treatment.html
6. You are overlooking the naturalness of the one-year cycle, as testified to in every religion, every branch of Christianity, and every other aspect of the Catholic liturgy. The 3-year/2-year cycles are true anomalies and they do act against scriptural familiarity.
7. As for the "Liturgy of the Word" becoming too dominant, see:
www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/why-the-word-of-god-for-catholics-is-not-only-the-bible-but-more-importantly-jesus-himself/
I hope these thoughts and further readings will be beneficial to you. Thank you for taking the time to engage.
God bless,
Dr. K
Anything Bugnini touched was cursed.
Hello Dr. did you keep the written version? If so, would it be possible for you to send me the written version(for personal use only)?
The full text was posted today at Rorate Caeli:
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2022/03/full-text-of-dr-kwasniewskis-talk-on.html
@@DrKwasniewski Thank you so much. May our Good Lord bless you for the abundant work you produce to protect and defend the Holy Mass.
Greetings from France, Pax Christi.
Organizers, please invest in a better sound system. It's purgatorial to listen to :-). Or a lapel mic might also be good plugged directly into the streaming device. I'll just read it on RC, but thanks for organizing anyway. - Laurence Gonzaga
Yes, regretfully it wasn't the best, but it does suffice if one is interested in the topic...
Always great insights.
Thanks
Where would we trads go for information if you were not around to explain this? Thank you Dr K
Thank you, Susan! God bless you.
The Modernists of V2 emphasized the human origen of scripture over the Divine.
So much of the new lectionary would be unnecessary if instead they just encouraged the celebration of Matins and Lauds before the chief Sunday mass, similar to Eastern Christian practices with Orthros and the DL.
Exactly!
The biblical lectionary in the Matins selections are random with no connection to the Mass. They operate totally separate. The patristic readings are good (better than most homilies) but the rosary has surpassed the Hours as the main devotion of the people.
@@mosesking2923 Are you referring to the new Liturgy of the Hours after 1974 or the older one before?
" Scripture is a DEAD letter". The Saints are ALIVE. But saints, of course, are eliminated or downplayed in the Prot. NO
It seems to me like Professor is complaining about a switched scenario of how reading is themed. In the pre-Vatican II liturgy, the Sunday readings were arranged randomly and the saints days were thematic. The post Vatican II liturgy have thematic Sunday’s and random readings for saints days. There needs to be a middle ground.
The more careful study of the old lectionary, using scholarly material, shows that, as a matter of fact, the old lectionary is beautifully designed and not random at all. It proceeds largely on the basis of moral instruction via St. Paul and pericopes on Christ that fit well with the time of year and, in the long season after Pentecost, emphasize His miracles, to establish His divinity, and His teaching, because that is what we need to know and practice. In general the old lectionary proceeds on admirably practical principles aimed at deep familiarity with fundamentals.
@@DrKwasniewskiI would argue the old lectionary better handles this one important rule of the Fathers with regards to reading the Bible, that when we read the Bible we "look for Christ" because Christ calls for a radical, full reinterpretation of the old Testament, calling us to search always for him. Thus, looking for Christ, we find how Christ is in each part of the text due to it being linked together with care in the lectionary and liturgy.
The 'Liturgy of the Word' is in reality the Divine Office, not the Mass.
certified roman classic
Sure, let’s go back to reading the same readings every day. Pope Benedict was completely wrong to praise the new lectionary
I attend the TLM almost every day. There is sufficient variety, combined with the enormous benefits of a smaller selection of "greatest hits" that one learns so well, they are practically memorized. These have had more influence on me than the Novus Ordo fire-hose approach of my youth, being flooded with new scripture so often that one can barely remember any of it. What's more valuable - to have one pericope by heart, or to hear a thousand and remember none?
Do you have any textual evidence for the Mass readings themselves being a sacrifice? Seems odd to read scripture apart for the edification of the people which the Bible itself states in 2 Tim 3. The Bible is made for the building up of the church, not for praying up to God (aside from the Psalter).
I go into this more in this lecture:
ruclips.net/video/xUfBFRJNUQE/видео.html