Do You Agree With Dom Alcuin Reid's Assessment?

[Nihil Obstat]

This thread is going to kill me. I went back today and read the relevant sections from Laszlo Dobszay's two books: The Bugnini Liturgy and the Reform of the Reform, and Restoration and Organic Development of the Roman Rite.
I would love nothing more than to spend the next two days transcribing entire chapters. :P But time and school and work and whatnot, right?
 
Couple important little passages specifically with regards to the cycle of readings.
 
From "Bugnini Liturgy", pgs. 121-123
 

It would be unwise to underestimate the significance of habituation, associations and their emotional power in people's contact with that which is holy. But the issue is of much greater significance. Whatever the meaning of readings and Gospels in the early Mass might have been, they developed quite an outstanding role in the mature Roman liturgy. As the great teachers of the liturgy frequently explained, the Gospel is not simply a reading of the Bible or its teaching: it becomes an image of mystery in the Eucharistic environment, closely connected with the given part of the liturgical year and with the mystery of the Holy Mass. Its function is more than just to learn the Gospel: Christ's presence in the Gospel is a prediction of his Eucharistic presence and its effects. A miracle when read as the Gospel may report a historical event, but it also tells us what Christ is to do with us in this Mass. The reading of the Gospel at Mass is a "prefiguration" of the sacrament, and a preparation for receiving it. (This is also the "clue" for a good homily.)

Just as the accompanying ceremonies (procession, standing up, candles, incense, turning to face the North) represent welcome external means of promoting the full unfolding of the Gospel, so the liturgical place of the pericope in the year helps people and communities to grasp and retain it with their minds and hearts. The permanence of biblical texts is more important than their high number. A given pericope affects us more if it regularly recurs in its classical formulation, supported by associated elements (e.g. antiphons taken from it) and explanations.

Recollection transcends the limitations and finite lives of individuals. The Roman community read the same pericopes, with only negligible changes, for over 1200 years; the "great memory" of generations stored and elaborated these sections of the GOspel according to their liturgical place. Meditations and spiritual explanations are merely external manifestations of the process of inner assimilation by which the Church took this treasure into its possession and kept it there. Moreover, these pericopes also survived in the "Old-Church systems" of Anglican and Lutheran (and early Calvinist) worship.

 

The Liturgical Constitution of the Second Vatican Council declared - without detailed directives - that the treasure house of the Bible should be opened more abundantly in Mass readings, and that all important and essential parts of the Scriptures should be read during the masses within a certain (undefined) period of years (s. 51). This sentence can be implemented in a variety of ways, however. How many years make a cycle? Should all elements of the year (seasons, Sundays, weekdays) be included in this alternation? Which are the "important and essential parts," and what is the criterion for a part to be considered important. The published lectionary merely offered one possible interpretation. Since this is not a doctrinal question, we may proceed to ask: is it sure that the Council judged the agenda correctly at this point? Was it not influenced by principles contrary to the Roman tradition? Were the advantages and disadvantages carefully weighed before the one-year system of pericopes was abolished? Does the number of "important and essential parts" necessitate the introduction of a cycle of just three years (no more and no less)? Was there no way to preserve the values of the traditional pericope system and develop it simultaneously, according to the will of the Council? These are the questions we wish to address here, mostly with respect to the Gospel pericopes."

 
From "Restoration and Organic Development", pgs. 143-146
 

On the other hand, the new order has at least as many problems as benefits. These were studied in detail in my Bugnini-Liturgy.

In brief:

(a) Very old arrangements of texts - often going back to Pope St. Gregory - have been put aside.

(b) The richness of the readings (mostly in the Gospel) is somewhat illusory in fact, there are not enough distinct Gospel sections, with the result that the same theme is read on different days of different years from different books, and not always in the most appropriate wording.

(c) The three-year system totally dissolved the association between the liturgical day (and its texts) and the pericopes assigned; this is a loss both in a liturgical and pastoral perspective, and it is doubtful whether the loss or the gain was bigger.

(d) Continuous reading of the biblical books imports only a pseudo-regularity into the reading process: the faithful cannot follow the sequence from Sunday to Sunday; the weekly sequence is interrupted by the feasts of the saints; only few people attend Mass every day. What people can observe is not the continuity of reading, but the random appearance of themes over the three-year cycle.

(e) The rejection of the ancient order of pericopes is a loss also in an ecumenical perspective, since several Protestant traditions (Lutherans and Anglicans, among others) kept it, at least as an alternative.

(f) The rejection of the old Gospels creates many difficulties in the assignation of antiphons to the Benedictus and Magnificat in the Office.

 

The reform misunderstood the role of the Mass readings. In their rudimentary state they may have had a merely didactic function. In the classical Roman Rite, however, the readings, and first of all, the Gospels, are clearly outlined images of the mysteries, remarkable passages that seize hold of people's attention. Therefore, not all passages are equally suitable to become Sunday pericopes. Biblical catechesis, personal meditation or the Office (Vigils) are more appropriate occasions on which to learn the Bible, than the Mass itself.

For those who adhere to the 1962 Missal, there is no doubt that the traditional order of the pericopes should be preserved or restored. If we interpret the Liturgical Constitution as a programme for the reform of the traditional Roman liturgy and not an indeterminate mandate to produce a new one, then also s.51 should be interpreted with respect to the 1962 Missal. Keeping the order of the 1962 Missal without any change would be, however, tantamount to a wholesale rejection of the Liturgical Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium. At the same time, following the new lectionary means that we have rejected the continuity and organic development of the Roman Rite. Consequently, the only way between the two extremes is to take the 1962 Missal and examine what possible and legitimate changes can be made in the true spirit of the Council, for the genuine benefit of the Church, without breaking down the centuries-old system. In other words, the question is: how can s.51 be implemented in a way that leaves the tradition of the Roman Rite essentially untouched.

What are the princples that can ensure the harmonious fulfillment of the two requirements? In my opinion the classical system of pericopes should be retained in the following way:

(a) The eminent days and seasons must have stable readings, associated with the liturgical day or season.

(b) The Sundays and feast days must have their proper pericopes taken from distinct and important biblical sections.

(c) Smaller additions and modifications can be made in the classical order, while leaving the order as a whole in its clearly recognizable state.

(d) The somewhat 'capricious' character of the traditional order should not be replaced by pedantic, didactically motivated schemes.

 

On the other hand, the conciliar reforms require:

(a) An increase in the selection of readings.

(b) That the one-year period should be extended to a longer time (but, we stress, the exact way was not defined by the Council).

(c) The Old Testament readings be given more prominence.

 

The draft below is not a 'plan', merely an illustration for the thesis that the two sets of requirements can be combined. The draft keeps the order of readings essentially intact, as they are in the 1962 Missal. It will be enough now to list these additions; the traditional scheme is written out only when it is placed in a new context.

The time from Advent to Trinity Sunday follows a one-year system, and it leaves the traditional arrangement nearly intact. Thus it reinstates the association between the liturgical day and its readings precisely during the 'holy half-year', the most important period of the liturgical year.

In Ordinary time there are two series. The first is the same as in the traditional system; the other one (to be used in every other year) contains the most 'pericope-like' texts in the new lectionary.

A reading before the Epistle is read only in the first half of the year, Ordinary time need not be weighed down with additional readings. The aim of the Old Testament readings of the first half-year period is not to coordinate them with the Gospel (this method was adapted in the traditional system only on some weekdays of Lent and some feasts), but to insert significant chapters of the history of salvation, those which are most fitting to the Advent-Christmas, or the Lenten-Paschal seasons. Thanks to the one-year system these will become more memorable. The reading of the Old Testament is given, of course, more space in the Office and on other occasions.

There is no need to offer a full series for weekdays (except the traditional ones in Lent). The reiteration of the Sunday pericopes raises their dignity and importance. Moreover, the feasts that occur during the week prevent the actual reading of six pairs of readings. In the early Middle Ages certain churches assigned Epistles and Gospels to Masses on Wednesdays and Fridays. Hence it seems sufficient to add two pairs of weekly readings to the lectionary, which can be read either on Wednesdays and Fridays, or - if they are impeded by a feast - on any other day. For Ordinary Time a two-year series can be given for these weekdays. The texts can be taken mainly from the new lectionary.

The readings of the Commons of Saints were always a selection and the texts could, and can, be taken from it according to the peculiarities of the saint celebrated. The sanctoral cycle contained only a few proper readings; there is no problem regarding their selection; in this respect the difference between the old and new lectionary is negligible.

 

 

 

And that will be more than enough typing for today. :P

[Gabriela]

This thread is going to kill me.

 

You should just make arguments based on how you feel. It's so much easier.

 

:P

[Amppax]

Dang, Nihil, thanks for all of that effort. I'll try to find copies of these and take a look in the near future. In the meantime, thank you for all that effort, really appreciate it. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Dang, Nihil, thanks for all of that effort. I'll try to find copies of these and take a look in the near future. In the meantime, thank you for all that effort, really appreciate it. 

You are very welcome. Those two books are very important to me and taught me so much, so I consider it a small service to expose other people to it. :)

[truthfinder]

Maybe slightly off topic, but if anyone is interested in how the prayers of the Ordinary Form came together, and the questions put forward by various committees, I highly suggest The Collects of the Roman Missals: A Comparative Study of the Sundays in Proper Seasons before and after the Second Vatican Council by Lauren Pristas.

It's definitely a scholarly work, and it's of particular use because it compares OF and EF propers as Latin to Latin so that the problems of translation are minimized.  

[Amppax]

I find his suggestions fascinating. I'm really not well read enough regarding this to have new to say than that. Again, thanks Nihil.

[Nihil Obstat]

Dobszay, at least for me, has a knack for making me think of things that otherwise never would have occurred to me.

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

Consequently, the only way between the two extremes is to take the 1962 Missal and examine what possible and legitimate changes can be made in the true spirit of the Council, for the genuine benefit of the Church, without breaking down the centuries-old system. 

 

 

This part really hit home.  I've always believed in my heart that God has preserved, and will continue to preserve, the EF for the above reason.

 

Thank you for taking the time to write all of that out for us.  I have a feeling I will have the urge to do the same when I get my hands on my copy.   Probably be the same feeling I got after reading, Dominus Est. 

[Nihil Obstat]

This part really hit home.  I've always believed in my heart that God has preserved, and will continue to preserve, the EF for the above reason.

 

Thank you for taking the time to write all of that out for us.  I have a feeling I will have the urge to do the same when I get my hands on my copy.   Probably be the same feeling I got after reading, Dominus Est. 

That passage, after all, is what the vast majority of the Council fathers should rightly have expected as they spoke about a reform of the Mass. They never would have imagined throwing together something wholly new - the very idea is nearly unprecedented. (Nearly, because such experiments were attempted at times in our past, including Gaul during the Enlightenment, and Cranmer during his reign of blasphemy, to name two. The Gallican experimentation was sternly suppressed, and we know how things turned out with Cranmer.)

Edited November 19, 2014 by Nihil Obstat