The New Lectionary in the Old Mass
I have been thinking lately about the use of the Lectionary from the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite (with its 3-year cycle) being used in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. My gut tells me that I don't like the idea, but I have been wanting some good concrete reasons for such.
The USCCB has given the following statistics regarding the Scriptural readings at each Form of the Roman Rite:
| Extraordinary Form (1962) | Ordinary Form (2007) |
|---|---|
| includes 1% of Old Testament | includes 14% of Old Testament |
| includes 17% of New Testament | includes 71% of New Testament |
Daniel Mitsui at The Lion and The Cardinal has some very good thoughts about it:
Can anyone who argues for the three year lectionary remember what he heard at Mass one liturgical year ago this day? If not, then a one year lectionary is every bit as fresh and enriching as a three year lectionary. If anything, more repetition is needed, to inculcate the wisdom of holy writ despite ordinary human forgetfulness.
I would also ask, Are Catholics better catechized in Scripture due to 37 years of the New Lectionary? Frankly, are Catholics better catechized in anything after 37 years of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite?
1 comment:
An interesting point. They brought it up on an EWTN special about the Motu Propio, and it occured to me that the diverse reading selection of Scripture we have in the novus ordo (which I am usually stuck at) is the reason I just can't remember specific Bible stories as well as many of my Protestant friends.
Post a Comment