To prester – by Rev Nicola Bux and Rev Salvatore Vitiello – skrev nylig på fides.org, om bruk av bibeltekster i messen i den gamle og nye liturgien. Det er tydelig at den nye messen bruker en mye større del av Bibelen i søndags- og ukemessene. Men det er ikke sikkert at forandringene bare har vært positive – bl.a. ble en over 1500 år gammel tradisjon helt forkasta i 1969. Og det er nå (i alle fall i det alminnelige kirkeår) lite samsvar mellom messens bønner, inngangsvers o.a. og bibeltekstene. Slik leser vi i artikkelen i engelsk oversettelse:
Some say the post-Council Mass is richer in Readings and Eucharistic Prayers, compared with the Pius V Missal poorer and less accurate. The theory is anachronistic since it fails to consider four centuries of distance; it is as if we were to say the same about Sacramentaries some centuries earlier than the sacramentary of Pius V. What is more there is a tendency to forget that the pericopes of the Pius V Missal were formed on the basis of old capitularies with epistles, such as St Jerome’s Liber comitis– dated 471 – or with Gospel pericopes ; a tradition in common with the Church of the East, as the Byzantine liturgy still shows today.
Secondly, the brief readings help memorise the essential and express the sobriety of the Roman Rite. …
Father Z har (selvsagt) også kommentert dette, og i kommentarene til hans post har Fr. Augustine Thompson O.P. skrevet denne svært interessante vurderinga:
1. Although I think the old one year cycle should certainly be the norm at EF There is nothing wrong with a three year cycle for Mass, even for use with the EF: BUT
1. Three readings are too many for anything but a night vigil
2. The Epistles are lectio continua and it is only accidental if they have anything to do with the other two
3. The division of the 3 years by Gospels is arbitrary and produces problems of selection
4. There little or no attempt to match the propers with the readings – esp. in Ordinary time.
2. A redone lectinary should take the the traditional lectionary as year A and then construct analogous cycles for years B and C: using a mixture from MT, MK, LK, and sometimes JN, with a first reading from the OT or NT that really fits with the Gospel. Only two readings. And care should be taken to have these cycles match the propers as well as the E.F. one-year cycle did.
3. Having a weekday lectionary that doesn’t just repeat the Sunday or something from the Commons is a great improvement. BUT
1. The use of lectio continua for both readings is a disaster—they virtually never have anything to link them together
2. In practice, what we have is merely one bible passage after another.
4. A redone lectionary for week days should have Gospels that elaborate on the message of the previous Sunday in different ways. And first readings that are specifically chosen to throw light on the Gospels. Put the Lectio continua in the Breviary, where it belongs. Such a lectionary might best be a three year cycle like the Sundays—so that the ferials actually tie together for the week.
Needless to say, this would take a bit more work than the mechanical way in which the new lectionary was produced, but it would have great spiritual and preaching benefits. Revision might start by producing weekday readings to supplement the traditional Sunday cycle to replace the repetition of the Sunday readings on weekdays. Then some people with liturgical sense (which does not mean just cram in as many different readings as possible) would use this as a model to produce two more years to complete a three year cycle. Why it was not done this way the first time is beyond me.
Novus Ordo-lesningene mangler mange av de «harde» utsagnene fra Bibelen.De ble kuttet nesten helt ut.
Jeg skal komme tilbake med eksempler.