The Bible in the Liturgy: Studies on the Lectionary 9789042947207, 9042947209

Citation preview

TERRA NOVA 9

The Bible in the Liturgy Studies on the Lectionary

by Normand Bonneau

PEETERS

THE BIBLE IN THE LITURGY

Collection Terra Nova La collection Terra Nova – Perspectives théologiques canadiennes / Canadian Theological Perspectives, de la Société canadienne de théologie, entend diffuser des travaux théologiques issus du Canada ou qui se rapportent aux théologies de ce pays. Elle accorde une attention particulière à la production franco-canadienne, mais ouvre aussi ses portes à des ouvrages en anglais. Elle s’applique à refléter la créativité et le dialogue caractéristiques d’une société encore jeune. Elle publie des travaux soucieux de rigueur intellectuelle et de pertinence sociale, et marqués par le milieu interdisciplinaire de l’Université publique. Dirigée par Alain G, Université de Montréal (Montréal, QC, Canada)

Comité scientifique de la collection Terra Nova Marc  K, Université St-Paul (Ottawa, ON, Canada) Bruno D, Institut de pastorale des Dominicains (Montréal, QC, Canada) Marc D, Université de Sherbrooke (Sherbrooke, QC, Canada) Robert M, Université Laval (Québec, QC, Canada) Jean-François R, Université de Montréal (Québec, QC, Canada)

TERRA NOVA 9

THE BIBLE IN THE LITURGY Studies on the Lectionary

by

NORMAND BONNEAU

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT

2023

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN 978-90-429-4720-7 eISBN 978-90-429-4721-4 D/2023/0602/13 © 2023, Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage or retrieval devices or systems, without prior written permission from the publisher, except the quotation of brief passages for review purposes.

To the people of Saint Basil Parish, Ottawa, Canada “Christ is present in his word since it is he himself who speaks when the holy scriptures are read in church” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, e Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, §7)

TABLE OF CONTENTS I ..........................................................................................

1

A .........................................................................................

7

Part I: General Studies C . e Bible and Liturgy .....................................................

13

C . Lectionary .........................................................................

29

C . e Sunday Lectionary: Principles and Patterns .......

33

Part II: Particular Studies C . e Synoptic Gospels in the Sunday Lectionary: Ordinary Time .................................................................

53

C . Fulfilled in Our Hearing: e Dynamism of Scripture in Liturgical Proclamation .............................................

75

C . Sunday, the Week, and Ordinary Time: A Return ad Fontes ...........................................................................

87

C . e Second Readings in the Sunday Lectionary: An Appreciation .............................................................. 103 C . e Pauline Letters in the Sunday Lectionary: e Paschal Mystery and the Ekklēsia................................. 119 C . Framed to Break the Frame: e Liturgical Proclamation of John’s Gospel ................................................. 141 C . Nehemiah 8 and Liturgical Proclamation: Reading Ezra Reading .................................................................... 159 C . Luke’s Distinctive Sunday Lectionary Profile............. 165 Part III: Pastoral Studies C . Reflections on the Mystery of God and the  Crisis .................................................................................. 173

VIII

  

C . Preaching the Paschal Mystery ..................................... 193 C . Embodying the Word: Reflections on the eology of Proclamation ............................................................... 199 B ........................................................................................... 203 A .............................................................................. 223 Indices S I .......................................................................................... 227 I  N....................................................................................... 231 S I ..................................................................................... 237

INTRODUCTION e studies on the Sunday Lectionary gathered in this volume were produced over a span of nearly forty years. My interest in the Ordo Lectionum Missae (OLM), the post-Vatican II Roman Catholic eucharistic Lectionary, reaches back to the early 1980s in response to an invitation from the editors of Homiletic Service, a small liturgical journal published by Novalis, later renamed Celebrate! but now sadly discontinued, to contribute brief commentaries on gospel passages appearing in the Sunday Lectionary. As the number of my contributions accrued to eventually providing commentaries for gospel excerpts across an entire liturgical season, and aer having read Elmar Nübold’s magisterial study on the Sunday Lectionary, Entstehung und Bewertung der neuen Perikopenordnung des Römischen Ritus für die Messfeier an Sonn- und Festtagen,1 I realized that the Sunday Lectionary was not simply a random compilation of biblical passages but rather an organized, intentionally-structured whole. e post-Vatican II unprecedented revision of the OLM, particularly the Lectionary for Sundays and Solemnities, was no mean accomplishment. Never before in the history of liturgy had so thoroughly-researched and carefully-conceived a revision of the Sunday Lectionary been carried out. Adrien Nocent, one of the members of the post-conciliar committee tasked with Lectionary revision, lauds the outcome when he writes: “Without a doubt, the massive introduction of Scripture in the missal constitutes the most spectacular renewal of what the Council did for the Liturgy.”2 Indeed, within less than two decades aer its promulgation in 1969, the Roman Catholic Sunday Lectionary was adopted and slightly adapted to serve as the basic template for the Common Lectionary (1983), now the Revised Common Lectionary (RCL, 1992), the latter regularly used in dozens of churches around the world.3 Notwithstanding this 1. Paderborn, Bonifatius, 1986. 2. My translation of “[…] cette introduction massive de l’Écriture dans le missel […] constitue sans doute le renouveau le plus spectaculaire de tout ce que le Concile a fait pour la Liturgie,” Adrien N, “La Parole de Dieu et Vatican II,” in Pierre J – Reiner K – Gottardo P (eds.), Liturgia, opera divina e umana. Studi sulla riforma liturgica offerti a S. E. Annibale Bugnini in occasione del suo 70e compleano, Roma, Edizioni Liturgiche, 1982, 133-149, p. 136. 3. For the RCL, see Consultation on Common Texts, The Revised Common Lectionary: 20th Anniversary Annotated Edition, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 2012. For an extensive and current list of the churches using the RCL, see Regina A. B, The Word

2



historically noteworthy achievement, it became increasingly clear to me over the years from conversations and workshops with liturgical ministers that the Sunday Lectionary, particularly the principles of reading selection and the patterns of reading distribution that inform it – what I call its “architecture” – was so little known. Clearly the gulf between the positive valuations on the one hand and the limited awareness of its underlying rationale on the other hand required attention. Narrowing the gap between the two provided the “occasion” motivating, whether expressly or implicitly, the studies collected here. Occasional Writings. Unlike my contributions to Homiletic Service and Celebrate!, the items below are not commentaries on Scripture passages assigned in the Lectionary. Rather, they are all “occasional” writings, most (Chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14) upon an explicit invitation to contribute an article for a designated project (for each of which I have provided an initial footnote briefly explaining the originating circumstances), the others (Chapters 4, 7, 8, 13) prompted by my own curiosity regarding one or another structural feature of the Lectionary. Under this more general sense of “occasional” I might add my 1998 book The Sunday Lectionary: Ritual Word, Paschal Shape.4 Over the decades represented by these writings, my gambit has been that better knowledge of the whats, hows, and wherefores of the revised Sunday Lectionary might go a long way toward, if not dissipating, at least palliating sources of discomfort or criticism arising from its use, as well as better situating and contextualizing suggestions for eventual improvements – no Lectionary is perfect. at being said, when it comes to the current Sunday Lectionaries (Roman Catholic and the ecumenical RCL), the better informed the critique or suggestion, the more persuasive and pertinent it will prove to be. The Studies. I have organized the fourteen studies assembled here according to general themes rather than by original date of publication. Part I of the Lord at Mass: Understanding the Lectionary, Chicago, IL, LTP, 2015, p. 63-64, n. 7; “e Reims Statement: Praying with One Voice of August 16, 2001,” lists “churches in Scandinavia, Hispanic speaking areas, Korea, Japan, Netherlands, Venezuela, Polynesia, South Africa (including Afrikaans speaking churches),” https://www.anglican.ca/faith/ worship/resources/reims-statement/ accessed June 11, 2020. 4. Originally published in 1998 by the Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN, the book has since been made available in French (Le lectionnaire dominical: Parole ritualisée, modèle pascal, Montréal, Novalis – Paris, Cerf, 2010); Italian (Il Lezionario domenicale. Origine, struttura, teologia [Studi e ricerche di liturgia], Bologna, Edizioni Dehoniane, 2012); and Spanish (El leccionario dominical. Palabra ritualizada, modelo pascual, Cuidad de México, Buena Prensa, 2013). 



3

contains three essays of a more comprehensive scope, first a discussion in Chapter 1 of the vital link between Bible and Liturgy, followed by a general presentation on the topic “Lectionary” in Chapter 2, capped off in Chapter 3 with a rapid overview of the principles of reading selection and patterns of reading distribution structuring the current Roman Catholic Lectionary for Sundays and Solemnities. Part II gathers eight studies addressing particular concerns, the topic for each briefly epitomized in the title and subtitle. Part III offers three studies of more pastoral compass (Chapter 12 being the only “outlier” in the collection, dealing as it does with the Lectionary for the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick). Insofar as the RCL is substantially patterned aer the Sunday Lectionary of the OLM, much of what is discussed in the studies presented here applies, mutatis mutandis, to it as well. Since the studies are occasional in both the general and specific senses sketched above, they were conceived independently of each other. As a result, there is a certain amount of unavoidable overlap among them. However, except for composing a clearer reformulation of the opening and closing sections of Chapter 4 and correcting a few errors and imprecisions, I have le the essays substantially in their originally published versions. Finally, and again due to their occasional nature, these studies taken together are not intended to provide a comprehensive view of the Lectionary. Below, then, is the list of the studies along with the bibliographical information indicating where they first appeared:5 Part I: General Studies Chapter 1:

Chapter 2:

Chapter 3:

“e Bible and Liturgy,” in William R. F (ed.), The International Bible Commentary: A Catholic and Ecumenical Commentary for the Twenty-First Century, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1998, 138-146. “Lectionary,” in Katherine Doob S (ed.), The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 3, Nashville, TN, Abingdon, 2008, 629-631. “e Sunday Lectionary: Underlying Principles and Patterns,” in Liturgical Ministry 5 (1996) 49-58.

5. Chapter 1, © 1998 by Order of Saint Benedict, Collegeville, MN. Used with permission; Chapter 2, © 2008 Abingdon Press, Used by Permission. All rights reserved; Chapters 3, 6, 7, 10, 11 used by permission of Liturgical Press; Chapters 5, 12, 13, 14 used by permission of Novalis; Chapters 4 and 8 used by permission of Questions liturgiques; Chapter 9 used by permission of Peeters Publishers. I am grateful to the publishers for permission to reprint these essays in the present volume.

4



Part II: Particular Studies Chapter 4:

Chapter 5:

Chapter 6:

Chapter 7: Chapter 8:

Chapter 9:

Chapter 10: Chapter 11:

“e Synoptic Gospels in the Sunday Lectionary: Ordinary Time,” in Questions liturgiques/Studies in Liturgy 75 (1994) 154-169. “Fulfilled in Our Hearing: e Dynamism of Scripture in Liturgical Proclamation,” in Bernadette G (ed.), Shaping a Priestly People: A Collection in Honour of Archbishop Hayes, Ottawa, Novalis, 1994, 118-133. “Sunday, the Week, and Ordinary Time: A Return Ad Fontes,” in Gordon J – Bridget N (eds.), The Lively Oracles of God: Studies in the Bible and Liturgy, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2022, 94-114. e Second Readings in the Sunday Lectionary: An Appreciation,” in Worship 96 (2022) 240-256. “e Pauline Letters in the Sunday Lectionary: e Paschal Mystery and the Ekklēsia,” in Questions liturgiques/ Studies in Liturgy 90 (2009) 3-22. “Framed to Break the Frame: e Liturgical Proclamation of John’s Gospel,” in Normand B, Narrative Time in the New Testament: Essays in Mark, John, and Paul (Terra Nova, 8), Leuven – Paris – Bristol, CT, Peeters, 2020, 141-157; also in a French translation, “Encadré pour faire éclater le cadre. La proclamation liturgique de l’Évangile de Jean,” in Alain G (ed.), Narrativité, oralité et performance. 7e colloque international du Réseau de recherche en Narratologie et Bible (RRENAB) 5-7 juin 2014, Université de Montréal (Terra Nova, 4), trans. by Richard C – Alain G, Leuven – Paris – Bristol, CT, Peeters, 2018, 219-236. “Nehemiah 8 and Liturgical Proclamation: Reading Ezra Reading,” in The Bible Today 37/4 (1999) 223-226. “Luke’s Distinctive Sunday Lectionary Profile,” in The Bible Today 38/6 (2000) 337-342.

Part III: Pastoral Studies Chapter 12: Chapter 13:

“Reflections on the Mystery of God and the  Crisis,” in AIDS and Faith, Ottawa, Novalis, 1993, 9-38. “Preaching the Paschal Mystery,” in Celebrate! 36/4 (JulyAugust 1997) 21-24.

 Chapter 14:

5

“Embodying the Word: Reflections on the eology of Proclamation,” in Celebrate! 32/6 (November-December 1993) 20-23.

e Lectionary contains the words of Scripture that, when proclaimed in the midst of the believing assembly, are transformed into the presence of the living Word of God, for, as the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy affirms, “[Christ] is present in his word since it is he himself who speaks when the holy scriptures are read in church” (§7). It is my hope that these studies might foster a greater appreciation for the Sunday Lectionary, which, through proclamation, becomes a liturgical quickening of Scripture providing spiritual nourishment to those gathered at what the Vatican II document Dei Verbum calls the “table of the word”.6 Normand Bonneau, OMI Saint Paul University 223 Main Street Ottawa, ON K1S 1C4 Canada

6. DV “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation” §21; SC “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy” §51.

ABBREVIATIONS ABD ABRL AFW AsSeign1 AsSeign2 AThR BELS BL BPCS BT Cat CBQ CCT CCT Cel! CF CMS CNT Conc CPE CS DACL Daed DEL EcclOr EvQ ExpTim FIYH FoiVie GNS GWS HeyJ ILM Int JSoc LD

Anchor Bible Dictionary Anchor Bible Reference Library Alternative Futures for Worship Assemblées du Seigneur 1ère série Assemblées du Seigneur 2e série Anglican Theological Review Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae, Subsidia Bibel und Liturgie Biblical Performance Criticism Series The Bible Today Catechumenate Catholic Biblical Quarterly Challenges in Contemporary eology Consultation on Common Texts Celebrate! Cogitato Fidei Collegeville Ministry Series Commentaire du Nouveau Testament Concilium Connaissance des Pères de l’Église Chicago Studies Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie Daedalus Dictionnaire encyclopédique de la liturgie Ecclesia Orans Evangelical Quarterly Expository Times Fulfilled in Your Hearing Foi et vie Good News Studies Grove Worship Series Heythrop Journal Introduction (to the) Lectionary for Mass Interpretation Journal of Sociolinguistics Lectio Divina

8 LDS Lit Lit90 LitMin LJ LO LS LTP LVC MD ML NDR NDSW NICNT Not NovT NRTh NTM OLM Orig OTL PaLin PL PLS PS PSB PT QD QF QL QL(P) QL/SL RCL RENT RfR SBL SBL SS SL SLit SNTS MS Theo

 Liturgy Documentary Series Liturgy Liturgy 90 Liturgical Ministry Liturgisches Jahrbuch Lex Orandi Language and Style Liturgy Training Publications Liturgie et vie chrétienne La Maison-Dieu Music and Liturgy New Diaconal Review New Dictionary of Sacramental Worship New International Commentary on the New Testament Notitiae Novum Testamentum Nouvelle Revue Théologique New Testament Message Ordo Lectionum Missae Origins Old Testament Library Papers in Linguistics Pietas Liturgica Preparing for Liturgy Series e Passion Series Princeton Seminary Bulletin Poetics Today Questiones Disputatae Les Quatre fleuves Questions liturgiques Questions liturgiques (et paroissiales) Questions liturgiques/Studies in Liturgy Revised Common Lectionary Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory Review for Religious Society of Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Series Studia Liturgica Studies in Liturgy Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Series Theoforum

 ThS TL SM WUNT Wor

Theological Studies Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs Wissenschaliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Worship

9

PART I

GENERAL STUDIES

C 

THE BIBLE AND LITURGY1 1. Introduction In Christian tradition the liturgy has always been considered the locus par excellence for the interpretation of Scripture. In liturgy, and particularly in liturgical proclamation (the oral reading of a biblical passage in the context of a worshipping community), the Scriptures come into their own. ey become fully what they are, the word of God active and present. is vitality stems from the very nature of the liturgy itself. Liturgy is the ritualized expression of the relationship between the faithful and their risen Lord who configures them into the pattern of his death and resurrection. Presenting the fundamental characteristics of liturgical celebration is essential, therefore, for appreciating the particular way the Scriptures function and are interpreted in this setting. e main task of this chapter will be to describe the principles underlying the liturgical use of Scripture. e study will then demonstrate these principles at work through an examination of key aspects of the Sunday and Feast Day Lectionary. 2. Bible and Liturgy Liturgical interpretation of the Bible is not an alien dimension added, as it were, from outside. In great part this is so because “the Bible and the liturgy show the same attitude of human beings to God, the same 1. is chapter was written upon the invitation from the editors (William R. F, editor, Sean ME – Armando J. L – David L. D, associate editors) to contribute an article on “e Bible and Liturgy” as one of the “General Articles” (treating “selected questions about interpreting the Bible” p. xxxi) for The International Bible Commentary: A Catholic and Ecumenical Commentary for the Twenty-First Century, Collegevillle, MN, Liturgical Press, 1998, 138-146. Given this essay’s overview of the way the liturgy appropriates the Bible generally, including an illustration from the Lenten season of the Sunday Lectionary, I have placed it first. In addition to the information in the following footnotes, see other works consulted for this article (full entries appear in the general bibliography listed at the end of the present volume): B ; B ; C ; F ; G ; J ; K ; L ; N ; R ; S , ; S ; T ; T ; V ; V ; W ; W .

14

 

vision of the world and interpretation of history, so much so that there can be no liturgical life without an introduction to the Bible, while the liturgy in turn provides the Bible with a living commentary that enables it to manifest its full meaning.”2 e close relationship between liturgy and Bible can be seen, for example, from their interaction as reciprocal sources. e Bible contains a multiplicity of passages that have liturgy as their source and setting (psalms, hymns, canticles). Liturgical practice has le traces on the shape and content of such foundational narratives as the Passover (Exod 12:1–13:6), the revelation of the covenant on Sinai (Exod 19–24), the conquest of the promised land (Joshua, especially ch. 6), the Baptism of Jesus, the Last Supper, to name only the most obvious. In yet other instances, liturgical concerns have influenced the composition of entire books (for example, Joshua, Deuteronomy, perhaps Revelation). Finally, liturgical use was one of the decisive elements in the process that led to the defining of both Jewish and Christian canons of Scripture.3 In turn the Bible is one of the main sources of liturgy, as pointed out in the Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy: “Sacred Scripture is of the greatest importance in the celebration of the liturgy. For from it are drawn the lessons which are read and which are explained in the homily; from it too come the psalms which are sung. It is from Scripture that the petitions, prayers and hymns draw their inspiration and their force, and that actions and signs derive their meaning” (§24). e eucharistic prayers, as well as most prefaces, are pastiches of scriptural texts and allusions. e blessing of baptismal water is a long rehearsal of God’s mighty acts in salvation history. Even an incidental prayer such as that voiced by the assembly before receiving communion (“Lord, I am not worth that you should enter under my roof; say but the word and my soul will be healed”) is adapted from the words of the centurion whose son (or servant) Jesus heals (Matt 8:8 = Luke 7:6-7).4

2. Aimé Georges M, “e Dialogue Between God and His People,” in Irénée Henri D et al. (eds.), The Church at Prayer: An Introduction to the Liturgy, Vol. 1: Principles of the Liturgy, trans. by Matthew O’C, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1986-1987, 133-149, p. 140. 3. Evert H. V O, The Bible and Liturgy, trans. by John V, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1991. 4. Louis-Marie C, “What Makes Liturgy Biblical? – Texts,” in SL  22 (1992) 121-133, p. 123.

   

15

3. Liturgy as Context of Interpretation ree main characteristics of liturgy determine how the Scriptures are appropriated and interpreted: (1) liturgy is an action, (2) it is Christocentric, and (3) it is pastorally oriented. Liturgy is an action Irénée Henri Dalmais points out the essential nature of liturgy by comparing it to the theological enterprise, of which critical exegesis can be considered one branch. “Liturgy is an operation or action (ergon); it is not first and foremost a discourse (logos).” Liturgy and exegesis address different dimensions of human experience. While exegesis seeks to enhance the intelligibility of the biblical text, liturgy actualizes the story of salvation that the text proclaims. Since they have different aims, liturgy and exegesis employ different modes of expression: “(Liturgy) takes symbol as its preferred mode of expression; it belongs to the world of poetic thought, which yields a product […].” Exegesis, as a form of theological investigation, deals in “conceptual or notional thought” that seeks to define and understand its object through reasoning and argumentation.5 is fundamental distinction accounts for the fact that at times the liturgical performance of a biblical passage may differ from the interpretation proposed by critical exegesis. Liturgy’s action (ergon) is described in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of the Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. Salvatore Marsili summarizes the gist of these passages: “Liturgy is a sacred action through which, by means of ritual, the priestly work of Christ, that is, the sanctification of humankind and the glorification of God, is exercised and is continued in the Church and by the Church.”6 Two key aspects of this definition are particularly germane for grasping how the liturgy appropriates and interprets the Scriptures. Liturgy is Christocentric e primary focus of liturgy is Christ and his work of salvation. rough his self-offering on the cross as the perfect fulfillment of the 5. Irénée Henri D, in Irénée Henri D et al. (eds.), The Church at Prayer: An Introduction to the Liturgy. Vol. 1: Principles of the Liturgy, trans. by Matthew O’C, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 227-280, p. 229, 259. 6. Salvatore M, “Liturgie,” in Domenico S – Achille M. T (eds.), DEL, Vol. 1 (A-L), French adaptation under the direction of Henri D, Turnhout, Brepols – Montréal, Sciences et culture, 1992, 629-640, p. 634.

16

 

Father’s will, Jesus embodied and realized God’s passion for saving humankind. In the liturgy this saving mystery, called the paschal mystery because of Jesus’ passage through death into the fullness of life at Passover time, is actualized for and in the celebrating community. When applied to the proclamation of Scripture in the liturgy, this realization leads the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy to assert that Christ is present not only in the assembly, in the presider, and in the signs of bread and wine, but that he “is present in his word since it is he himself who speaks when the holy scriptures are read in church” (§7). Liturgy is pastorally oriented e work of Christ made present in the liturgy sanctifies humankind so that they might render true worship to God. is is the liturgy’s pastoral orientation. e assembly of the faithful first of all benefits from God’s action in Christ through Baptism, Eucharist, etc., and are redeemed, saved, reconciled, and sanctified. As a sanctified people the faithful then become the active subjects of the liturgy by offering glory to God in union with the risen Christ present in their midst. e relationship between the risen Christ and the assembly actualizes the story of salvation accomplished in the paschal mystery of Christ in and for the community here and now gathered. at is why the liturgy is the most explicit expression of the mystery of salvation as present event. As a result, when the Scriptures are proclaimed in this context the word of God becomes an event of salvation. While these three fundamental aspects of liturgy – God’s action in Christ for the salvation of humankind – permeate all liturgical use of Scripture, they are most readily detected in the Sunday and Feast Day Lectionary, particularly in its principles of reading selection and its patterns of reading distribution. 4. The Sunday and Feast Day Lectionary A lectionary can be defined as “an orderly sequence of selections from Scripture to be read aloud at public worship by a religious community.”7 e type and frequency of an assembly’s public worship determines the selection and distribution of biblical passages. Roman Catholic liturgy employs two basic kinds of lectionaries: lectionaries for use at eucharistic celebrations and lectionaries embedded in 7. John R, “A History of Lectionaries: From the Synagogue at Nazareth to Post-Vatican II,” in Int 31 (1977) 116-130, p. 116.

   

17

the Liturgy of the Hours. Of the six types of eucharistic lectionaries the Sunday and Feast Day Lectionary is the most important because of the preeminent place of both Sunday and Eucharist in Christian tradition. e use of the Lectionary on Sunday and its use in a eucharistic celebration are the foundation from which emerge two of the principles for the liturgical use of Scripture: Christocentrism and pastoral orientation. 4.1. Christocentric Orientation of the Sunday Lectionary 4.1.1. e Sunday Eucharist e importance of Sunday in Christian tradition cannot be overemphasized, as the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy explains: “By a tradition handed down from the apostles, which took its origin from the very day of Christ’s resurrection, the Church celebrates the paschal mystery every eighth day, which day is appropriately called the Lord’s day or Sunday […]. e Lord’s day is the original feast day […]” (§106). Because of the significance of Sunday, from the beginning Christians chose it as the most appropriate time to celebrate the paschal mystery. e resurrection of Jesus not only led the first generation of believers to assemble on the first day of the week. As the event inaugurating God’s eschatological salvation, the resurrection of Jesus also inspired Christians (1) to read the ancient Scriptures of Israel in a new light, as the gospel story of the disciples of Emmaus narrates so vividly (Luke 24:13-35, especially v. 27); (2) to interpret the paschal mystery and actualize it in their lives, as the New Testament letters witness; and (3) to record the story of Jesus in the gospels. us both the Sunday celebration of the Lord’s Supper and the emergence of the writings that would become the New Testament spring from the paschal mystery of Jesus’ death and resurrection. ere is evidence that by the middle of the second century the Scriptures were read as a standard feature at the Sunday Eucharist (see Justin Martyr’s First Apology, §678). Based on this ancient tradition, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy describes the Sunday experience as follows: “For on this day Christ’s faithful are bound to come together so that, by hearing the word of God and taking part in the Eucharist, they may commemorate the suffering, resurrection, and glory of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God who ‘has given us a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead’ (1 Peter 1:3)” (§106). 8. J M, First Apology §67, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1, ed. William A. J, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1970, p. 55-56.

18

 

In such a highly Christ-charged setting as the Sunday Eucharist the gospels maintain pride of place. e revised Sunday and Feast Day Lectionary reflects this in its fundamental structure. It is organized in a three-year cycle of readings, with one of the three Synoptic Gospels assigned to each year, Matthew to Year A, Mark to Year B, and Luke to Year C (John’s Gospel appears primarily in the seasons of Lent and Easter). ree readings are provided for each Sunday and Feast Day, the first from the Old Testament (except for the Sundays of Easter when the first reading is drawn from Acts of the Apostles), the second from the Apostolic writings, the third and most important from the gospels. In almost every instance the gospel passages set the tone for the liturgical seasons as well as for each Sunday and Feast Day. Moreover, the Christic setting of the Sunday Eucharist lends a paschal interpretation to all three readings of each celebration. Every biblical text is illuminated by the paschal mystery, while every passage in turn deepens and broadens the understanding of this same mystery. No matter what their specific content, the three readings assigned to each Sunday and Feast Day always play the same liturgical roles. e first reading from the Old Testament contextualizes the gospel, relating it to the history of salvation whose center and fulfillment Christians find in Jesus. e second reading from the Apostolic writings provides models for how the early Christians interpreted and appropriated the paschal mystery of Jesus in their lives. e paradigm for this fundamental unity of the readings appears in striking vividness at the Easter Vigil. e Old Testament readings, which offer a sweeping review of salvation history, are proclaimed in the light of the paschal candle, symbol of the risen Christ. e reading from Paul’s Letter to the Romans interprets the death and resurrection of Jesus in terms of Baptism, through which later in the service new candidates appropriate this mystery. e gospel narrative of the discovery of the empty tomb announces the resurrection of Jesus, the central mystery of the faith the new candidates profess. Because all other celebrations are patterned aer the paradigm offered in the Easter Vigil, all scriptural passages proclaimed in the context of the Sunday and Feast Day Eucharist bask in the light of the paschal mystery of Christ. 4.1.2. e Liturgical Year e paschal orientation of the Sunday and Feast Day Lectionary emerges not only in the function of each of the three readings per celebration, but also in the way the Lectionary, by selecting and distributing

   

19

biblical passages, articulates the various seasons that constitute the liturgical year. As a whole, the entire liturgical year flows out of and points to the paschal mystery of Christ. e liturgical seasons underline in a more elaborate and leisurely fashion various aspects of this mystery celebrated primarily on the Lord’s Day. e liturgical year’s Christ-centered orientation becomes evident when the overall structure and distribution of the readings in the current Lectionary are evaluated in light of other possible designs. e Vatican II committee charged with Lectionary revision (Coetus [“Committee”] XI of the Consilium on liturgy), in craing the Lectionary as it did […] rejected, at least implicitly, other ways of going about its task. e lectionary was not to be ordered around a “history of salvation” motif (understood as a line running from the creation to the second coming), or around a systematic presentation of the theological teachings of the church, or according to a literary analysis of the parts of the Bible that were to be used. Nor were the readings to be chosen and ordered for the primary purpose of exhorting and encouraging people to lead more Christian lives. e lectionary was there to proclaim the passion, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, fully realized in him and being realized in us who, through faith and baptism, have been joined to him.9

Accordingly, liturgical principles take precedence over exegetical, catechetical, paraenetic, or other principles in determining the selection and distribution of biblical passages in the Sunday Lectionary. 4.2. Pastoral Orientation of the Sunday Lectionary Because the biblical readings contained in the Sunday and Feast Day Lectionary are embedded in the celebration of the Eucharist, they have a pastoral orientation. ey set in motion the very reason for the Church’s being: to enable people to experience God’s salvation in their own historical situation. Liturgy is concerned with the community here and now assembled. e “story” that the liturgy celebrates is salvation history actualized in the present, where past and future meet as memory and anticipation. Such is the case for every Sunday and Feast Day, indeed for every liturgical celebration. e liturgical year groups Sundays and Feast Days into liturgical seasons. e “narrative” of each season stresses a particular aspect of this pastoral orientation. e season of Lent tells the story of conversion and repentance culminating in the believers’ appropriation of the paschal 9. William S, The Word in Worship: Preaching in a Liturgical Context, Nashville, TN, Abingdon, 1981, p. 33-34.

20

 

mystery through Baptism and Eucharist at the Easter Vigil. e Easter season celebrates the story of the deepening communion with the risen Lord who abides with his Church through the Spirit. e Advent-Christmas season unfolds the story of the community’s patient waiting for the fullness of the kingdom still to come, a time of anticipation they fill with purposeful action until the consummation of the paschal mystery is revealed in them. e story actualized in the Sundays in Ordinary Time is that of Christians being shaped and molded into the death and resurrection of Jesus through the difficult fidelity of discipleship.10 In each instance the readings selected for the Sunday Lectionary articulate and celebrate these overarching liturgical “narratives.” Liturgy shapes the Lectionary: biblical passages are selected and distributed according to the needs of the liturgical story being lived out ritually by the assembled community. e liturgy’s pastoral orientation shapes the assembly of believers into the body of the risen Christ. us the Sunday Eucharist, which celebrates the paschal mystery, and the liturgical year, every aspect of which flows out of and points to the paschal mystery, fully determine the shape and content of the Sunday Lectionary. 4.3. How These Principles Are Implemented in the Sunday Lectionary 4.3.1. In Festal Seasons e key feature of each season in the Lectionary is the architecture of readings as a whole. Such a design serves the particular liturgical narrative proper to that season. It is constituted through the interplay of four main principles of reading selection and reading distribution: harmony, thematic groupings, semicontinuous reading, and correspondence. e following description of the first five Sundays of Lent shows the above liturgical and Lectionary principles at work. According to the Universal Norms on the Liturgical Year and the General Roman Calendar, “Lent is ordered to preparing for the celebration of Easter, since the Lenten liturgy prepares for celebration of the Paschal Mystery both catechumens, by the various stages of Christian initiation, and the faithful, who recall their own Baptism and do penance” (§27). e Lenten Lectionary selects biblical passages that highlight the paschal mystery, especially as it is refracted through the prism of Baptism. 10. Normand B, The Sunday Lectionary: Ritual Word, Paschal Shape, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1998, p. 33.

   

21

Because it is a festal season, Lent first employs the principle of harmony in its selection of biblical readings. Harmony means that biblical books or biblical passages are chosen to express the main themes of a liturgical season: select biblical passages are joined to specific liturgical seasons. Accordingly the Gospel of John, with its sublime way of articulating the paschal mystery, takes on special prominence during Lent. e tradition of using John in this season reaches back to the earliest centuries of the Church; the choice of the other readings for the first five Sundays of Lent is also guided for the most part by ancient tradition. Once the Lenten gospel passages have been selected, the Lectionary then places them in thematic patterns. ese are designed to move the community toward the mystery of Baptism in the following manner. In all three Lectionary years the first two Sundays of Lent present the paschal mystery in nuce. On the first Sunday the gospel passages narrate the Temptation of Jesus; the gospel excerpts on the second Sunday recount the Transfiguration. Together these two Sundays constitute a prelude to the celebration of the passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus that takes place at the Triduum (the celebration – extended over three days – from Maundy ursday evening to the Easter Vigil). e Temptation conjures up the suffering and death of Jesus, yet with a note of triumph since he resists Satan’s power. e Transfiguration evokes the resurrection, confirming Jesus’ prophecy that first he must go to Jerusalem to suffer, die, and on the third day be raised. Glorification comes only through suffering and death. is is the fundamental “Jesus pattern” into which all believers are initiated in Baptism. Aer this overture the three Lectionary years diverge slightly. In Year A the gospel readings from John 4, 9, and 11 on the ird, Fourth, and Fih Sundays respectively focus primarily on the candidates for initiation. In Year B passages from John’s Gospel for these three Sundays underscore Jesus’ glorification through suffering and death. In Year C the selections from Luke and John all converge on the theme of penance leading to conversion. Over a cycle of three years, therefore, the assembly of the faithful celebrates three key aspects of Lent: initiation into the paschal mystery (Year A), a more profound assimilation to the pattern of death-resurrection in their own lives (Year B), and ever-growing receptivity to the mystery through penance and conversion (Year C). e readings in Year A from John  4 (the Samaritan Woman at the Well), John  9 (the Healing of the Man Born Blind), and John  11 (the Raising of Lazarus) play a critical role in the Lenten liturgy and invite special comment. ese passages are paired with the scrutinies, an important stage in the catechumens’ final preparation for Baptism.

22

 

rough these texts the Lenten liturgy prepares for the celebration of the paschal mystery, focusing on the experience of the candidates who will die and rise with Christ in Baptism. In so doing they also remind all the baptized of their own commitment in agreeing to put on Christ. More specifically these three long passages from John announce what happens when someone meets the risen Lord, providing models by which the candidates can understand their own experience. Interpreted liturgically as crucial moments in the baptismal retreat of the catechumens, the texts take on special significance: initiation into the paschal mystery of Christ means “passing over” from sin to grace (John 4), from darkness to light (John 9), from death to new life (John 11). e Christocentric focus and the paschal orientation of these passages are unmistakable; they serve the assembled community’s liturgical celebration. e Old Testament readings for the Sundays of Lent display a thematic pattern of their own. In each of the three Lectionary years, moving from the First to the Fih Sunday, the Old Testament passages offer an overview of the history of salvation: First Sunday, an excerpt from primeval history (except in Year C); Second Sunday, an episode from the story of Abraham; ird Sunday, a key moment in the story of Moses; Fourth Sunday, a passage from the period of the monarchy; Fih Sunday, a passage from one of the prophets on end time fulfillment. is rapid survey of salvation history anticipates the Easter Vigil readings from the Old Testament where a similar, yet more ample, retelling takes place. By virtue of their being selected for the Lenten Eucharists, these Old Testament passages acquire a paschal-mystery orientation. ey suggest that the death and resurrection of Jesus marks the climax toward which salvation history tends, a history that includes not only the people of Israel (evoked in the Abraham stories on the Second Sunday) but also all people from the creation of the world (evoked by the excerpts from Genesis read on the First Sunday). e overview of salvation history has a future orientation as well, for the prophetic texts of the Fih Sunday look forward to Jesus’ coming at the Parousia to complete the kingdom already inaugurated in his death and resurrection. Pastorally these readings help the assembled community build its identity as the people of God and assume its role as the contemporary witness to God’s story of salvation. Although there is no semicontinuous reading in Lent, correspondence between two or among all three readings assigned to a celebration is quite common. is is due in most instances to the second reading. e second readings during Lent reflect the main themes of the season. A good example of correspondence among all three readings appears on the First Sunday of Lent in Year A. Juxtaposed with the Matthean version

   

23

of Jesus’ Temptation is the story of the temptation and fall of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2–3. e second reading from Romans 5:12-21 with its Adam/Christ typology provides a bridge between the Genesis and the Matthew readings: whereas the first Adam was tempted and succumbed, the new Adam was tempted but remained faithful even unto death; if Adam was the source of humanity in the first creation, the risen Christ is the source of the transformed humanity of the new creation. In the context of the Lenten liturgy’s preparation for Easter, and more specifically in the context of Year A’s stress on the catechumens, the proposed interpretation underscores Jesus’ death and resurrection as God’s intervention overcoming the power of sin and its effects. ese readings encourage the candidates as well as the assembly to see Baptism as initiation into the community of faith, the sign of humanity freed from the powers of sin and death, the avant-garde of the new creation in Christ. On the First Sunday of Lent Year B the first reading from Gen 9:8-15, the story of the renewal of the covenant with Noah and the survivors of the flood, is paired with 1 Pet 3:18-22, a segment of a baptismal sermon evoking Noah’s ark as a type for Baptism. e two readings correspond because both focus on water as a symbol of destruction and death from which only God’s power can save. ey serve as an anticipation of the Easter Vigil when Baptism is celebrated as God’s salvation from the powers of sin and death through the paschal mystery of Jesus. Again on the First Sunday of Lent, this time in Year C, the readings correspond. e Lukan narrative of the Temptation appears with Deut. 26:4-10, the ancient credo of Israel that was to be recited upon presenting to the Lord the first fruits of the harvest. e second reading from Rom 10:8-13 cites the fundamental creed of Christians: “if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” e excerpt ends with the exhortation, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Both these texts, which correspond to each other through their use of creeds, shed light on the third reading. In the story of the Temptation Jesus was able to repulse the attacks of Satan through his faith in God. In the context of the Lenten Year C readings, these three texts underscore faith and confidence in God as the means of conversion and therefore of salvation.11

11. Adrien N, “La parole de Dieu et Vatican II,” in Pierre J – Reiner K – Gottardo P (eds.), Liturgia opera divina e umana: studi sulla riforma liturgica offerti a S. E. Annibale Bugnini in occasione del suo 70 e compleano, Roma, Edizioni Liturgiche, 1982, 133-149, p. 139-140.

24

 

e Lectionary texts for the first five Sundays of Lent exhibit the same basic pattern in all three Lectionary Years. Selected according to the principle of harmony, they are to be read both horizontally across the Sundays (thematic groupings of gospels and Old Testament passages) as well as vertically (correspondence between two or among all three readings per Sunday). e pastoral requirements of the Christ-centered ritualization of the drama of salvation, now become present event for the worshipping community, determine their selection and distribution and, consequently, their interpretation. e same fundamental principles of reading selection and reading distribution operate in all the festal seasons. 4.3.2. In Sundays in Ordinary Time Unlike the Sundays of the festal seasons (Advent, Christmas, Lent, and Easter), the Sundays in Ordinary Time do not have a special focus. ey are Sundays in a “pure state,” Sundays celebrated very much the way each and every Sunday was celebrated in the earliest decades of the Church before solemnities of the Lord (such as Christmas, Easter, Ascension, etc.) and festal seasons developed. As a result the Lectionary selects and distributes scriptural readings somewhat differently. e two hallmarks of these Sundays are the principles of semicontinuous reading and correspondence. e gospel passages and the excerpts from the Apostolic letters follow the first principle, each with their own independent tracks, while the Old Testament passage is selected in light of the gospel of the day. Semicontinuous reading, a modern adaptation of the ancient practice of lectio continua, intends to offer a significant exposure to a gospel or an Apostolic letter. It relies heavily on modern exegesis, particularly form criticism for the delimiting of pericopes and redaction criticism for the decision to respect the unique contribution of each New Testament author. Correspondence between the Old Testament reading and the gospel passage of the day can take a variety of forms: (1) the Old Testament passage is chosen because it is cited or alluded to in the gospel (as on the Seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year A [= 7A] or the Eleventh Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year B [= 11B]); (2) the two relate a similar event or deed (e.g., 19A, 2B, 3C); (3) the Old Testament passage complements or supplements an idea or viewpoint expressed in the gospel (e.g., 33B, 15C); (4) the Old Testament reading provides background for the gospel (e.g., 11A, 6B); (5) the Old Testament reading offers a contrasting viewpoint to the gospel (e.g., 13C).

   

25

Since the liturgical “narrative” celebrated during the Sundays in Ordinary Time is apprenticeship for the kingdom, the passages selected enhance this aspect of the drama of salvation history. is demands exposure to the deeds and teachings of Jesus in his public ministry, an exposure to the way the earliest communities in the Apostolic letters interpreted and appropriated the paschal mystery in their lives, and a constant evocation of the full sweep of the story of salvation, particularly in its Old Testament matrix. 5. Scripture and Liturgy: Creation of New Meaning e above exposition of the principles determining the liturgical use of Scripture, particularly as they are articulated in the Sunday and Feast Day Lectionary, warrants three further comments. (1) Liturgy presupposes familiarity with Scripture. e liturgy is selective in its use of Scripture. e Sunday and Feast Day Lectionary, for example, contains approximately fourteen percent of the entire Bible (five percent of the Old Testament [not counting the Psalms that follow the first reading] and forty-two percent of the New Testament). Because it is so selective, liturgy presupposes a basic familiarity with the stories, the kerygma, the symbols, the overarching plot, the characters of the Scriptures. As much as the revised liturgy of Vatican II, particularly through the lectionaries, offers a broader exposure to the Scriptures than had previously been the case, and as much as this exposure is aimed at fostering familiarity with the Scriptures, knowledge of the Bible must be supplemented outside of the liturgical experience. e Lectionary was not intended to provide a course in Scripture. e selection itself, however, prompted as it is by the liturgy’s desire to articulate the paschal mystery, illumines the whole of Scripture. Liturgy is the “school” showing how the Scriptures reveal Christ. (2) e pairing of biblical passage creates new meaning. In the Lectionary, biblical passages are taken out of their biblical contexts and recontextualized with other passages in various settings and patterns, creating new meaning not originally found in the Scriptures. For example, at the Mass of the Lord’s Supper the three proposed Lectionary readings are Exod 12:1-8, 11-14 (instructions for preparing and eating the Passover lamb on the eve of crossing the Red Sea), 1 Cor 11:23-26 (Paul’s version of Jesus’ words at the Last Supper), and John 13:1-15 (Jesus’ washing the feet of his disciples on the eve of his crucifixion). is liturgically pregnant rapprochement sheds a new light on all three passages. In the second reading, Jesus’ blessing the two elements of bread and wine as his

26

 

body and blood evokes the entire sacrificial economy of Israel: a key feature of animal sacrifices in Israel was the separation of blood from the victim’s body. Placing the Exod 12 passage before 1 Cor 11 provides the background that adds depth of significance to Jesus’ words: in him the entire story of Passover is recapitulated and reconfigured to signify passage not only from slavery to freedom, but also from death to life. Finally, Jesus’ enjoining the disciples to wash each other’s feet in the gospel intimates that Eucharist, the thanksgiving sacrifice of the new covenant, is lived out through serving one another. is interplay of passages is not an invention of the liturgy. It is in fact the oldest principle of interpretation in the Bible itself. Whether in the Old Testament alone or in the New Testament’s re-reading of the Old, this interplay can be seen at work. It is based on the premise that “later verbal symbols throw light on earlier ones in a cascade of imagery that conveys some sense of the divine.”12 Both in the Bible and in the liturgy meaning has never rested on the primary literal or historical sense of the text, at least not history as understood in the modern sense: both Bible and liturgy eschew literalism and fundamentalism. Rather, the biblical record of past events furnishes verbal symbols of the unseen God’s presence, which, when juxtaposed with new events, transforms symbols for a new experience of that presence. Liturgy simply continues the process. at is why the liturgy does not hesitate to place Old Testament and New Testament texts side by side. Following the Bible’s lead, the liturgy pairs texts according to “prophecy-fulfillment”, not on the strictly historical level but in a play of symbols that appeals first and foremost to the imagination. e liturgy also employs the scriptural technique called typology, an interpretative approach founded on the recognition that new events, institutions, and characters find their depth of meaning in that they share the essential configuration of an earlier foundational event, institution, or character. Both in the Bible and in the liturgy, texts call forth other texts that use similar symbols, and their juxtaposition transforms meaning into a new key. (3) e interplay between ancient texts and the assembled community creates new meaning. e creation of new meaning results not only from the pairing of passages in the Lectionary. New meaning arises from the dialectic between the ancient texts and the lives of the worshippers here and now assembled. e believing community both writes itself into the text and in turn is shaped by the text. e result is a new “text” or 12. Gerard S. S, “e Lectionary as a Context for Interpretation,” in Int 31 (1977) 131-138, p. 133.

   

27

narrative, a combination of old and new.13 Never before has the specific interplay between these texts and these people occurred; never again will it occur in this particular way, for liturgy celebrates God’s salvation made present and effective for this community here and now assembled. In the end even the phrase “liturgical interpretation of the Scriptures” is perhaps inadequate to express the relationship between liturgy and Scripture, for it intimates that liturgy is a sort of “method” performing an analysis on the biblical text. Rather, the liturgy is the atmosphere in which the Scriptures live, the air they breathe to come alive. Liturgy is the Bible in action; it is the Bible transformed from letter to spirit, from past record to present event, ever yielding new meaning out of the ancient text. Liturgy is the home of Scripture.

13. C, “What Makes the Liturgy Biblical?” (n. 4), p. 128.

C 

LECTIONARY1 According to John Reumann, a lectionary is “an orderly sequence of selections from Scripture from which a religious community reads aloud at public worship.”2 e existence and use of a lectionary require the interplay of four factors: (1) an organized assembly of believers (2) who regularly gather for common worship at which (3) readings from a specified literature held in high esteem is read aloud (4) according to some more or less elaborate system of reading selection and distribution. While organized assemblies of worship might conceivably belong to any number of religious traditions that include these factors, this chapter will limit itself to the Christian tradition with some notes regarding the Jewish tradition. e word lectionary is derived from the Latin lectio (“selection” or “reading”), and thus in its restricted sense pertains more immediately to the Roman and related ecclesial traditions. e word is also used to include any selected and patterned use of Scripture at worship in Jewish and Christian traditions generally. Information on early lectionaries remains sparse. e shape and use of lectionaries in the ancient synagogues and the early Christian churches must be gleaned and tentatively reconstructed from passages in rabbinic and patristic writings. In the first Christian centuries, lectionaries took the form of marginal notations in biblical manuscripts indicating which passages to read and when they were to be read. ey could also be presented as an index, a list, or a table of scriptural passages placed at the beginning or the end of a biblical manuscript. By the 5th cent., books containing the full texts of the selected biblical passages organized calendrically began to appear. Both the list format (e.g., The Revised Common 1. e editors (Katherine Doob S, general editor) of The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Nashville, TN, Abingdon, 2008, invited me to contribute a short item on “Lectionary” for the new edition of the Dictionary. e article appears in Vol. 3, 629-631. In addition to the following footnotes, see other works consulted for this article (full bibliographical entries appear in the general bibliography listed at the end of the present volume): B ; Ordo Lectionum Missae . 2. John R, “A History of Lectionaries: From the Synagogue in Nazareth to Post-Vatican II,” in Int 31 (1977) 116-130, p. 116.

30

 

Lectionary3) and the complete readings format (e.g., the Roman Catholic Lectionary for Sundays and Solemnities4) can be found today. Four interrelated features determine the configuration of a lectionary: type of worship, frequency of worship, basic reading selection and reading distribution patterns, and number of passages to be read. A change in any one of these features will necessarily affect the shape and tenor of the other three. e type of worship helps determine the particular configuration. A regular eucharistically centered Sunday worship service, e.g., requires a different type of lectionary than worship emphasizing instruction and exhortation. Special occasions in the lives of individuals and communities, such as initiation, marriage, death, etc., influence the selection, distribution, and use of scriptural passages. e frequency of worship is a second factor contributing to the configuration of a lectionary. Here, calendrical considerations manifest their importance. Over the history of Jewish and Christian worship, two general calendrical schemes are found to underlie the structure of a community’s worship. First is a regular scheme in the form of series or of cycles (daily, weekly, monthly, yearly), and second is the special occasions added to or interrupting the regular scheme (special feasts, weeks, or seasons). ese basic calendrical schemes give rise to the two major principles of reading selection and patterns of reading distribution. Lectio continua, the continuous or sequential reading of a biblical book or a series of books over a determined (yearly or multi-year) cycle of Sabbaths or Sundays, is the older pattern that originally emerged in the ancient synagogue.5 Lectio selecta describes the selecting of biblical passages that pertain more immediately to a special occasion, feast, or season being celebrated. e authority to select and distribute scriptural readings for worship can span the gamut from the worship leader alone to a highly centralized governing ecclesial body. 3. T C  C T, The Revised Common Lectionary, Nashville, TN, Abingdon, 1992. See now the more recent edition, The Revised Common Lectionary: 20th Anniversary Annotated Edition, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 2012. For the Roman Catholic Church, see Ordo Lectionum Missae, Editio typica altera, Roma, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1981. 4. For example, Lectionary: Sundays and Solemnities, Ottawa, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2009. 5. Charles P, “e Reading of the Bible in the Ancient Synagogue,” in Martin Jan M – Harry S (eds.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading, and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Assen, Van Gorcum – Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1988, 137-159.



31

e number of passages to be read is the fourth of the interrelated features that determine the configuration of a lectionary. e synagogue worship service has traditionally presented two readings, the first from the Torah, the second from the Prophets. Over the centuries, the Christian tradition of Sunday eucharistic worship, to cite only one example, has ranged from two to six readings per celebration. e purpose or function of a lectionary is closely related to its configuration. Paul Bradshaw proposes that a lectionary’s predominant, if not necessarily exclusive, function can be didactic, anamnetic, paracletic, or doxological.6 e didactic function of a lectionary aims primarily at encouraging knowledge of and familiarity with the scriptural tradition through teaching and preaching. is use favors lectio continua, a practice that dates back to the origins of the synagogue in post-exilic Judaism. e emergence of special feasts in the liturgical yearly cycle gave rise to the anamnetic use, in which the selected scriptural passages provide the rationale for the liturgical rite being celebrated. e paracletic or pastoral function takes its cues from the needs of the worshiping assembly: scriptural passages are selected to provide exhortation and encouragement, as, e.g., for funerals, weddings, etc. e doxological use is found primarily in contexts where the Scriptures are in a language the worshipers do not understand; recitation and performance rather than comprehension are emphasized. e 1969 publication of the Roman Catholic Lectionary for Sunday and Solemnities (the most important part of the Ordo Lectionum Missae) has ushered in a new era in the history of lectionaries. Patterned in a three-year cycle of readings (Year A featuring Matthew’s Gospel; Year B, Mark’s Gospel; and Year C, Luke’s Gospel), with three readings per (eucharistic) worship service (one each from the OT, the Apostolic writings, and the Gospels), it has been adapted as the basis for the Revised Common Lectionary currently in use in a growing number of (primarily English-speaking) churches worldwide. ere is evidence in the Scriptures of what seems to be (incipient) lectionary use. Passages such as Deut 31:9-11; Neh 8:18; and 2 Kgs 23:1-3 suggest that certain biblical texts were read at important liturgical celebrations at the Temple in Jerusalem. e postexilic emergence and development of the synagogue, an institution that cannot be imagined without the reading of the Scriptures as a main feature, necessarily entailed the emergence and development of lectionaries. It is reasonable to assume 6. Paul B, “e Use of the Bible in the Liturgy: Some Historical Perspectives,” in SL 22 (1992) 35-52.

32

 

that by the late Second Temple era, there were lectionaries for synagogue services organized around two readings, the first an excerpt from the Torah, the second, called a haftarah [‫]ה ְפ ָט ָרה‬ ָ from the Prophets (i.e., Joshua to 2 Kings as well as the Major and Minor Prophets). Information is less clear, however, on which readings were selected and when they were read. e NT contains several indications of what can readily suggest lectionary use: “Aer the reading of the law and the prophets […]” (Acts 13:15); “the words of the prophets that are read every Sabbath […]” (Acts 13:27); “For in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every sabbath in the synagogues” (Acts 15:21). e incident in Luke 4:15-21 depicting Jesus reading a passage from Isaiah at the synagogue in Nazareth hints at the existence of a haftarah reading.

C 

THE SUNDAY LECTIONARY Principles and Patterns1 1. Introduction Approved by Pope Paul VI on April 3, 1969, promulgated on May 29 of the same year, made mandatory for the Roman Catholic Church beginning on the First Sunday of Advent in 1971, the revised Lectionary for Mass (Ordo Lectionum Missae) has since been a standard feature in worshipping assemblies. Familiar as it is, the principles of reading selection that underlie it and the patterns of reading distribution that shape it remain relatively unknown. is chapter examines a number of these more hidden aspects of the Sunday and Feast Day Lectionary. e most important of the several eucharistic Lectionaries that comprise the Ordo Lectionum Missae is the Sunday and Feast Day Lectionary,2 for it is on Sundays and Solemnities of the Lord that Christians primarily assemble to worship. e selections of Scripture passages assigned to these eucharistic celebrations, therefore, constitute the main contact most worshippers have with the Bible. All the more reason, then, to have a sufficient understanding of how this particular Lectionary works.

1. is chapter first appeared in Liturgical Ministry 5 (Spring 1996) 49-58 upon an invitation from the editor to provide an overview of the Vatican II revised Sunday Lectionary. A more extensive presentation appears in my slightly later book, The Sunday Lectionary: Ritual Word, Paschal Shape, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1998. 2. e Lectionary for Mass (the official Latin name is Ordo Lectionum Missae) is in fact a collection of six different lectionaries. Common to all is that the biblical selections they include are to be read at eucharistic celebrations. Printed in one book or in several volumes, it comprises a lectionary for Sundays and solemnities (“solemnities” here means feasts of the Lord which do not usually occur or never fall on a Sunday, such as Christmas, Epiphany, the Easter Triduum, Ascension), a lectionary for weekday masses, a lectionary for masses on saints’ days, a lectionary for ritual masses (confirmation, marriage, funerals, etc.), a lectionary for masses for various occasions (for the Church, for civil needs, etc.), and a lectionary for votive masses. For a helpful, if not complete, bibliography on the Roman Catholic Sunday and Feast Day Lectionary, see Fritz W, “An Annotated Bibliography on the ree-year Lectionaries: Part  1: e Roman Catholic Lectionary,” in SL 23 (1992) 223-244.

34

 

A lectionary is an “orderly sequence of selections from Scripture to be read aloud at public worship by a religious community.”3 is definition contains three important items. First, a lectionary is not the Bible as such, but passages selected from the Bible. It is a product of one of the many ways a community appropriates the Bible for the purposes of worship. Second, the passages are not presented in a helter-skelter fashion but are selected and organized in patterns according to specific principles.4 ird, since the selected and ordered passages from Scripture are to be used at public worship, the type and frequency of a community’s public worship will greatly determine how passages are chosen and distributed.5 ese three aspects of a lectionary are always present and always mutually influence each other; a difference in one aspect (principles of selection, arrangement of passages, or kind of worship) affects the configuration of the whole. As far as the Roman Catholic Sunday Lectionary is concerned, the liturgical context of Sunday and Feast Day Eucharist fully determines its content and design. Aer listing some of the more salient traits of the Sunday Lectionary, followed by a thumbnail account of its Vatican-II-mandated revision, this chapter examines four of its underlying features: (1) paschalmystery orientation, (2) reasons for a three-year cycle, (3) reasons for three readings per celebration, and (4) overall design or “architecture”. 2. Characteristic Traits e Sunday and Feast Day Lectionary has the following characteristic traits:6 • A three-year cycle of readings, with a Synoptic Gospel assigned to each year: Matthew to Year A, Mark to Year B, and Luke to Year C. John’s Gospel is reserved for the seasons of Lent and Easter. 3. John R, “A History of Lectionaries: From the Synagogue at Nazareth to Post-Vatican II,” Int 31 (1977) 116-130, p. 116. 4. Kevin W. I, Context and Text: Method in Liturgical Theology, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1994, p. 94. 5. “e very fact that a Lectionary tradition exists in a given Church asserts that priority has been given and is given to hearing certain texts at certain feasts and seasons, and that the interpretation of these texts implies taking those liturgical contexts seriously,” Ibid., p. 95. 6. For a more complete overview of the Sunday Lectionary’s features, see Claude W, “Présentation du nouveau lectionnaire,” in MD  99 (1969) 28-49; Idem, “e Roman Catholic Eucharistic Lectionary,” in SL 21 (1991) 2-13; Gaston F, “Commentarium ad Ordinem Lectionum Missae,” in Not 5 (1969) 256-282. Both were members of Coetus XI. Also, Gerard S, “e Plan of the Lectionary,” in Horace T. A, Jr. (ed.), The Reader as Minister, Washington, DC, e Liturgical Conference, 1980, 37-43.

  

35

• ree readings for each Sunday and Feast Day: the first reading from the Old Testament (except for the Sundays of Easter when a reading from Acts of the Apostles replaces the Old Testament), the second reading from the Apostolic writings, and the third from one of the four Gospels. • For Advent, Christmas, Lent and Easter the readings are selected to express the main themes of the season. • For the Sundays in Ordinary Time, the gospels and the second readings are distributed in a semicontinuous fashion, while the first reading from the Old Testament corresponds to the gospel passage of the day. • A responsorial psalm is sung aer the first reading; a gospel acclamation precedes the proclamation of the gospel. Many of these characteristics replicate features well-established in both Jewish and Christian antiquity. From the synagogue come such patterns as continuous reading across a series of Sabbaths interrupted by  special annual feasts, as well as thematic correspondence between readings. From early Christians tradition come the pairing of Scripture reading and Sunday Eucharist; the pairing of Old and New Testament; the continuous reading across Sundays, interrupted by feasts and seasons. At the same time, modern research significantly informs the final configuration of the Sunday Lectionary, as for example the prominence given to each Gospel individually, including Mark. e compilers of the Sunday Lectionary, therefore, like the scribe trained for the kingdom of heaven, brought forth out of their treasure “what is new and what is old” (Matthew 13:52). is leads to the questions, Who designed the Sunday Lectionary? How did they go about their work?

3. The Vatican II Reform of the Lectionary Before convoking the Council, Pope John XXIII formed a commission whose role it was to consult church leaders about their desires for church reform. Of the more than two thousand responses to the nearly three thousand questionnaires sent out, approximately five hundred addressed liturgical concerns, and of these, about one-fourth specifically mentioned the Lectionary. Indeed, in the decades preceding the Council, a growing number of people in the fields of catechetics and of biblical studies, as well as missionaries working around the globe, had voiced the need for a richer and more extensive repertoire of scripture readings for liturgy. e consultation commission then formulated dras of documents to be discussed as the main task of the Council’s work. At the end of the

36

 

second session (December 1963), the Council Fathers approve their first document, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. is document established the basic principles of liturgy and expressed the Council’s wishes for reform, but it did not elaborate the specifics of what the liturgical renewal would entail. To implement reform, the Council organized a commission called a Consilium, made up of several dozen study groups called coeti. e task of revising the Church’s Lectionaries fell to Coetus XI. Composed of eighteen permanent members,7 and drawing on the expertise of countless scholars and pastors, the committee accomplished the bulk of its work between 1964 and 1967. As a first step, the members of Coetus XI pored over the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) and the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) to glean passages pertaining to the Lectionary. From this they formulated five principles that were to guide their work:8 a. e Scriptures are a constitutive element of liturgical celebration. b. Priority is to be given to the reform of the Sunday and Feast Day Lectionary. c. e Lectionary is to contain more Scripture. e Constitution’s phrase is praestantior pars, that is, the more essential or more important passages of Scripture. In more practical terms, this meant passages with (a) a focus on Christ as (b) the center and fulfillment of salvation history (c) proclaimed in Christian life. d. e Lectionary is to be adapted to modern times. e. e Lectionary is to take into account previous tradition.

Armed with these guidelines, the committee members reviewed all the Latin lectionaries from the sixth to the twelh centuries, the Lectionaries of fieen Oriental rites, and all the Lectionaries then in use by Protestant Churches, giving a total of over fiy tables from which to draw inspiration. In addition, they gathered all the research and proposals for Lectionary reform done since the turn of the century. ey then consulted thirty-one biblical scholars, asking them to submit lists, from the 7. President, Cipriano V (Italy); secretary, Gaston F (Canada); consultors: Pierre J (France), Pacifico M (Italy), André R (Belgium), Godfrey D (USA), Emmanuel L (Belgium), Adrien N (Belgium), AymonMarie R (France), Joseph F (France), Heinrich K (Germany), Klemens T (Germany); consilarii, Heinrich S (Germany), Henri O (France), Jean G (France), Hilaire M (Belgium), Lucien D (France), Claude W (France). See Annibale B, The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975, trans. by Matthew J. O’C, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1990, p.  409-410, n. 12. 8. Elmar N, Entstehung und Bewertung der neuen Perikopenordung des Römischen Ritus für die Meßfeier an Sonn- und Festtagen, Paderborn, Bonifatius, 1986, p. 172-179.

  

37

biblical books in which they had expertise, of the passages they considered most important, and to suggest when and where in the liturgical year these passages should be assigned. From these recommendations, the members of Coetus XI fashioned a consolidated list of readings which they sent to about one hundred catechetical experts and pastors for comments. Finally, the members of the committee also contributed studies on the history of lectionaries and offered their own proposals for reform. By 1967 they had accomplished the bulk of their work. However, before submitting a final product to the Holy See for approval, they sent their dra to some eight hundred biblical scholars, liturgists, pastoral theologians, and catechists, plus designated a number of parishes and communities who would use it on a trial basis. From the hundreds of pages of general comments they garnered and the thousands of specific suggestions they collected, the committee effected a number of changes and added final touches.9 In 1981, slight modifications were made to the 1969 edition, mostly in the form of additional readings in Years B and C for celebrations that originally had only one set of readings.10 e current Sunday and Feast Day Lectionary contains approximately 14% of the Bible – 6% of the Old Testament (not counting the Psalms), 42% of the New. In comparison, the Missale Romanum of 1570 contained about 5% of the Bible, 1% of the Old Testament and 16% of the New Testament. ese statistics show that the revised Sunday Lectionary, although offering more than three times the number of scriptural passages than its predecessor, is not intended to provide a course in Scripture. e highly selective nature of its offerings presupposes sufficient knowledge of the Scriptures, at least a familiarity with the overarching story line (creation, patriarchal era, the exodus, the era of the monarchy, the Babylonian Exile, and, of course, the story of Jesus and of the early church). It assumes that people can situate a passage within the big picture – an assumption that perhaps reflects the wishes of the committee more than the actual state of affairs among church-goers.11 9. Claude W, “L’élaboration du lectionnaire dominical et la consultation de 1967,” in MD 166 (1986) 37-46. 10. Alan D, “e Second Edition of the Lectionary for Mass,” in Lit90 24/4 (May/June 1993) 4-7. 11. Besides the disconnected nature and the brevity of excerpts from the Hebrew Scriptures in the Sunday Lectionary, Gerard S suggests that a major factor inhibiting a better appreciation of these ancient texts is that “homilists are not regular readers of the Bible; the quality of the weekly or daily reading shows that the lectors are not either, and it can safely be assumed that most of the worshippers are not.” See his “e Hebrew Scriptures Apart from eir Fulfillment in Christ,” in Lit90 21/7 (October 1990) 9-11, 10.

38

 

4. Paschal Mystery Orientation of the Sunday Lectionary Since the type and frequency of a community’s worship fully determine the shape of a lectionary, the context of Sunday and Feast Day eucharistic celebration lends the Sunday and Feast Day Lectionary its particular configuration. Specifically, this Lectionary is totally oriented to the paschal mystery of Christ. Sunday is the original feast day, the Day of the Lord, the day on which he rose from the dead, the day signalling the inauguration of God’s eschatological reign. As a result, from the very beginning Christians designated it as the preeminent time to hold their eucharistic assemblies, the ritualized thanksgiving meal celebrating the mystery of Christ’s death and resurrection. Scripture read in this context cannot but be permeated by this central mystery of faith. e strong eucharistic flavor of the Sunday Lectionary is best illustrated by the debate surrounding the use of the Roman Lectionary as the cornerstone of the Common Lectionary. A product of the North American Consultation on Common Texts,12 whose task it was “to assess the usefulness of the Roman Lectionary and to determine what steps, if any, should be taken in terms of harmonization and revision,”13 the Common Lectionary sought to adapt the Roman Lectionary for use among a number of English-language Christian Churches. In an article proposing alternatives, James Sanders listed five cautions regarding the Roman Lectionary: “(1) Dominance of calendar over canon; the subservience of the canon to the calendar; (2) Dominance of New Testament over Old Testament; (3) Dominance of Christocentric over theocentric approach; (4) Dominance of early first-century salvation-history over preceding and succeeding centuries; (5) Dominance of lectio

12. e Consultation on Common Texts began in the 1960s. According to the 1992 Revised Common Lectionary (Nashville, Abingdon, 1992), p. 7, the participating Churches include: e Anglican Church in Canada, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Christian Reformed Church in North America, e Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, Free Methodist Church in Canada, International Commission on English in the Liturgy, e Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, Polish National Catholic Church, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), e Presbyterian Church in Canada, Reformed Church in America, Roman Catholic Church in the United States, Roman Catholic Church in Canada, Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship, e United Church of Canada, United Church of Christ, and e United Methodist Church. 13. Peter C. B, “Introduction” to the Handbook for the Common Lectionary, Philadelphia, PA, e Geneva Press, 1987, p.  31; see now C  C T, The Revised Common Lectionary: 20th Anniversary Annotated Edition, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 2012.

  

39

selecta over lectio continua.”14 In response, Horace Allen writes that the Roman Lectionary’s assumed context is the un-Protestant (though not un-Reformed) weekly union of Word and Sacrament. is raises the Christological issue in a new way. However we might debate the need for more theocentric-Christocentric alternation as a theological matter, the cultic context of the Sacrament of Holy Communion [...] does emphatically affect the discussion [...]. Both the calendar and the cult of the church are emphatically Christological.15

e Sunday Lectionary’s fundamental orientation to the paschal mystery informs not only each Sunday celebration, but the selection and distribution of biblical passages through the entire liturgical year (or calendar) as well. As William Skudlarek explains, in designing the Sunday and Feast Day Lectionary as it did, the Vatican II committee [...] rejected, at least implicitly, other ways of going about its task. e lectionary was not to be ordered around a “history of salvation” motif (understood as a line running from the creation to the second coming), or around a systematic presentation of the theological teachings of the church, or according to a literary analysis of the parts of the Bible that were to be used. Nor were the readings to be chosen and ordered for the primary purpose of exhorting and encouraging people to lead more Christian lives. e lectionary was there to proclaim the passion, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, fully realized in him and being realized in us who, through faith and baptism, have been joined to him.16

In the Sunday and Feast Day Lectionary, liturgical principles take precedence over exegetical, catechetical, paraenetic or other principles in 14. Peter C. B, “Introduction” to the Handbook for the Common Lectionary (n.  13), p.  34, summarizing James A. S, “Canon and Calendar: An Alternative Lectionary Proposal,” in Dieter T. H (ed.), Social Themes of the Christian Year: A Commentary on the Lectionary, Philadelphia, PA, Geneva Press, 1983, p. 258-260. 15. Horace T. A, “Using the Consensus Lectionary: A Response,” in Social Themes of the Christian Year (n. 14), p. 267, as quoted by Peter C. B, “Introduction” to the Handbook for the Common Lectionary (n. 14), p. 34. See further the comments by the same author in his Introduction to the Common Lectionary: The Lectionary Proposed by the Consultation on Common Texts, New York, NY, e Church Hymnal Corporation, 1983, p. 15-18. e Introduction to the 1992 Revised Common Lectionary, Nashville, TN, Abingdon, 1992, p.  15, adds a further consequence of the Sunday eucharistic context assumed by the Roman Lectionary: “Both the gospel-oriented character of the Roman Lectionary and the comparative brevity of its readings show that it is intended for use in a liturgy of the word within the celebration of the eucharist.” 16. William S, The Word in Worship: Preaching in a Liturgical Context, Nashville, TN, Abingdon, 1981, p. 33-34. In this regard, see also Aymon Marie R, “Lecture biblique et mystère du salut,” in MD  99 (1969) 7-27; Oskar M, “e Paschal Mystery and Its Celebration during the Liturgical Year and in the Sunday Masses,” in Guilherme B (ed.), The Liturgy of Vatican II. Vol. 2, Chicago, IL, Franciscan Herald Press, 1966, 209-230.

40

 

the selecting and distributing of biblical passages. is stems from the nature of liturgy. Liturgy is the ritualization of the continuing relationship between the faithful and their risen Lord, who shapes and molds them into the pattern of his death and resurrection.17 e Lectionary, then, is a liturgical book that selects and orders biblical passages to articulate this story, a story of which the different facets are underlined in the several liturgical seasons. Lent guides believers on the path of repentance and conversion, leading to the baptismal appropriation of the paschal mystery at the Easter Vigil. e Easter season celebrates the communion between the risen Lord and the faithful, and offers a foretaste of the heavenly banquet. Advent-Christmas cycle, all the while commemorating Jesus’ birth, stokes the fires of desire for the fullness still to come, encouraging believers to hasten the Lord’s coming through deeds of justice and goodness. Ordinary Time paces the faithful through the difficult fidelity of discipleship. At every turn, the Lectionary puts flesh on the bones of the liturgical calendar, giving weight and substance to the church’s celebration and to believers’ appropriation of the mystery of Christ’s death and resurrection in their lives and in their communities. 5. A Three-Year Cycle e Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy explicitly recommended that the revised Lectionary be structured in a multi-year cycle of readings: “e treasures of the bible are to be opened up more lavishly so that a richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God’s word. In this way the more significant part of the sacred scriptures will be read to the people over a fixed number of years” (SC, §51). How this was to be realized was le to the members of Coetus XI who had to juggle a number of considerations. For example, each year of the cycle must have the same fundamental pattern based on the liturgical calendar. As well, the cycle of years must be extensive enough to accommodate the praestantior pars (“the more significant part”) of Scripture. e cycle could not be too long, however, for it was deemed important that people develop a familiarity with the Scriptures in the Lectionary. Biblical excerpts recurring only every five or six years would militate against this goal. 17. For descriptions of liturgy, see Irénée Henri D, “eology of the Liturgical Celebration,” in Aimé Georges M (ed.), The Church at Prayer: An Introduction to the Liturgy, Vol. 1: Principles of the Liturgy, trans. by Matthew O’C, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1987, 229-280; Salvatore M, “Liturgie,” in Domenico S – Achille M. T (eds.), DEL, Vol. 1 (A-L), French adaptation under the direction of Henri D, Turnhout, Brepols – Montréal, Sciences et culture, 1992, 629-640.

  

41

Concomitant with the question of the number of years in the cycle was how the passages were to be selected and distributed. e issue became particularly important for the Sundays in Ordinary Time, for during the festal seasons the selection is largely dictated by tradition. is matter concerns first and foremost the Gospels, the key text in most seasons and feasts (the Gospels are deemed preeminent in tradition and according to Vatican II documents). It is instructive to compare what we now have in the current Lectionary with a proposal submitted by Heinrich Schürmann, a member of Coetus XI.18 He suggested that in each year of the cycle narrative material from Mark be assigned to the Sundays between Epiphany and the beginning of Lent, stories recalling the life of Jesus from the Jordan to Jerusalem, stressing the epiphanic deeds of the Lord in continuity with the Christmas season. For the Sundays between Pentecost and the following Advent, Schürmann proposed that pericopes from Matthew and Luke containing the sayings of Jesus be selected to accompany the faithful on their pilgrimage toward the Lord’s Second Coming. is “diagonal” cut of material from the Gospels, however, fails to respect the uniqueness of each gospel’s version of Jesus’ story. Moreover, the three Synoptics all have a blend of narrative and sayings. In the end, the committee favored a length approach with one Gospel assigned to each year. is model embraces more advantages than the others contemplated. First of all, each Gospel’s uniqueness was underscored, and the narrative of Jesus’ public ministry “from the beginning to the end” would flow more naturally since it follows the sequence of the evangelist’s narrative. Here the impact of modern biblical scholarship is felt.19 Second, besides being elegant and simple to remember, a cycle based on the designation of a Synoptic Gospel to each of the three years also helps the Lectionary maintain the same fundamental story line each year. is it does by repeating key parallel episodes each year, such as the call of the disciples, Peter’s confession at Caesarea-Philippi, and the greatest commandment – all these repetitions featured during the Sundays in Ordinary Time. Certain Sundays in the festal seasons also tell the same story: the eschatological discourse and John the Baptist’s preaching in Advent; the Baptism of Jesus during the Christmas season; the Temptation and the Transfiguration in Lent; appearances of the risen Christ, the Good Shepherd, and

18. N, Entstehung (n. 8), p. 230-232. 19. John R, “Redaktionsgeschichte and the Roman Ordo: Some Principles and Problems in Pericope Reform,” in Erich R. W. S (ed.), Vita Laudanda: Essays in Memory of Ulrich S. Leupold, Waterloo, ON, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1976, 25-58.

42

 

Jesus’ “Priestly Prayer” in Easter. In this way, the Lectionary offers variety on a fundamental pattern that recurs each year. ird, compared to the Missale Romanum of 1570, the 1981 Ordo Lectionum Missae has more than three times the number of biblical selections for Sundays and Solemnities. A two-year cycle would not have provided a sufficient number of slots to distribute the praestantior pars of Scripture, while a four-year cycle, in which passages recurred only every fih year, would hamper people’s ability to become familiar with the selections. Finally, a three-year cycle was not altogether new in the history of lectionaries. e Palestinian synagogue tradition distributed the reading of the Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures) in a continuous reading over a three-year cycle of Sabbaths; the Reformed Church in France and the Lutheran Churches in Sweden and Norway used a three-year cycle; and a number of pre-conciliar proposals recommended a three-year cycle. As it turns out, the three-year cycle with a Synoptic Gospel assigned to each year has become one of the hallmarks of the revised Sunday Lectionary. 6. Three Readings per Celebration e tradition embodied in the Missale Romanum of 1570, a tradition reaching back to the seventh century, provided two readings per Sunday and Solemnity, an epistle drawn from the New Testament letters, and a gospel excerpted from one of the four Gospels. Ancient tradition showed greater variety. Some churches read three, four, five, even six, biblical selections at each Sunday Eucharist. Dividing the bible into several categories, churches might assign an Old Testament passage from the Law, another from the Prophets, yet another from Wisdom Literature. e New Testament also could contain three categories – Acts, the letters, and the Gospels – from each of which a passage was taken. e members of Coetus XI settled on three readings per celebration: one from the Old Testament, one from the Apostolic writings, and one from the Gospels. e context of Sunday Eucharist naturally calls for a passage from the Gospels. is has been a tradition from the earliest times.20 Moreover, the church has always given the Gospels pride of place, as reflected in Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation: It is common knowledge that among all the inspired writings, including those of the New Testament, the Gospels have a special place, and rightly

20. See, for example, J M, First Apology §67, The Faith of the Early Fathers, ed. William A. J, Vol. 1, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1970, p. 55-56.

  

43

so, because they are our principal source for the life and teaching of the incarnate Word, our Saviour” (DV, §18).

Regarding the Apostolic writings, Roman tradition has consistently selected passages from these New Testament books as far back as sources allow, a tradition firmly ensconced in the Missale Romanum of 1570.21 us the OLM maintains continuity with earlier tradition. e innovation in the OLM is the introduction, aer a hiatus of more than a millennium, of an Old Testament reading.22 e Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation points out the importance of the Hebrew Scriptures for Christian liturgy: God, the inspirer and author of the books of both testaments, in his wisdom has so brought it about that the New should be hidden in the Old and that the Old should be made manifest in the New. For, although Christ founded the New Covenant in his blood (see Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25), nevertheless the books of the Old Testament, all of them given a place in the preaching of the Gospel, attain and display their full meaning in the New Testament (see Mt 5:17; Lk 24:27; Rm 16:25-26; 2 Cor 3:14-16), and in their turn, shed light on it and explain it (DV, §16).23

Once these decisions had been made, the question arose of how to select and distribute the readings. Essentially, tradition manifested two different arrangements: lectio continua, where a biblical book was read in its entirety in sequence over a series of Sundays, and lectio selecta, where biblical books or passages from books were chosen to articulate the main themes of a liturgical season or feast. Lectio continua, the oldest principle of reading selection and distribution in Christian liturgy, affirms that all of Scripture is the Word of God and intended for instruction. Lectio selecta, which evolved along with the festal seasons,

21. Olivier R, “Lecture et présence de l’Apôtre à la liturgie de la messe,” in MD  62 (1960) 69-78; Gerard S, “e Independent Second Readings and the Psalter,” Lit90 22/1 (January 1991) 8-10, p.  13. Given the importance of the Apostolic writings, Sloyan rightly bemoans the pared-down nature of the Lectionary’s selections. He concludes that “the second readings [...] are an anthology of New Testament quotations,” p. 13. 22. For an appreciation of the role of the Old Testament in the Sunday Lectionary, see Paul-Marie G, “Pourquoi une lecture de l’Ancien Testament?” in AsSeign2 3, Paris, Cerf, 1964, 31-47; Idem, “e Reason for an Old Testament Lesson,” in Lancelot S (ed.), The New Liturgy: A Comprehensive Introduction, London, Longman & Todd, 1970, 59-72; Rudolf B, “Bringing the Old Testament to its Legitimate Place and Function in the Church’s Liturgical Reading of the Scriptures,” in SL 17 (1987) 19-25. 23. e translations of Sacrosanctum Concilium and of Dei Verbum used is found in Austin F (ed.), The Basic Sixteen Documents of Vatican Council II: Constitutions, Decrees, Declarations, Northport, NY, Costello – Dublin, Dominican Publications, 1996.

44

 

underscores the significance of the present event being celebrated and its importance in the ongoing history of salvation.24 In the current Lectionary, lectio selecta shapes the feasts and festal seasons. It takes three basic forms: harmony, whereby passages are selected to match the liturgical season; thematic groupings, where readings are batched by groups of Sundays; and correspondence, where two or three readings on a given Sunday or Feast Day are linked. Lectio continua in the current Lectionary takes the adapted form of semicontinuous reading. For festal seasons and feasts, all three readings are selected according to harmony. In addition, they are oen arranged in thematic groupings. For example, the Old Testament readings for the first five Sundays of Lent in all three Years of the cycle present an overview of salvation history; the Second and ird Sundays of Easter all feature appearances of the risen Christ. Finally, in nearly every instance there is correspondence between two or among all three readings of a given celebration. e Sundays in Ordinary Time, on the other hand, are distinctive in their use of semicontinuous reading, an adapted version of lectio continua whereby a biblical book is read in sequence over a consecutive series of Sundays, all the while skipping some verses. During these Sundays, both the Apostolic writings and the gospels are selected and distributed semicontinuously. e Old Testament passages for the Sundays in Ordinary Time posed a special challenge. Already the committee had arranged the second and third readings in a semicontinuous pattern. Should they also assign the Old Testament readings the same way? In so doing, all three readings would be following their own independent tracks through these Sundays. Since this was the first time in over ten centuries that the Old Testament was to be introduced as a regular feature for every Sunday celebration (except on great feast days, the Old Testament had nearly disappeared from western lectionaries25), a portion of the Bible with which Catholics were for the most part unfamiliar, the committee felt it best to provide moorings for the OT passages by linking them to the gospel of the day via correspondence. Moreover, in this way the link between the Old and New Testaments would be clearly structured in the liturgy.26 24. Pierre J, “La Bible dans la liturgie,” in Parole de Dieu et Liturgie (LO, 25), Paris, Cerf, 1958, 17-49, p. 24. 25. Gerard S, “Some Suggestions for a Biblical ree-Year Lectionary,” in Wor 63 (1989) 525-528. 26. e selection and distribution of passages from the Hebrew Scriptures in the Sunday Lectionary has raised a number of questions. For a good overview of the debate, see Gerard S, “e Hebrew Scriptures Apart from eir Fulfillment in Christ”

  

45

is led, of course, to the at times frustrating consequence that on the Sundays in Ordinary Time the second reading has no connection with either of the other two readings.27 However, the 1981 edition of the “Introduction to the Lectionary for Mass” explains the lack of coordination among all three readings: e decision was made not to extend to Sundays the arrangement suited to the liturgical seasons mentioned [Lent-Easter, Advent-Christmas], that is, not to have an organic harmony of themes designed to aid homiletic instruction. Such an arrangement would be in conflict with the genuine conception of liturgical celebration. e liturgy is always the celebration of the mystery of Christ and makes use of the word of God on the basis of its own tradition, guided not by merely logical concerns but by the desire to proclaim the Gospel and to lead those who believe to the fullness of truth (§68).28

ematic coordination of all three readings can at times obscure the fundamental aim of the liturgy’s appropriation of the Bible in the context of Sunday Eucharist – the proclamation of the paschal mystery of Christ. e theme of every celebration is always first and foremost the paschal mystery, whether in all its aspects as during the Sundays in Ordinary Time or when particular aspects are refracted through the lens of a special feast or a festal season. us, the three readings at each celebration, no matter what their specific content, always play the same role: the Old Testament evokes the story of salvation of which Jesus in the gospel is the climax, whose paschal mystery is interpreted and appropriated in the lives of the faithful, as modelled in the Apostolic writings. Mary Schaefer proposes a felicitous image which grasps the purpose of three readings at each Sunday and Feast Day eucharistic celebration: “By means similar to a geologist’s extraction of a core sample, the Lectionary extracts a vertical core: Hebrew Scriptures, apostolic letters and gospel pericopes, representing, in brief, the whole Judaeo-Christian story, biblical witness to revelation.”29

(n. 11); Idem, “Some Suggestions for a Biblical ree-Year Lectionary,” in Wor 63 (1989) 521-535. 27. See, for example, the comments by Adrien N, “La parole de Dieu et Vatican II,” in Pierre J – Reiner K – Gottardo P (eds.), Liturgia, opera divina e umana: studi sulla riforma liturgica offerti a S. E. Mons. Annibale Bugnini in occasione del suo 70e compleanno (BELS, 26), Roma, Edizioni Liturgiche, 1982, 133-149, p. 148. 28. e full text of the Introduction can be found in Elizabeth H (ed.), The Liturgy Documents: A Parish Resource, ird Edition, Chicago, IL, LTP, 1991, 127-164. 29. Mary S, “Preaching: Word of God, Word of Ecclesial Faith,” in Cel! 32/4 (July-August 1993) 23-26, p. 25.

46

 

e paradigm par excellence of the functions of the three readings appears in the church’s most solemn liturgy, the Easter Vigil. Here the Old Testament passages are read in light of Christ (the paschal candle), the gospel proclaims the resurrection, and the excerpt from Paul’s Letter to the Romans interprets the paschal mystery and describes how we appropriate it to ourselves through Baptism, which will be celebrated later in the service. e pairing of biblical passages creates new meaning, meaning oen beyond that of the original contexts from which the passages were excerpted. is is not an innovation of the Lectionary. Already a similar juxtaposition and interplay can be found in the Scriptures themselves, where “later verbal symbols throw light on earlier ones in a cascade of imagery that convey some sense of the divine.”30 e Lectionary continues the process. In addition to the interplay between texts contained in the Lectionary, the proclamation of biblical passages in the context of liturgy generates new meaning in the interplay between the ancient texts and the assembled community. By hearing the words of Scripture made alive in their midst and by opening themselves to their transforming power, the believing community both write themselves into the story and is in turned shaped by the story. e result is a new text or narrative, a combination of old and new.31 Never before has the specific interplay between these texts and these people occurred, never will it occur again in this particular way, for liturgy celebrates God’s salvation made present and effective for this community here and now assembled.32 7. The Architecture of the Sunday Lectionary Particularly in the festal seasons, perhaps less so in Ordinary Time,33 the Sunday Lectionary has what could be called an architecture – passages are patterned to meet the aims of the liturgy. For example, the gospel readings for the Sundays of Lent are arranged as follows: in all 30. Gerard S, “e Lectionary as a Context for Interpretation,” in Int 31 (1977) 131-138, p. 133. 31. Louis-Marie C, “What Makes the Liturgy Biblical? – Texts,” in SL  22 (1992) 121-133, p. 128; Kevin W. I, Context and Text (n. 4), p. 96. 32. Achille M. T, “Bible et Liturgie,” in Domenico S – Achille M. T (eds.), DEL, Vol. 1 (A-L), French adaptation under the direction of Henri D, Turnhout, Brepols – Montréal, Sciences et culture, 1992, 129-144, p. 138. 33. For an analysis of the selection process of gospel pericopes for the Sundays in Ordinary Time, see my article “e Synoptic Gospels in the Sunday Lectionary: Ordinary Time,” in QL/SL 75 (1994) 154-169, reproduced in this volume as Chapter 4.

  

47

three Years A, B and C, the First Sunday recounts the Temptation of Jesus (Matthew’s version in Year A, Mark’s in Year B, Luke’s in Year C) while the Second Sunday relates the Transfiguration (again, Matthew’s version in Year A, etc.). e two episodes present a diptych, functioning as an overture to the entire Lent-Easter cycle, the Temptation conjuring up Jesus’ struggle against evil, sin and death, the Transfiguration hinting at Jesus’ risen glory. e ird, Fourth and Fih Sundays, however, diverge. In Year A, the three episodes from John’s Gospel – the Samaritan Woman at the Well, the Healing of the Man Born Blind, and the Raising of Lazarus – are oriented to the candidates for initiation. Paired with the scrutinies of the RCIA, these passages present stories of what happens when someone meets the Lord. ey are models of coming to faith through which the candidates can interpret their own faith journey. In terms of the gospel readings, Baptism means passing over from sin, darkness and death into grace, light and life.34 In Year B, the selections for these three Sundays are once again all drawn from John’s Gospel. Here, however, the focus is more directly on the paschal mystery of Jesus. e three episodes offer interpretations of the death-resurrection, all in Jesus’ own words: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (ird Sunday); “And just as Moses lied up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lied up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life” (Fourth Sunday); “[...] unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain: but if it dies, it bears much fruit. ose who love their life lose it, and those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life” (Fih Sunday). e Year C gospel excerpts for the ird, Fourth and Fih Sundays of Lent underline the theme of repentance and conversion. e episode of the fallen tower of Siloam, the Parable of the Prodigal Son, and the incident of the woman caught in adultery all have repentance as a refrain, a reminder to the faithful that baptismal commitment needs to be continually deepened and reappropriated. Over the three Lectionary Years, then, the gospels pace the community through the most important facets of the Lenten journey, our passing over through death to new life.

34. On these three readings and the scrutinies, see ierry M, “History and Function of the ree Great Pericopes: e Samaritan Woman, the Man Born Blind, and the Raising of Lazarus,” in Conc 22 (1967) 51-56; Robert D. D, “Coming to Know Jesus Christ: e First Scrutiny,” in Cat 10/2 (1988) 2-10; Idem, “God Towers Over Evil: e Second Scrutiny,” in Cat 11/1 (1989) 2-8; Mark S, “For the Glory of God: e Scrutiny for the Fih Sunday of Lent,” in Cat 10/1 (1988) 40-48.

48

 

e Old Testament readings have their own special arrangement and role as described in the 1981 “Introduction to the Lectionary for Mass”: e Old Testament readings are about the history of salvation, which is one of the themes proper to the catechesis of Lent. e series of texts for each Year presents the main elements of salvation history from its beginning until the promise of the New Covenant (§97).

Except for Year C,35 the First Sunday of Lent presents an excerpt from primeval history: in Year A, the Fall of Adam and Eve; in Year B, the Covenant with Noah. e Old Testament texts for the Second Sunday all relate an episode from the story of Abraham. On the ird Sunday, Moses is the focal point. Israel in the promised land, from the time of Joshua to the Exile, is the theme for the Fourth Sunday. Finally, the Fih Sunday offers prophecies of the promised eschatological end time. is sweep of salvation history anticipates the similar recounting at the Easter Vigil. As part of the Lenten Liturgy of the Word, the pattern suggests that in his paschal mystery, Jesus embraces not only the story of the people of Israel (Sundays Two through Four), but also incorporates the entire human race (primeval history on the First Sunday). e second readings from the Apostolic writings, in addition to providing interpretations of the paschal mystery and models for how the faithful can appropriate it in their lives, oen link the first and third readings. A good example occurs on the First Sunday of Lent Year A. Paired with the Matthean version of Jesus’ Temptation is the story of the temptation of Adam and Eve. Exploiting the parallel between the two, the second reading from Romans 5 elaborates the Adam/Christ typology: whereas the first Adam was tempted and succumbed, the last Adam remained faithful not only through temptation but even unto death. If Adam marks the beginning of the first creation, characterized by sin and death, the risen Christ stands as the first fruits of the new creation whose hallmarks are grace and life. Similar links can be found in most of the Sundays of Lent. As with Lent, the Lectionary selections for the other liturgical seasons have their particular architecture designed according to liturgical aims. Preparing liturgy, therefore, requires discerning the overarching themes of a season. As a consequence, for example, “biblical” homilies do not for

35. On this Sunday, the first reading is the ancient Israelite credo from Deut 26:4-10. Although it was considered too important a passage to be excluded from the Sunday Lectionary, its fit here is somewhat less obvious than the other two OT selections in Years A and B for the First Sunday of Lent.

  

49

all that fulfill their task; they must be liturgical as well.36 Looking at the Lectionary offerings in terms of seasonal patterns can greatly mitigate the mosaic, piece-meal flavor of its highly selective way of using Scripture. 8. Conclusion e Sunday and Feast Day Lectionary is not perfect. It remains, however, a remarkable achievement. Never before in the history of Christianity had such a thorough and thought-through revision of a lectionary been done. Surely the 1960s, with the flourishing of liturgical, catechetical and biblical ferment and research, presented a ripe opportunity that simply was not possible in earlier decades and centuries. On the other hand, the Lectionary is very much a product of its time. e members of Coetus XI were all men, mostly from Europe with only a few from North America, with no representatives from other continents. Two-thirds were French-speaking. e Lectionary, therefore, reflects the state of the church and of scholarship of the 1960s. Despite its inevitable limitations, the Sunday Lectionary’s return to earliest traditions, its renewed focus on the paschal mystery, its richer fare of Scripture, and its liturgical architecture make it a notable chapter in the history of lectionaries. Reflecting on the final product, Adrien Nocent, one of the members of Coetus XI opines: When one thinks about it carefully, this massive introduction of Scripture in the missal, Scripture which is therefore made available to most of the faithful, without a doubt constitutes the most spectacular renewal the Council has done for the liturgy. Reaching beyond rubrical and ceremonial aspects, and consequently less immediately apparent, this profound revision is destined to change, in the long run yet ineluctably, the theological mentality and even the spirituality of Catholics.37

In the face of such rich fare of Scripture, he continues, systematic theology will take second place to a more biblically- and patristically-informed 36. “[...] the vitality and life-sustaining meaning of a scriptural text is at once influenced by and independent of its setting within a biblical book. us it is important to interpret it not only in relation to its original audience but also in light of where and how it is used in liturgy today. is is to argue that the liturgical context affects the interpretation of scriptural texts and that the proclamation of the same scriptural text in differing contemporary contexts requires interpreting that text in light of the differing liturgical settings in which it is used,” Kevin W. I, Context and Text (n.  4), p.  94-95 [emphasis in original]. See also Gerard S, “e Lectionary as a Context for Interpretation” (n. 30). 37. N, “La Parole de Dieu et Vatican II” (n. 27), p. 136 [my translation].

50

 

world view. Sacramental theology will be enriched, increasingly eschewing a “mechanistic” understanding of the sacraments. Catechesis will take Scripture as its starting point. Reading the biblical texts on Sunday aer Sunday will spur the development of a full-fledged theology of proclamation. Homilies will necessarily focus on the Lord who “is speaking when the Scripture is read in church” (SC §7).38 ese optimistic predictions have not yet come to pass, at least to the degree hoped for. In part, liabilities lie with the Lectionary itself, particularly the disjointed effect it creates and the morsel-size nature of its offerings. However, the somewhat mitigated influence it has enjoyed thus far is also due in great part to a certain lack of understanding of its liturgical nature and of its liturgical architecture. Because the Lectionary is the product of a liturgical appropriation of Scripture, liturgical principles always have the first say, both in the selection and distribution of passages.39 e “liturgical appropriation” is not a foreign and distorting use of the Bible, for the liturgy is the atmosphere in which the Scriptures live, the air they breathe to come alive.40 Liturgy is the Bible in action; it is the Bible transformed from letter to spirit, from past record to present event toward a promised future, ever yielding new meaning out of the ancient text. If liturgy is Scripture’s home,41 then the Lectionary is Scripture’s liturgical architecture.

38. N, “La Parole de Dieu et Vatican II” (n. 27), p. 136-138. 39. For more on this, see Chapter 1 above, “e Bible and Liturgy.” 40. Achille M. T, “Bible et Liturgie” (n. 32), p. 138; Aimé Georges M, “e Dialogue Between God and His People,” in Aimé Georges M (ed.), The Church at Prayer (n. 17) 131-171, p. 140: “e Bible and the liturgy show the same attitude of human beings to God, the same vision of the world and interpretation of history, so much so that there can be no liturgical life without an introduction to the Bible, while the liturgy in turn provides the Bible with a living commentary that enables it to manifest its full meaning.” 41. Aidan K, Elements of Rite: Handbook of Liturgical Style, New York, Pueblo, 1982, p. 36: “e liturgy was not viewed [in antiquity] as scripture’s step-child but as scripture’s home.” See also his On Liturgical Theology, New York, Pueblo, 1984, p. 119.

PART II

PARTICULAR STUDIES

C 

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS IN THE SUNDAY LECTIONARY Ordinary Time 1. Introduction e Vatican II revision of the Sunday and Feast Day Lectionary aimed to restore the liturgical proclamation of Scripture to the prominence it had enjoyed in the early church. e reform of the Lectionary was a thorough one that in the final analysis might well emerge as the most spectacular and far-reaching of all the liturgical reforms inspired by the Council.1 Among the several new features of the revised Sunday Lectionary, the most conspicuous is the three-year cycle of readings. e cycle is based on the assigning of a Synoptic Gospel to each Lectionary Year: Matthew to Year A, Mark to Year B, and Luke to Year C. is pattern is particularly evident during the Sundays in Ordinary Time. Paragraph 105 of the 1981 “Introduction to the Lectionary for Mass” (henceforth ILM) explains the principles underlying the current arrangement: [b]eginning with the ird Sunday, there is a semicontinuous reading of the Synoptic Gospels. is reading is arranged in such a way that as the Lord’s life and preaching unfold the teaching proper to each of these Gospels is presented.2

In this short statement, the ILM first mentions the adoption of a semicontinuous reading pattern as the selection and distribution principle of the Synoptic Gospels for the Sundays in Ordinary Time. Follows a sentence providing the rationale for proceeding in this way: to respect “the teaching proper to each of these Gospels”. Both sentences invite comment. 1. Adrien N, “La parole de Dieu et Vatican II,” in Pierre J – Reiner K – Gottardo Pi (eds.), Liturgia, opera divine e umana: Studi sulla riforma liturgica offerti a S. E. Mons. Annibale Bugnini in occasione del suo 70 e compleanno (BELS, 2), Roma, Editione Liturgiche, 1982, 133-149, p. 141. 2. “Introduction [to the]: Lectionary for Mass,” The Liturgy Documents: Essential Documents for Parish Worship, Vol. 1, Chicago, IL, LTP, 2012, 325-363.

54

 

A semicontiunous arrangement of the Gospels for the Sundays in Ordinary Time is in contrast to the selection and arrangement of gospel passages for solemnities (e.g., Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, Pentecost) and for the festal seasons (Advent, Christmas, Lent, and Easter) of the liturgical year. In these high liturgical moments, the selection and distribution of gospel passages is determined by the themes of the solemnity or of the festal season being celebrated, that is, those aspects of the mystery of Christ that primarily revolve around the mysteries of the incarnation and the redemption. e Sundays in Ordinary Time, for their part, celebrate the mystery of Christ “without any further specification”. 3 Instead, these Sundays recount Jesus’ public ministry as narrated in each of the three Synoptic Gospels, a sequence running from his baptism to his arrest in Jerusalem.4 Semicontinuous reading is a modern adaptation of the ancient practice of lectio continua, the serial reading of an entire biblical book divided into sequential pericopes and read over a series of sequential Sabbaths or Sundays. Like lectio continua, semicontinuous reading features the reading of sequential passages from a biblical book, all the while omitting some verses or pericopes – the reading is continuous but not entire (hence, semi). For the Sundays in Ordinary Time, two of the three readings, the second from the Apostolic writings and the third from the Gospels, are arranged according to this principle of selection and distribution.5 Because the arrangement is semicontinuous, some of gospel pericopes relating Jesus’ public ministry have been omitted, as a rapid tally of the number of verses drawn from each Synoptic Gospel in their respective Years shows: of the 862 verses contained in Matthew’s version of Jesus’ public ministry (chapters 3–25), only 346 (40%) are read over the Sundays in Ordinary Time Year A; for Mark (chapters 1–13), 248 of 539 (46%) in Year B; for Luke (chapters 3–21) 337 of 843 verses (40%) in Year

3. Pierre J, “Sunday and the Week,” in Irénée Henri D – Pierre J – Aimé Georges M (eds.), The Church at Prayer: An Introduction to the Liturgy, Vol. IV: The Liturgy and Time (New Edition), trans. by Matthew J. O’C, Collegeville, MN, e Liturgical Press, 1986, 11-29, p. 23. 4. In the annual liturgical cycle, the Sundays in Ordinary Time number from 33 to 34 Sundays divided into two sections: from the Baptism of Jesus to the beginning of Lent, resumed aer Pentecost through to the beginning of the new liturgical year in Advent (ILM §103). Unlike the festal seasons of Advent, Christmas, Lent, and Easter, the Sundays in Ordinary Time do not have a “distinctive character” (ILM §67). As a result, “the decision was made not to extend to Sundays [in Ordinary Time] the arrangement suited to the liturgical seasons mentioned […].” 5. ILM §§66.3, 67, 105, 107.

      

55

C. us, less than half of the account of Jesus’ public ministry is read in each Year of the Lectionary’s three-year cycle.6 In light of the above tabulations, questions arise. Does a semicontinuous reading of the Synoptic Gospels for these Sundays offer an adequate account of the content of Jesus’ public ministry? As well, does it provide a suitable sampling so as to highlight each Gospel’s distinctive style and theological interpretation of this ministry? Underlying these questions is a more basic query: What guided the members of Coetus XI, the committee of the Vatican II Consilium on liturgical reform,7 in their task of selecting and assigning gospel passages for the Sundays in Ordinary Time? In his study of the gospels in the Sunday Lectionary, Vincent Truijen suggests that the selection of pericopes from the first three Gospels was done on the basis of a synopsis: “Il semble bien qu’on a fait usage d’une synopse pour établir le lectionnaire des évangiles synoptiques, afin que rien d’essentiel ne soit omis.”8 In what follows, I aim to show that Truijen’s intuition is fundamentally correct: the designers of the Lectionary used a synopsis to determine the selection and distribution of Synoptic Gospel passages for the Sundays in Ordinary Time. To show how this is in fact the case, I determine that, despite each Lectionary Year presenting less than half of the public ministry of Jesus from each Synoptic Gospel respectively, the pericopes from these Gospels that in fact appear in the Lectionary Sundays in Ordinary Time, when viewed synoptically as a unified whole over the three Lectionary Years, present approximately 70% of the episodes, in one version or another, that constitute Jesus’ ministry. As well, despite the many omissions, the passages appearing in each Lectionary Year succeed in highlighting each evangelist’s distinctive style and theological emphases. To support my contention, I merge two different yet related synoptic investigations, the first regarding the Synoptic Gospels themselves, the second

6. Further on these omissions, see Simone F, “Les lectures d’Évangile ou les textes disjoints,” in FoiVie 82 (1983) 59-75. 7. For information on Coetus XI and its work in reforming the several Lectionaries for Mass, see Annibale B, The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975, trans. by Matthew J. O’C, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1990; Elmar N, Entstehung und Bewertung der neuen Perikopenordnung des Römischen Ritus für die Meßfeier an Sonnund Festtagen, Paderborn, Bonifatius, 1986; Claude W, “L’élaboration du lectionnaire dominical et la consultation de 1967,” in MD 166 (1986) 37-46. 8. Vincent T, “Les évangiles du lectionnaire de la Messe,” in QL(P) 65 (1984) 213-232, p. 228. Other helpful studies on the use of the gospels in the Sunday Lectionary: Jean P, “Les évangiles du dimanche,” in MD  166 (1986) 107-117; Marie-Josèphe R, “Les évangiles dans le lectionnaire du dimanche,” in QF 21-22 (1985) 95-107.

56

 

dealing with the selection and distribution of the passages that actually appear in the Sundays in Ordinary Time. e first investigation, a study of the interrelationships among the first three canonical Gospels, yields the four sources out of which these Gospels are composed, including Jesus’ public ministry (Matthew 3–25; Mark 1–13; Luke 3–21). To do so, I list in the tables below all the episodes that constitute the public ministry of Jesus in the three Synoptic Gospels in turn, indicating the source of the saying or the episode from which each incident is drawn. e second investigation consists in a synoptic examination of the gospel passages as they appear in all three Years of Sundays in Ordinary Time, superimposing the results of this second investigation in bold print on the complete list of pericopes resulting from the first investigation. 2. The Four Sources of the Synoptic Gospels: Triple Tradition, Q, M, and L e designation “Synoptic Gospels” refers to the first three canonical Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, because of their basic similarity – they present a great amount of common material in roughly the same order.9 e comparison is best done by printing the gospel texts side by side in parallel columns in a book called a synopsis which permits scholars to study the first three Gospels together or “syn-optically”. Synopses, however, are not neutral. ey are visual tools illustrating one or another theory of gospel formation and of gospel interrelationships. Most synopses espouse what biblical scholars have come to call “the two-document hypothesis”.10 According to this theory of gospel formation, Mark is the earliest of the three Synoptic Gospels. Matthew and Luke used Mark as the main source for their narratives, with Matthew incorporating and adapting approximately 9. According to Werner Georg K, “e name was introduced in 1776 by J. J. Griesbach in his Synopse, where the parallel texts of the first three Gospels are printed beside one another for comparison,” in Introduction to the New Testament, rev. ed., trans. by Howard Clark K, Nashville, TN, Abingdon, 1975, p. 36. See also Christopher M. T, “Synoptic Problem,” in David Noel F (ed.), ABD, Vol. VI, New York – London – Toronto – Sydney – Auckland, Doubleday, 1992, 263-270, p. 263. 10. A standard synopsis in Greek is Kurt A’s Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, Stuttgart, Deutsche Biblestiung, 1976. For an example of a synopsis illustrating a modified theory of gospel formation, see Pierre B – Marie-Émile B, Synopse des quatre Évangiles en français, 2 Vols., Paris, Cerf, 1972. For a synopsis designed for literary purposes rather than for displaying a theory of gospel formation, see Robert W. F, New Gospel Parallels: Volume One, The Synoptic Gospels, Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1985.

      

57

80% of Mark, Luke about 65%. Scholars name those instances where all three recount the same stories the triple tradition (T). us Mark is one of the two documents of the two-document hypothesis that the authors of Matthew and Luke used in composing their stories of Jesus. Matthew and Luke, however, are nearly twice as long as Mark. Triple tradition material accounts for approximately 50% of Matthew, 35% of Luke. Where does the rest of the material that constitutes these two Gospels come from? e remaining material found in Matthew and Luke, but that does not originate from Mark, is of two kinds: material they both have in common (representing about 20% of each Gospel), and material that is unique to each one (representing about 30% of Matthew and about 45% of Luke).11 e 20% that Matthew and Luke have in common and that does not come from Mark is called the double tradition or “Q” (from the first letter of the German word Quelle meaning “source”). In addition to Mark, then, both Matthew and Luke had access to another (hypothetical) document that contained a collection of mostly sayings of Jesus. is sayings material, which the two evangelists incorporated in their retelling of the Jesus story, constitutes the second documentary source – Mark being the other – of the two-document hypothesis. If one were to remove all the triple tradition material (T) and all the double tradition material (Q) from Matthew and from Luke, there would still be approximately 30% of Matthew and 45% of Luke unaccounted for. e remaining percentages represent material peculiar to each gospel writer. For the sake of convenience scholars identify the material unique to Matthew with the letter “M” and the material unique to Luke with the letter “L”. us, all the material in the Synoptic Gospels comes from four sources: T (or Mark), Q, M, and L, the first two of which were in the form of written documents. 3. Jesus’ Public Ministry in the Lectionary’s Three-Year Cycle It is most likely this two-document hypothesis of Synoptic Gospel relationships and of gospel formation that informed the members of Coetus XI (the post-Vatican II committee for Lectionary revision) in their task.12 11. For most of these statistics, see Frans N, “Synoptic Problem,” in Raymond E. B – Joseph A. F – Roland E. M (eds.), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, London, Geoffrey Chapman, 1989, 587-595, p. 588. For a helpful visualization of these Synoptic relationships, see the chart by Alan B, A Diagram of Synoptic Relationships, Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1976 [1938]. 12. is hypothesis enjoys a consensus among New Testament scholars today. See for example Christopher M. T, Reading the New Testament: Methods of Interpretation,

58

 

If such is the case, to understand how they proceeded in determining the selection and distribution of gospel material for the Sundays in Ordinary Time requires studying all three Years of these Sundays synoptically, that is, to appraise them as one unit. In this way, all the passages regarding the public ministry of Jesus that appear in the three Lectionary Years of the Sundays in Ordinary time can be identified against the full list of the passages from the Synoptic Gospels that constitute Jesus’ public ministry. Merging and coordinating the two lists resulting from the two investigations will show that over the three-year cycle of Ordinary Time Sundays, fully 70% of the sayings and episodes that constitute the public ministry of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels (roughly 70% of each source T, Q, M, and L) appears in the Lectionary. 4. The Tables e tables contain two features and five columns. Feature A. e tables list all the items from all three Synoptic Gospels (in their canonical order of Matthew, Mark, and Luke) that relate the public ministry of Jesus: Matthew 3–25, Mark 1–13, and Luke 3–21.13 Feature B. e lists for Matthew and for Luke are divided into sections highlighting major compositional features of each. Matthew garners most of Jesus’ teaching into five discourses separated by narrative segments. Luke introduces a long journey sequence between Jesus’ ministry in Galilee and his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. ere are no obvious compositional patterns in Mark. Columns 1 and 2 list in sequence all the pericopes from Jesus’ public ministry found in each of the three Synoptic Gospels in turn. e chapter and verse numbers appear in the first column, followed by a short title identifying the content of the pericope in the second column.14 Entries in bold print indicate the pericopes that appear in the Sunday Lectionary. Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1987, p. 79-84. However, it is still disputed, as a number of exegetes remain unconvinced, challenging the two pillars of the two-document hypothesis: the existence of “Q” and the priority of Mark. Nevertheless, even if this theory accounting for the formation of the gospels should prove to be incorrect, the parallels among the synoptics remain. Irrespective of the gospel formation theory espoused, the members of Coetus XI succeeded in selecting and distributing the widest assortment of synoptic material possible, as the tables below show. 13. e Sunday Lectionary assigns excerpts from the infancy narratives of Matthew 1–2 and Luke 1–2 to the Advent-Christmas cycle, the passion and resurrection narratives to Holy Week and Eastertide. 14. ese pericope divisions and titles are drawn, with minor adaptations, from Burton H. T Jr. (ed.), Gospel Parallels: A Synopsis of the First Three Gospels, New York, NY, Nelson, 1979.

      

59

Column 3 contains the number of the Sunday in Ordinary Time on which the particular pericope appears. For example, pericopes numbered 9 and 10 from Matthew’s list (Matthew 5:1-2 and 5:3-12 on the Beatitudes) are read on Ordinary Time Sunday 4, Year A (Year A because they are in Matthew’s list). A pericope that does not appear in the Sunday Lectionary is presented in regular print. If a parallel account of that passage from one of the other two Gospels appears in the Lectionary, the number of the Sunday and the letter designating the Lectionary Year are included in parentheses immediately aer the title of the pericope. For example, entry 21 in Matthew’s list, Matthew 6:9-15 on the Lord’s Prayer, is in regular print, indicating that it does not appear in the Sundays in Ordinary Time Year A. e Lucan parallel of the Lord’s Prayer, however, appears on the 17th Sunday in Year C. is is indicated by the number 17 and the letter C in parentheses aer the title in entry 21 on Matthew’s list. Such cross-referencing is provided throughout the lists of all three Gospels to facilitate the identification of those parallels contained in the Lectionary. Column 4 presents numbers and letters in bold print. ese entries indicate the number of the Sunday and the letter corresponding to the Lectionary Year in which a parallel of that pericope also appears. For example, entry number 4 in Matthew’s table, Matthew 3:13-17 on the Baptism of Jesus, shows 1B, 1C in the fourth column. is indicates that the Markan parallel account of the Lord’s Baptism appears on the first Sunday in Ordinary Time Year B, and the Lukan parallel on the first Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C. Such cross-referencing occurs throughout the tables. Column 5 contains information regarding the source of the pericope: T = triple tradition; Q = double tradition; M = material peculiar to Matthew; L = material unique to Luke.15 When Matthew alone incorporates a Markan pericope while Luke does not, the source indication is Mt+Mk, signifying that the pericope appears only in Mark and Matthew. When Luke alone incorporates a Markan pericope while Matthew does not, the source indication is Lk+Mk, signifying that the pericope appears in Mark and Luke only. 15. Because many pericopes, especially in Matthew and Luke, contain material from more than one source, these letters indicate only the principal sources of the passage. In a number of instances, it was not possible to indicate every verse of “Q”. is is due to the nature of this hypothetical source, containing as it does mostly sayings which Matthew and Luke distributed in very different ways (and oen redacted differently as well). For example, a mostly triple tradition passage in Matthew might contain a verse or two of “Q”, while a mostly “L” passage in Luke might contain a verse or more of “Q”. Moreover, scholars are not agreed on the content of “Q”. e identification of “Q” in the tables here relies for the most part on Ivan H, Q: The Sayings of Jesus (GNS, 19), Wilmington, DE, Michael Glazier, 1987.

60

  MATTHEW’S GOSPEL IN ORDINARY TIME – YEAR A NARRATIVE

Pericope #

Pericope Title

1. 3:16 2. 3:7-10

John the Baptist (2 Advent A) John Preaches Repentance (2 Advent A) John’s Messianic Preaching (2 Advent) (1C) Baptism of Jesus Temptation of Jesus (1 Lent A) Witness of John the Baptist First Preaching in Galilee Call of the First Disciples Preaching Tour in Galilee

3. 3:11-12 4. 3:13-17 5. 4:1-11 (Jn 1:19-34 6. 4:12-17 7. 4:18-22 8:23-25

Sunday Parallel Source T Q

1

1B,1C

T Q

2) 3 3

3B,3C 3B,5C

T T T

DISCOURSE 9. 5:1-2 10. 5:3-12 11. 5:13-16 12. 5:17-20 13. 5:21-26 14. 5:27-30 15. 5:31-32 16. 5:33-37 17. 5:38-42 18. 5:43-48 19. 6:1-4 20. 6:5-8 21. 6:9-15 22. 6:16-18 23. 6:19-21 24. 6:22-23 25. 6:24 26. 6:25-34 27. 7:1-5 28. 7:6 29. 7:7-11 30. 7:12

Intro to Sermon on the Mount Beatitudes Parables of Salt and Light Words of Jesus on the Law On Murder On Adultery On Divorce On Swearing On Retaliation Love One’s Enemies On Almsgiving On Prayer Lord’s Prayer (17C) On Fasting On Treasures (19C) e Sound Eye Serving Two Masters On Anxiety On Judging (7C) On Profaning the Holy God’s Answering of Prayer (17C) “e Golden Rule” (7C)

4 4 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 7

8 8

6C

7C

Q Q T+Q M Q Mt+Mk T M Q Q M M Q M Q Q Q Q Q M Q Q

       31. 7:13-14 32. 7:15-20 33. 7:21-33 34. 7:24-27 35. 7:28-29

e Narrow Gate (21C) Test of a Good Person (8C) Warning against Self-Deception Hearers and Doers of the Word End of Sermon on the Mount

61 Q Q Q Q Q

9 9

NARRATIVE 36. 8:1-4 37. 8:5-13 38. 8:14-15 39. 8:16-17 40. 8:18-22 41. 8:23-27 42. 8:28-34 43. 9:1-8 44. 9:9-13 45. 9:14-17 46. 9:18-26 47. 9:27-31 48. 9:32-34

Healing of a Leper (6B) e Centurion’s Servant (9C) Peter’s Mother-in-Law (5B) Sick Healed at Evening (5B) Nature of Discipleship (13C) Calming of the Storm (12B) Gadarene Demoniacs Healing of a Paralyzed Man (7B) Call of Levi Question about Fasting (8B) Jairus’s Daughter and a Woman’s Faith (13B) Two Blind Men Healed Healing of a Dumb Demoniac

T Q T T T T T T T T T

10

T Q

DISCOURSE 49. 9:35-10:8 9:9-16 50. 10:17-25 51. 10:26-33 52. 10:34-36 53. 10:37-39 54. 10:40-11:1

Sending of the Twelve Sending of the Twelve (sequel) Fate of the Disciples (33C) Fearless Confession Division in Households (20C) Conditions of Discipleship End of the Discourse

11

12 13 13

15B

T+Q T+Q T Q Q T+Q Q

NARRATIVE 55. 11:2-6 56. 11:7-19 57. 11:20-24 58. 11:25-27

John’s Question to Jesus (3 Advent A) Jesus’ Words about John (3 Advent A) Woes on the Cities of Galilee Jesus’ Thanksgiving to the Father

Q Q

14

Q Q

62 59. 11:28-30 60. 12:1-8 61. 12:9-14 62. 12:15-21 63. 12:22-24 64. 12:25-37 65. 12:38-42 66. 12:43-45 67. 12:46-50

  Comfort for the Heavy-laden Plucking Grain on the Sabbath (9B) Man with a Withered Hand (9B) Jesus Heals the Multitude Accusations against Jesus (10B) A House Divided (10B) Against Seeking for Signs Return of the Evil Spirit Jesus’ True Relatives (10B)

14

M T T T T+Q T+Q T+Q Q T

DISCOURSE 68. 13:1-9 69. 13:10-15 70. 13:16-17 71. 13:18-23 72. 13:24-30 73. 13:31-32 74. 13:33 75. 13:34-35 76. 13:36-43 77. 13:44-46 78. 13:47-50 79. 13:51-52 80. 13:53-58

Parable of the Sower Reason for Parables Blessedness of the Disciples Interpretation of the Sower Parable of the Weeds Parable of the Mustard Seed Parable of the Leaven Jesus’ Use of Parables Interpretation of Parable of the Weeds Parables of the Hidden Treasure and Pearl Parable of the Net Parable of the Householder Jesus Rejected at Nazareth (14B, 4C)

15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 16

11B 11B

T T Q T M T Q M+T M

17

M

17 17

M M T

NARRATIVE 81. 14:1-2 82. 14:3-12 83. 14:13-21 84. 14:22-33 85. 14:34-36 86. 15:1-20 87. 15:21-28 88. 15:29-31 89. 15:32-39

Herod inks Jesus is John Death of John the Baptist Feeding of the 5000 Jesus Walks on Water Healings at Gennesaret What Defiles a Person (22B) Canaanite Woman’s Daughter Healing of Many (23B) Feeding of the 4000

18 19

20

T T T Mt+Mk Mt+Mk Mt+Mk Mt+Mk Mt+Mk Mt+Mk

       90. 16:1-4 91. 16:5-12 92. 16:13-20 93. 16:21-28 94. 17:1-8 95. 17:9-13 96. 17:14-21 97. 17:22-23 98. 17:24-27

Pharisees Seek a Sign Discourse on Leaven Peter’s Confession and Primacy Passion Prediction (1), Discipleship Transfiguration (2 Lent A) e Coming of Elijah Healing of a Boy with Epilepsy Passion Prediction (2) (25B) Temple Tax

21 22

63

Mt+Mk Mt+Mk 24B,12C T+M 12C T T Mt+Mk T T M

DISCOURSE 99. 18:1-5 100. 18:6-9 101. 18:10-14 102. 18:15-29 103. 18:21-22 104. 18:23-35

Dispute about Greatness (25B) On Temptations (26B) Lost Sheep (24C) On Reproving One’s Brother/ Sister On Reconciliation Parable of the Unmerciful Servant

23

T T Q M

24 24

Q M

25

Mt+Mk T T M

NARRATIVE 105. 19:1-12 106. 19:13-15 107. 19:16-30 108. 20:1-16 109. 20:17-19 110. 20:20-28 111. 20:29-34 112. 21:1-9 113. 21:10-17 114. 21:18-19 115. 21:20-22 116. 21:23-27 117. 21:28-32 118. 21:33-43 119. 21:44-45

Marriage and Divorce (27B) Jesus Blesses the Children (27B) e Rich Young Man (28B) Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard Passion Prediction (3) Sons of Zebedee (29B) Healing of Two Blind Men (30B) Entry into Jerusalem (Passion Sunday A) Jesus in the Temple (Jn 2:13-25, 3 Lent B) Cursing of the Fig Tree Meaning of the Withered Tree Question about Authority Parable of the Two Sons Parable of the Wicked Tenants Seeking to Arrest Jesus

T Mt+Mk T T T

26 27

Mt+Mk Mt+Mk T M T T

64

 

120. 22:1-14 121. 22:15-22 122. 22:23-33 123. 22:34-40 124. 22:41-46 125. 23:1-12 126. 23:13-26

Parable of the Marriage Feast Tribute to Caesar On Resurrection (32C) The Great Commandment About David’s Son Against Hypocrisy and Ambition Woes against the Pharisees (32B)

28 29 30

31B,15C

31

Q T T T T T T+Q

DISCOURSE 127. 24:1-3 128. 24:4-8 129. 24:9-14 130. 24:15-22 131. 24:23-25 132. 24:26-28 133. 24:29-31 134. 24:32-33 135. 24:34-36 136. 24:37-41 137. 24:42-44 138. 24:45-51 139. 25:1-13 140. 25:14-30 141. 25:31-46

Prediction against the Temple (33C) Signs of the Parousia (33C) Beginnings of the Troubles (33C) Desolating Sacrilege Culmination of the Troubles Day of the Son of Man Parousia of the Son of Man (33B) Parable of the Fig Tree (33B) Time of the Parousia (33B) Need for Watchfulness (1 Advent A) The Watchful Householder (19C) e Faithful and Wise Servant (19C Parable of the Ten Maidens Parable of the Talents Parable of the Last Judgment

T T T T Mt+Mk Q T T T Q Q Q 32 33 34

M Q M

MARK’S GOSPEL IN ORDINARY TIME – YEAR B 1. 1:1-6 2. 1:7-8 3. 1:9-11 4. 1:12-13 (Jn 1:35-42 5. 1:14-15 6. 1:16-20

John the Baptist (2 Advent B) John’s Messianic Preaching Baptism of Jesus Temptation (1 Lent B) Call of Andrew and Peter First Preaching in Galilee Call of the First Disciples

1 1

1C 1A,1C

2) 3 3

3A,3C

T T T T T T

       7. 1:21-28 8. 1:29-31 9. 1:32-34 10. 1:35-38 11. 1:39 12. 1:40-45 13. 2:1-12 14: 2:13-17 15. 2:18-22 16. 2:23-28 17. 3:1-6 18. 3:7-12 19. 3:13-19 20. 3:20-22 21. 3:23-30 22. 3:31-35 23. 4:1-9 24. 4:11-12 25. 4:13-20 26. 4:21-25 27. 4:26-29 28. 4:30-32 29. 4:33-34 30. 4:35-41 31. 5:1-20 32. 5:21-43 33. 6:1-6 34. 6:7-13 35. 6:14-16 36. 6:17-29 37. 6:30-34 38. 6:35-44 39. 6:45-52 40. 6:53-56 (Jn 6:1-15 (Jn 6:24-35

In the Synagogue at Capernaum Healing of Peter’s Mother-inLaw Sick Healed at Evening Jesus Departs from Capernaum Preaching Journey in Galilee Healing of a Man with Leprosy Healing of a Paralyzed Man Call of Levi (10A) Question about Fasting Plucking Grain on the Sabbath Healing on the Sabbath Jesus Heals the Multitudes Call of the Twelve (11A) Accusations against Jesus A House Divided Jesus’ True Relatives Parable of the Sower (15A) Reason for Parables (15A) Interpretation of the Sower (15A) Purpose of Parables Parable of the Seed Growing Secretly Parable of the Mustard Seed Jesus’ Use of Parables Stilling of the Storm Gerasene Demoniac Jairus’ Daughter, Woman’s Faith Jesus Rejected at Nazareth Sending Out of the Twelve Herod inks Jesus is John Death of John Twelve Return, Compassion of the Crowd Feeding of the 5000 (18A) Walking on Water (19A) Healing at Gennesaret Feeding of the 5000 Bread of Life (1)

65

4

Mk+Lk

5

T

5 5 5 6 7

T Mk+Lk T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T Mk+Lk Mk

8 9 9

10 10 10

11 11 11 12 13 14 15

16

16A 16A

4C 11A

T Mk+Mt T T T T T T T T T Mk+Mt Mk+Mt

17) 18)

66 (Jn 6:41-51 (Jn 6:51-58 (Jn 6:61-70 41. 7:1 … 23 42. 7:24-30 43. 7:31-37 44. 8:1-10 45. 8:11-13 46. 8:14-21 47. 8:22-26 48. 8:27-35 49. 8:34-9:1 50. 9:2-8 51. 9:9-13 52. 9:14-29 53. 9:30-32 54. 9:33-37 55. 9:38-41 56. 9:42-48 57 9:49-50 58. 10:1-12 59. 10:13-16 60. 10:17-31 61. 10:32-34 62. 10:35-45 63. 10:46-52 64. 11:1-10 65. 11:11 66. 11:12-14 67. 11:15-19 68. 11:20-25 69. 11:27-33 70. 12:1-12 71. 12:13-17 72. 12:18-27

  Bread of Life (2) Bread of Life (3): Eucharist Incredulity and Faith What Defiles a Person Syrophoenician Woman (20A) Healing of a Deaf Mute Feeding of the 4000 Pharisees Seek a Sign Discourse on Leaven Blind Man of Bethsaida Peter’s Confession, Passion Prediction (1), Take Up One’s Cross Conditions of Discipleship (22A, 12C) Transfiguration (2 Lent B) e Coming of Elijah Epileptic Boy Healed Passion Prediction (2) Dispute about Greatness Strange Exorcist On Temptations Concerning Salt (5A) Marriage and Divorce Jesus Blesses the Children Rich Young Man Passion Prediction (3) Sons of Zebedee Healing of Bartimaeus Entry into Jerusalem (Passion Sunday B) Jesus in the Temple Cursing of the Fig Tree Cleansing of the Temple Meaning of the Withered Tree Question about Authority Parable of the Wicked Tenants (27A) Tribute to Caesar (29A) Question about Resurrection (32C)

19) 20) 21) 22 23

24

Mk+Mt Mk+Mt Mk Mk+Mt Mk+Mt Mk+Mt Mk 21A,12C T T

25 25 26 26 27 27 28 29 30

T Mk+Mt T T T T T T Mk+Mt T T T Mk+Mt T T T Mk+Mt T Mk+Mt T T T T

       73. 12:28-34 74. 12:35-37a 75. 12:37b-40 76. 12:41-44 77. 13:1-4 78. 13:5-8 79. 13:9-13 80. 13:14-20 81. 13:21-23 82. 13:24-27 83. 13:28-29 84. 13:30-32 85. 13:33-37 (Jn 18:33b-37

Greatest Commandment Question about David’s Son Woes against the Pharisees Widow’s Mite Prediction of Temple Destruction (33C) Signs of the Parousia (33C) Beginnings of the Troubles (33C) Desolating Sacrilege Culmination of the Troubles Parousia of the Son of Man Parable of the Fig Tree Time of the Parousia Ending to the Discourse: Watch! Pilate: Jesus is King of the Jews

31

30A,15C

32 32

67 T T T T T T T T Mk+Mt T T T T

33 33 33

34)

LUKE’S GOSPEL IN ORDINARY TIME – YEAR C GALILEAN MINISTRY 1. 3:1-6 2. 3:7-9 4. 3:10-14 4. 3:15…18 5. 3:19-20 6. 3:21-22 7. 3:23-38 8. 4:1-13 (Jn 2:1-12 9. 1:1-4,14-21 10. 4:16-30 11. 4:31-37 12. 4:38-39 13. 4:40-41 14. 4:42-43 15. 4:44

John the Baptist (2 Advent C) John’s Preaching of Repentance John’s Special Preaching (3 Advent C) John’s Messianic Preaching John’s Imprisonment Baptism of Jesus Genealogy of Jesus Temptation (1 Lent C) Miracle at Cana First Preaching in Galilee Rejection at Nazareth e Synagogue at Capernaum (4B) Healing of Peter’s Mother-inLaw (5B) Sick Healed at Evening (5B) Departs from Capernaum (5B) Preaching Journey in Galilee (5B)

T Q L 1 1

1A,1B

T T T Q

2) 3 4

3A,3B

T L T T T Lk+Mk T

68 16. 5:1-11 17. 5:12-16 18. 5:17-26 19. 5:27-32 20. 5:33-39 21. 6:1-5 22. 6:6-11 23. 6:12-16 24. 6:17-19 25. 6:17,20-23 26. 6:24-26 27. 6:27-38 28. 6:39-42 29. 6:43-45,46 30. 6:47-49 31. 7:1-10 32. 7:11-17 33. 7:18-23 34. 7:24-35 35. 7:36-50 36. 8:1-3 37. 8:4-8 38. 8:9-10 39. 8:11-15 40. 8:16-18 41. 8:19-21 42. 8:22-25 43. 8:26-39 44. 8:40-56 45. 9:1-6 46. 9:7-9 47. 9:10-17 48. 9:18-22

  Miraculous Catch; First Disciples Healing of a Man with Leprosy (6B) Healing of a Paralyzed Man (7B) Call of Levi (10A) Question about Fasting (8B) Plucking Grain on the Sabbath (9B) Healing of a Man with a Withered Hand (9B) Jesus Calls the Twelve (11A) Jesus Heals the Multitudes The Beatitudes The Woes Love One’s Enemies On Judging Test of Goodness Hearers and Doers of the Word (9A) The Centurion’s Servant The Widow of Nain John’s Question to Jesus (3 Advent A) Jesus’ Words about John The Woman with the Ointment The Ministering Women Parable of the Sower (15A) Reason for Parables (15A) Interpretation of the Sower (15A) Purpose of Parables Jesus’ True Relatives (10B Stilling of the Storm (12B) Gerasene Demoniac Jairus’ Daughter and Woman’s Faith (13B) Sending of the Twelve (11A, 15B) Herod inks Jesus is John Return of the Twelve, Feeding 5000 (18A) Peter’s Confession, Passion Prediction (1)

5

T+L T T T T T T

6 6 7 8 8

4A 7A

9 10

T T Q L Q Q Q Q Q L Q Q L L T T T Lk+Mk T T T T

11 11

T T T 12

21A,24B

T

       49. 9:23…26 50. 9:28-36 51. 9:37-43a 52. 9:43b-45 53. 9:46-48 54. 9:49-50

Conditions of Discipleship Transfiguration (2 Lent C) Epileptic Boy Healed Passion Prediction (2) (25B) Dispute about Greatness (25B) Strange Exorcist (26B)

12

21A

69 T T T T T T

LUKE’S TRAVEL NARRATIVE 55. 9:51-56 56. 9:57-62 57. 10:1...16 58. 10:16-20 59. 10:21-22 60. 10:23-24 61. 10:25-28 62. 10:29-37 63. 10:38-42 64. 11:1-4 65. 11:5-8 66. 11:9-13 67. 11:14-23 68. 11:24-26 69. 11:27-28 70. 11:29-32 71. 11:33-36 72. 11:37-12:1 73. 12:2-12 74. 12:13-21 75. 12:22-24 76. 12:32-45 77. 12:47-48 78. 12:49…56 79. 12:57-59 80. 13:1-9

The Samaritan Villagers The Nature of Discipleship Sending out the Seventy Return of the Seventy Jesus’ Gratitude to the Father (14A) Blessedness of the Disciples (15A) Lawyer’s Question Parable of the Good Samaritan Mary and Martha Lord’s Prayer The Friend at Midnight The Answer to Prayer Beelzebub Controversy (10B) Return of the Evil Spirit Blessedness of Jesus’ Mother Sign of this Generation Concerning Light (5A) Discourse against Pharisees Exhortation to Fearless Confession (12A) Parable of the Rich Fool Cares about Earthly Things (8A) Watchfulness and Faithfulness The Servant’s Wages Interpreting the Present Agreement with One’s Accuser (6A) Repentance or Destruction (3 Lent C)

13 13 14 14

15 15 16 17 17 17

L Q Q L Q

30A,31B

Q T L L Q L Q T+Q Q L T Q Q Q

18

L Q

19 19 20

Q L Q Q L

70 81. 13:10-17 82. 13:18-21 83. 13:22-30 84. 13:31-33 85. 13:34-35 86. 14:1-6 87. 14:1,7-14 88. 14:15-24 89. 14:25…35 90. 15:1-10 91. 15:1,11-32 92. 16:1-13 93. 16:14-15 94. 16;16-18 95. 16:19-31 96. 17-1-2 97. 17:3-4 98. 17:5-6 99. 17:7-10 100. 17:11-19 101. 17:20-21 102. 17:22-37 103. 18:1-8 104. 18:9-14 105. 18:15-17 106. 18:18-30 107. 18:31-34 108. 18:35-43 109. 19:1-10 110. 19:11-27

  Healing of a Woman with Infirmity Parables: Mustard Seed, Leaven (16A,11B) Exclusion from the Kingdom Departure from Galilee Lament over Jerusalem Healing of a Man with Dropsy Teaching on Humility Parable of the Great Supper (28A) Cost of Discipleship Parables: Lost Sheep, Coin Parable of the Prodigal Son Parable of the Unjust Steward Hypocrisy of the Pharisees Law and Divorce (6A, 27B) Parable: Rich Man and Lazarus On Causing Sin (26B) On Forgiveness On Faith The Servant’s Wages Healing of Ten Lepers On the Kingdom of God e Day of the Son of Man Parable of the Unjust Judge Parable: Pharisee and Publican Jesus Blesses the Children (27B) e Rich Young Man (28B) Passion Prediction (3) Healing of Bartimaeus (30B) Zacchaeus Parable of the Pounds (33A)

L T+Q 21

22 23 24 24 25

26

27 27 28

29 30

31

Q L Q T L Q Q Q+L L L L T L T Q Q L L L T L L T T T T L Q

JERUSALEM MINISTRY 111. 19:28-38 112. 19:39-44 113. 19:45-46

Entry into Jerusalem (Passion Sunday C) Prediction of Destruction of Jerusalem Jesus in the Temple

T L T

       114. 19:47-48 115. 20:1-8 116. 20:9-19 117. 20:20-26 118. 20:27-40 119. 20:41-44 120. 20:45-47 121. 21:1-4 122. 21:5-7 123. 21:8-11 124. 21:12-19 125. 21:20-24 126. 21:25-28 127. 21:29-31 128. 21:32-33 129. 21:34-36 130. 21:37-38 23:35-43

Cleansing of the Temple Question about Authority Parable of the Wicked Tenants (27A) Tribute to Caesar (29A) Question about Resurrection Question about David’s Son Woes against Pharisees (32B) e Widow’s Gi (32B) Prediction: Destruction of the Temple Signs of the Parousia Beginnings of the Troubles e Desolating Sacrilege Parousia of the Son of Man (33B) (1 Advent C) Parable of the Fig Tree (33B) Time of the Parousia (33B) Ending of the Discourse (1 Advent C) Summary of Days Spent in Jerusalem Repentant Thief at the Crucifixion

71 T T T

32

33 33 33

T T T T T T T T T T T T L L

34

L

5. Observations Based on the Tables When each of the three Gospels is examined individually, the percentage of material of Jesus’ public ministry selected to appear in the Sundays in Ordinary Time is unimpressive, as mentioned earlier: only 40% of Matthew’s version in Year A, 46% of Mark’s in Year B, and 40% of Luke’s in Year C – less than half of the material on the public ministry of Jesus recounted in each of the Synoptic Gospels. e Lectionary leaves out such a significant number of episodes that it would seem to neutralize its ability to present the distinctive traits of each Gospel as described in ILM §105 cited above. However, if the designers of the Lectionary used a gospel synopsis, the selections regarding the public ministry of Jesus drawn from the first three Gospels that appear in the Lectionary Sundays in Ordinary Time should be tabulated synoptically as well, as the above tables do. Moreover,

72

 

if the compilers of the Lectionary used a synopsis based on the two-document hypothesis of gospel formation, the tabulation must reflect the four sources of Synoptic Gospel material: triple tradition (T), double tradition (Q), material unique to Matthew (M), and material unique to Luke (L). e merging of the two synoptic lists – that of the Gospels themselves plus the super-imposed lists of the passages from these Gospels that appear in the Lectionary Sundays in Ordinary Time – yields the following tabulations (based on pericopes rather simply on verses): • Triple Tradition (T). Of the 65 triple tradition pericopes contained in Jesus’ public ministry (by definition each of the three Synoptic Gospels have all 65), 49 (or 75%) appear distributed over the three Lectionary Years A, B, and C.16 At least one version of 49 out of a possible 65 triple tradition stories appears, then, in the Sunday Lectionary. To be noted, approximately half of the triple tradition is assigned to the Sundays in Ordinary Time Year B. is stands to reason, for according to the two-document hypothesis Mark is the source of the triple tradition material. Year B, then, carries the bulk of triple tradition material. • Double Tradition (Q). By placing most of the triple tradition material in Year B and by repeating as few as possible the Matthean and Lukan parallels of these stories in Years A and C, the Lectionary reserves space for the other three sources: Q (the double tradition material common to Matthew and Luke), M (material unique to Matthew), and L (material unique to Luke). As far as Q material is concerned, 28 of the 43 pericopes (or 65%) appear in the Sunday Lectionary. ese are distributed over 20 different Sundays, 11 in Year A and 9 in Year C. • Matthew’s special material (M). Of the 19 pericopes of M material in Matthew 3–25, 14 or (73%) appear in Year A, distributed over 10 Sundays. e final tally from Matthew for the Sundays in Ordinary Time Year A, then, is as follows: 13 Sundays contain triple tradition material (T), 11 contain Q material, and 11 contain M material.17 Although there are relatively few Matthean versions of the triple tradition material in Year A, the large distribution of Q and M material assures that the distinctive characteristics of Matthew’s gospel receive adequate exposure. 16. Triple tradition material is found on 13 Sundays in Year A, 23 in Year B, and 7 in Year C. e total is more than the possible 34 Sundays in Ordinary Time because several triple tradition pericopes appear in two or in all three of the evangelists’ versions in their respective Years (e.g., the Baptism of Jesus on the 1st Sunday in all three years; Peter’s confession at Caesarea-Philippi: Matthew’s version on the 21st Sunday Year A, Mark’s on the 24th Sunday Year B, and Luke’s on the 12th Sunday Year C; etc.) 17. e total is greater than 34 because a number of Sundays contain material from more than one source.

      

73

• Luke’s special source (L). Of the 32 pericopes of L material in Luke 3–21, 24 (or 73%) appear in Year C, distributed over 21 Sundays. e final tally from Luke for the Sundays in Ordinary Time Year C is as follows: 7 Sundays contain triple tradition material (T), 9 Q material, and 22 L material.18 Although there are very few Lukan versions of triple tradition material in Year C, nearly two-thirds of the Sundays in Ordinary Time offer L material, providing maximum exposure of what is characteristic of Luke.19 Tabulated individually, the Lectionary selections from the first three Gospels for the Sundays in Ordinary Time offer only approximately 40% of each their renditions of Jesus’ public ministry. Tabulated synoptically, however, the Lectionary selections are seen to include approximately 70% of the synoptic material of Jesus’ public ministry, recounted in one version or another and identified by source, over the three-year cycle. From this latter perspective, it becomes clear that the designers of the Lectionary made every effort to provide as broad a distribution as possible of the wide range of episodes, both stories and sayings, that make up the Synoptic Gospel renditions of Jesus’ public ministry. 6. Conclusion e above tabulations show that, as Vincent Truijen had surmised, the selection and distribution of Synoptic Gospel passages for the Sundays in Ordinary Time presupposes the use of a gospel synopsis, most probably one based on the two-document hypothesis. e committee on Lectionary reform, therefore, while remaining faithful to ancient liturgical tradition, incorporated the gains of modern biblical scholarship in producing the current Sunday and Feast Day Lectionary. Given that there are 96 Ordinary Time Sundays to fill with excerpts selected from the accounts of the public ministry of Jesus found in the first three gospels, all the while juggling a number of criteria (selecting passages neither too long nor too short; allowing the uniqueness of each Gospel to stand out; drawing from the several sources of the Synoptic tradition; favoring as broad a distribution of different episodes as possible), the members of Coetus XI have admirably acquitted themselves of their task.

18. Same as the preceding note. 19. For a presentation of L material overall in the Sunday Lectionary, see my article “Luke’s Distinctive Lectionary Profile” in BT 38 (2000) 337-342, reproduced as Chapter 11 in this volume.

C 

FULFILLED IN OUR HEARING The Dynamism of Scripture in Liturgical Proclamation1 1. Introduction e heightened profile of Scripture in the Vatican Council’s revision of the Lectionary for Sundays and Solemnities – a three-year cycle of readings, three readings per Sunday and Solemnity, the introduction of the Old Testament as a standard feature – has prompted renewed interest in the role of the Bible in worship. e 1969 “Introduction to the Lectionary for Mass” (henceforth ILM) and the expanded “Introduction” to the Lectionary’s slightly augmented 1981 edition have been designed to elucidate the function of scriptural proclamation in liturgy and to describe the principles underlying the selection and distribution of biblical passages. In addition, a growing body of literature recounts how the revision of the Lectionary was accomplished and evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the final product.2 One of the issues that arises in the discussion of the Lectionary – one that, in particular, elicits critiques from some scripture scholars – is the Lectionary’s way of selecting biblical passages with little concern for their original context.3 is tendency stems from the fact that the Lectionary for Sundays and Solemnities is first and foremost a liturgical book. As 1. is study first appeared in Bernadette G (ed.), Shaping a Priestly People: A Collection in Honour of Archbishop James Hayes, Ottawa, Saint Paul University, 1994, 118-133. As mentioned in the book’s subtitle, the collection of essays was offered as a festschrift for James Hayes, then Archbishop of Halifax, Nova Scotia, one of the founders of the Atlantic School of Theology, former president of the Canadian Council of Bishops (1987-1989), member of the National Council for Liturgy (1968-1979) and member of Societas Liturgica. Subsequent to, and inspired by, his experience as bishop at Vatican Council II, he was highly instrumental in fostering the implementation of the Vatican II liturgical renewal in Canada. Archbishop Hayes died in 2016. 2. For an extensive list of such titles, see Fritz W, “An Annotated Bibliography on the ree-year Lectionaries. Part I: e Roman Catholic Lectionary,” in SL  23 (1993) 223-244. 3. For example, see Marie-Josèphe R, “Les évangiles dans le lectionnaire du dimanche,” in QF 21-22 (1985) 95-107; also, Adrien N, “La parole de Dieu et Vatican II,” in Pierre J – Reiner K – Gottardo P (eds.), Liturgia, opera divina e humana. Studi sulla riforma liturgia offerta a S. E. Mons. Annibale Bugnini

76

 

such, it is totally oriented to the paschal mystery of Christ’s death and resurrection.4 Since liturgy is an action making present this saving mystery, 5 all the scripture readings in the Lectionary are selected to express and accompany the action being celebrated. Christian liturgy has always felt free to select and use texts according to its needs.6 As a result, liturgical settings invest biblical texts with interpretations at times quite foreign to their original intent. Does this tendency to decontextualize biblical excerpts distort or do violence to the Scriptures? e aim of this chapter is to show that the Lectionary, both in its selection and in its distribution of biblical passages, rather than distorting or doing violence to the Scriptures, in fact continues the dynamism inherent in the Scriptures themselves. A comparison between the Sunday Lectionary’s use of the Gospels and the history of gospel formation will illustrate how this dynamism, detectable throughout the Lectionary, works. A first step will examine the salient characteristics of the Lectionary’s selection and distribution of gospel passages, both in festal seasons and in Ordinary Time. e second step will provide a sketch of the genesis of the Gospels. Finally, a rapprochement between the two will point out how the Lectionary continues the dynamic trajectory initiated in the earliest Gospel tradition. in occasione del sue 70e compleano (BELS, 26), Roma, Edizioni Liturgiche, 1982, 133-149, p. 138. 4. “e lectionary was not to be ordered around a ‘history of salvation’ motif (understood as a line running from creation to the second coming), or around a systematic presentation of the theological teachings of the church, or according to a literary analysis of the parts of the Bible that were to be used. Nor were the readings to be chosen and ordered for the primary purpose of exhorting and encouraging people to lead more Christian lives. e lectionary was there to proclaim the passion, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, fully realized in him and being realized in us who, through faith and baptism, have been joined to him,” William S, The Word in Worship, Nashville, KY, Abingdon, 1981, p. 33-34. 5. Irénée Henri D, “eology of the Liturgical Celebration,” in Irénée Henri D et al. (eds.), The Church at Prayer, Vol. I: Principles of the Liturgy. An Introduction to the Liturgy, trans. by Matthew O’C, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1987, 227-280, p. 229. 6. “[…] toute tradition liturgique, au fil des siècles, s’est toujours sentie libre de choisir, de disposer, de rapprocher, d’interpréter et d’utiliser l’Écriture comme une réalité qui lui appartient de par sa condition même […],” Achille M. T, “Bible et Liturgie,” in Domenico S – Achille M. T (eds.), DEL, Vol. 1 (A-L), French adaption under the direction of Henri D, Turnhout, Brepols – Montréal, Sciences et culture, 1992, 129-144, p. 143; “La Bible appartient en propre non pas à l’individu mais à l’Église […]. Le choix et l’ordre des lectures bibliques est soumis à l’année ecclésiastique et aux fins de l’Église,” Evangelos T, “La phénoménologie des relations entre l’Église et la liturgie,” in Achille M. T – Alessandro P (eds.), L’Église dans la liturgie: Conférences Saint-Serge, XXVIe semaine d’études liturgiques. Paris, 26-29 juin, 1979, Roma, Edizioni Liturgiche, 1980, 275-293, p. 279.

   

77

2. Gospel Passages in the Sunday Lectionary e post-Vatican II Lectionary for Sundays and Solemnities is a highly selective and carefully structured repertoire of biblical passages distributed over a three-year cycle. e Gospels maintain pride of place in this revised Lectionary, for one of its most distinctive hallmarks is the assigning of a Synoptic Gospel to each year, Matthew to Year A, Mark to Year B, and Luke to Year C. An examination of two sequences of gospel readings, one from the festal season of Lent, the other from Ordinary Time, demonstrates how the Sunday Lectionary removes passages from their original story lines and re-situates them in a liturgical narrative. e liturgical year comprises two kinds of seasons, festal seasons (Advent, Christmas, Lent, Easter) and Ordinary Time. e Lectionary marks this distinction by employing different principles of reading selection and reading distribution for each type of season. e characteristic principle of the festal seasons is harmony whereby certain biblical books or parts of books are selected to articulate the main themes of the season. For the Sundays in Ordinary Time, the Lectionary distributes the gospel passages according to the principle of semicontinuous reading. is modern adaptation of the ancient practice of lectio continua offers a significant exposure to a biblical book by selecting excerpts in their original sequence, all the while skipping intervening chapters or verses. 2.1. Gospel Readings for Lent e gospel passages for the first five Sundays of Lent, like the gospels for all the festal seasons, are chosen to articulate the themes of the season. e Universal Norms on the Liturgical Year and the General Roman Calendar (§27) specifies these themes: Lent is a preparation for the celebration of Easter. For the Lenten liturgy disposes both catechumens and the faithful to celebrate the paschal mystery: catechumens, through the several stages of Christian initiation; the faithful, through reminders of their own baptism and through penitential practices.

In Year A, the gospel excerpts that the Lectionary offers for Lent focus primarily on the candidates for initiation. Proceeding from the First to the Fih Sunday, the readings are: Matthew 4:1-11, the Temptation of Jesus; Matthew 17:1-9, the Transfiguration; John 4:5-42, the Samaritan Woman at the Well; John  9:1-41, the Healing of the Man Born Blind; John 11:1-45, the Raising of Lazarus.

78

 

e Temptation and the Transfiguration, proclaimed on the first and second Sundays respectively, function as an overture to the entire LentEaster cycle. ey are selected to evoke the key facets of Jesus’ paschal mystery – his passion, death, and resurrection. By epitomizing his struggle against sinfulness in all its guises, the Temptation conjures up Jesus’ suffering and death. e episode already hints at Jesus’ ultimate triumph, for he does not succumb to Satan’s enticements. e Transfiguration adumbrates the resurrection. Following immediately upon Jesus’ passion prediction, the account intimates that Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem to face suffering and death will lead to his glorification. us the two opening Lenten gospels present the essential pattern of the paschal mystery – the passage through death to new life – into which the candidates are configured by passing through the waters of Baptism at the Easter Vigil. e long narratives from John’s Gospel, read on the ird, Fourth, and Fih Sundays of Lent, Year A, are specifically oriented to the catechumens. e liturgy pairs these readings with the scrutinies. Originally exorcisms, the scrutinies have been reformulated as prayers through which the assembly beseeches God to make the candidates open and receptive to the transformation they are to experience in their upcoming Baptism. In this setting, the passages from John 4, 9, and 11 recount what happens when someone meets the Lord; they offer models by which the candidates can interpret their own experience of coming to faith. Initiation into the paschal mystery means “passing over” from sin to grace (John 4), from darkness to light (John 9), from death to new life (John 11). is felicitous marriage of the readings from John with the scrutinies revives an ancient tradition reaching back to the fourth century. Clearly, then, the gospel readings for the first five Sundays of Lent Year A are removed from their original narrative contexts. Indeed, set within the Lenten liturgy, these passages relate only incidentally to their original gospel story lines, for the Lectionary selects them and embeds them in a new narrative provided by the liturgical action being celebrated: the candidates’ journey to faith and conversion. Each festal season stresses a particular aspect of the mystery of Christ as celebrated by the worshipping assembly. Lent’s story of conversion and repentance culminates in the believers’ appropriation of the paschal mystery through Baptism and Eucharist at the Easter Vigil. e triduum initiates the candidates and intensifies the faithful’s participation in this central mystery of faith. e Easter season celebrates the story of the deepening communion of the faithful with the risen Lord who abides with his church through the Spirit. e Advent-Christmas season unfolds the story of the

   

79

community’s patient waiting for the fullness of the kingdom still to come, a time of anticipation that they fill with purposeful action until the consummation of the paschal mystery is revealed in them. In each instance, the gospel readings selected for the festal seasons articulate and celebrate these overarching liturgical narratives, for the purpose of the liturgy is to shape the assembly of believers into the body of the risen Christ. Nevertheless, although the liturgical narratives take precedence over the plotted gospel narratives, the two are intimately related. e liturgical narratives are inspired by and configured according to the narratives first recounted in the Scriptures themselves. Conversion, repentance, communion, discipleship – it was to make present these same fundamental realities of Christian life that the Gospels were first written. 2.2. The Gospels during the Sundays in Ordinary Time For the Sundays in Ordinary Time the Lectionary arranges the Synoptic Gospels according to the principle of semicontinuous reading. In this way, “as the Lord’s life and preaching unfold, the teaching proper to each of these gospels is presented” (ILM §105). Yet even here a significant degree of decontextualization occurs. A sample from the 23rd to the 30th Sundays in Ordinary Time Year A is a case in point. e following table lists all the pericopes between Matthew 18:15 and 22:40 so as to capture the flow of Matthew’s story. e entries in bold italics indicate the passages included in the Lectionary: 23rd Sunday: Matthew 18:15-20. Forgive the brother or sister who sins against you; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven […]; where two or three of you are gathered in my name […] 24th Sunday: Matthew 18:21-35. How often must I forgive? […] the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant. Matthew 19:1-12. On marriage and divorce. Matthew 19:13-15. “Let the little children come unto me.” Matthew 19:16-20. e rich young man. 25th Sunday: Matthew 20:1-16. The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. Matthew 20:17-19. e third passion prediction. Matthew 20:20-28. e sons of Zebedee ask to sit on the Lord’s right and le in the kingdom

80

  Matthew 20:29-34. Jesus heals two blind men. Matthew 21:1-9. Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Matthew 21:10-17. Jesus’ prophetic action in the Temple. Matthew 21:18-22. e cursing of the fig tree. Matthew 21:23-27. e chief priests and the elders of the people question Jesus about his authority behind his action in the Temple. 26th Sunday: Matthew 21:28-32. The Parable of the Two Sons. 27th Sunday: Matthew 21:33-43. The Parable of the Vineyard. Matthew 21:45-46. e chief priests and the elders of the people try to arrest Jesus. 28th Sunday: Matthew 22:1-14. The Parable of the Wedding Banquet. 29th Sunday: Matthew 22:15-21. The debate regarding tribute to Caesar. Matthew 22:22-33. Debate with the Sadducees on resurrection. 30th Sunday: Matthew 22:34-40. The greatest commandment.

Most worshippers at the Sunday liturgy, unless they are very familiar with Matthew’s Gospel, will not notice that between the twenty-fih and twenty-sixth Sundays, for example, the Lectionary passes over a huge block of material crucial to Matthew’s story line. Between the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, read on the twenty-fih Sunday, and the Parable of the Two Sons, read on the twenty-sixth Sunday, Jesus has arrived in Jerusalem and performed his prophetic action in the Temple. In response, the chief priests and the elders of the people confront him, asking where he receives the authority to do such things. Jesus answers their challenge with three parables: the Parable of the Two Sons, the Parable of the Vineyard, and the Parable of the Wedding Banquet. ese last three parables are noteworthy for the harshness of their message, readily understandable in the Matthean plot line because Jesus aims them at his adversaries. During the Sundays in Ordinary Time, however, the Lectionary skips over the triumphal entry and the action in the Temple, removing the immediate reason for the sting in Jesus’ subsequent teaching. Although the Lectionary tries to mitigate the loss of context by introducing the three parables with an incipit (“Jesus said to the chief priests and the elders of the people” and the like), they have been loosed from their narrative moorings. Preachers in fact usually apply the parables to the assembled community as though Jesus had aimed them at his disciples rather than at his adversaries. e worshipper is led to ponder, “Am I the obedient or the disobedient son?”; “Am I producing fruits for the kingdom?”; “Am I responding to the invitation

   

81

to the king’s banquet?” Such an interpretation is liturgically sound, because the liturgical narrative celebrated during the Sundays of the year is discipleship, a time devoted to apprenticeship for the kingdom. In the Sundays in Ordinary Time, as in the Sundays in the festal seasons, the liturgy removes the gospel pericopes from their original contexts and makes them serve the new narrative it provides. e Lectionary’s propensity to decontextualize and to recontextualize gospel passages is nothing new, however, for in the process of their formation the Gospels themselves bear evidence of having undergone a similar process. 3. The Formation of the Gospels An important legacy of modern historical-critical exegesis is the delineation of the history of gospel formation. Although some particulars are still debated, the majority of biblical scholars the world over and across confessional lines accept the overall picture. e Gospels came to be in three stages “(I) what Jesus of Nazareth did and said (corresponding roughly to  1-33); (II) what disciples preached about him, his words, and his deeds (corresponding roughly to  33-65); and (III) what the evangelists wrote about him, having culled, synthesized, and explicated the tradition that preceded them, each in his own way (corresponding to  65-90).”7 e exegetical method called Form Criticism deals with Stage II, while Redaction Criticism studies Stage III. 3.1. Stage II: Form Criticism Form Criticism can be defined as “a systematic, scientific, historical, and theological methodology for analyzing the forms, and to some extent the content, of the primitive Christian literature, with special reference to the history of the early Christian movement in its reflective and creative theological activities.”8 Form Criticism studies discrete pieces of tradition – forms such as sayings, parables, pronouncement stories, miracle stories, etc. Out of these building blocks the Gospels were fashioned.

7. Joseph A. Fi, “Historical Criticism: Its Role in Biblical Interpretation and Church Life,” in ThS 50 (1989) 244-259, p. 252; similarly, Raymond E. B, An Introduction to the New Testament (ABRL), New York – London – Toronto – Sydney – Auckland, Doubleday, 1997, p. 107-111. 8. William G. D, Contemporary New Testament Interpretation, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1972, p.  62, as cited in Vernon K. R, “Form Criticism (NT),” in David Noel F (ed.), ABD, Vol. 2, New York, NY, Doubleday, 1992, 841-844, p. 841; B, An Introduction (n. 7), p. 22-23.

82

 

Form Criticism is founded on several presuppositions, three of which are especially germane for comparison with the Lectionary.9 (1) “Before the Gospels were written there was a period of oral tradition.” (2) “During the oral period, the narratives and sayings, with the exception of the passion narrative, circulated mainly as single and self-contained, detached units, each complete in itself.” Forms – the earliest pieces of gospel tradition – first existed devoid of a written narrative context.10 (3) “e vital factors that gave rise to and preserved these forms are to be found in the practical interests of the Christian community.” Among these practical interests, the most important were the kerygmatic, catechetical, and liturgical exigencies of daily life in the early church. German biblical scholars coined the phrase Sitz im Leben, or “life setting”, to refer to such Stage II situations in which the first Christian generation applied and actualized the gospel message. 3.2. Stage III: Redaction Criticism Redaction Criticism examines Stage III of the gospel tradition, a stage situated later in the first century when the traditions, originally oral, were then committed to writing.11 Robert Stein defines this method as “the study of NT texts that concentrates on the unique theological emphases that the writers place upon the materials they used, their specific purposes in writing their works, and the Sitz im Leben out of which they wrote.”12 It is probable that, before they were incorporated into the Gospels, some of these traditions had been written down and handed on in the form of small collections of sayings and stories. e narrative genre gospel in which they were finally embedded, however, remains the work of

9. Robert H. S, The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction, Grand Rapids, MI, Baker, 1987. Even though these presuppositions have been refined in recent studies, their basic thrust remains pertinent. 10. A rapid look at the Synoptic Gospels confirms that this is so. For example, Mark 2:1–3:6 contains a series of controversy stories, each of which could exist independently; Mark 4:1-34 gathers a number of parables, each of which Jesus most probably preached at different times and places. Similar observations can apply to Matthew 5–7, the Sermon on the Mount, which compiles several dozen of Jesus’ sayings and teachings. 11. S, The Synoptic Problem (n.  9), p.  229, uses the word “inscripturation” to describe this committing to writing of the earlier oral tradition. 12. Robert H. S, “Redaction Criticism, New Testament,” in David Noel F (ed.), ABD, Vol. 5, New York, Doubleday, 1992, 647-650, p. 647; also, B, An Introduction (n. 7), p. 23-24; John R, “Redakktionsgeschichte and the Roman Ordo: Some Principles and Problems in Pericope Reform,” in Erich R. W. S (ed.), Vita Laudanda: Essays in Memory of Ulrich S. Leupold, Waterloo, ON, Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1976, 25-58.

   

83

the evangelists. ese authors, responsible for assembling and editing the forms of the tradition into plotted narratives, contextualized the individual stories and collections of stories into the Gospels as we have them. Despite their fundamental similarities, the four canonical Gospels tell the story of Jesus in significantly different ways. Redaction Criticism accounts for this by postulating that each evangelist tailored his Gospel to respond to the needs of a particular community. Situated at Stage III of the development of the tradition, the four canonical Gospels represent the actualizing and applying of the Jesus story to four different “life settings” or Sitze im Leben of the church during the last third of the first century.13 is admittedly simplified sketch highlights two essential dimensions of the dynamic process of gospel formation: (1) the relationship between the earliest units of gospel tradition and the later narrative contexts in which they were embedded is a contingent one, for the four evangelists used forms and collections of material in different ways; (2) aer the resurrection, believers not only remembered the words and deeds of Jesus but also shaped and adapted them to meet their present needs of actualization. 4. Lectionary: The Dynamism of Scripture at Work e dynamic process that underlies the formation of the Gospels continues in the liturgy. In its own way, the liturgy activates the process of recontextualizing and actualizing, as Robert Ta explains: […] the liturgy is the ongoing Sitz im Leben of Christ’s saving pattern in every age, and what we do in the liturgy is exactly what the New Testament itself did with Christ: it applied him and what he was and is to the present. For the Sitz im Leben of the Gospels is the historical setting not of the original event, but of its telling during the early years of the primitive Church. […] It is up to each generation to do what the Apostolic Church did in the very composition of the New Testament: apply the mystery of Christ to the Sitz im Leben of today.14

It is noteworthy that Ta employs the phrase Sitz im Leben, an exegetical term describing an important dimension of gospel formation, to account for what happens in the liturgy. e only codicil to add to 13. e reapplying of earlier traditions to new circumstances is not unique to the gospels. It appears in numerous instances throughout the bible: “In the course of the Bible’s formation, the writings of which it consists were in many cases reworked and reinterpreted so as to make them respond to new situations previously unknown,” T P B C, “e Interpretation of the Bible in the Church,” Orig 23/29 (Jan. 6, 1994) 497-524, p. 515. 14. Robert T, “e Liturgical Year: Studies, Prospects, Reflections,” in Wor 55 (1981) 2-23, p. 22.

84

 

Ta’s words is that the Lectionary eminently accomplishes this task of the liturgy. e Lectionary use of the Gospels and the process of gospel formation are essentially the same. e Lectionary decontextualizes gospel passages from their narrative settings, rendering them analogous to the way they existed in Stage II of gospel formation,15 only to recontextualize them in another narrative.16 e liturgy, in applying the Jesus tradition to living communities of faith, provides this new narrative. In its concern to actualize the mystery of salvation for the community here and now assembled, the liturgy also proceeds in a manner similar to that of the early stages of the gospel formation. Both in Stage II and in Stage III the first Christian generations adapted the gospel tradition they inherited to respond to new times and situations. e recently published document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, points out that this dynamism has perdured throughout the ages: “It is the living tradition of the community of faith that stimulates the task of actualization. is community places itself in explicit continuity with the communities which gave rise to Scripture and which preserved and handed it on. In the process of actualization, tradition […] ensures the transmission of the original dynamism.”17 Although the liturgy does not produce gospel texts as did the early Christians, the dialogue it enables between the ancient scriptures and the present community of faith causes the gospel once again to become event in the lives of the assembled believers. e worshipping community, as it were, writes itself into the text; in turn the text generates new meaning by being confronted with the assembly’s life settings at that specific juncture in salvation history.18 In the final analysis, the gospel is not words on a page but rather the saving presence of the risen Lord in the lives of 15. In the Lectionary, the gospel pericopes are only analogously like the discrete pieces of gospel tradition in Stage II. As they exist in the Lectionary the passages bear the marks of Stage III redactional activity of the gospel writers. 16. On decontextulizing and recontextualizing, see Kevin I, Context and Text: Method in Liturgical Theology (A Pueblo Book), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1994, p.  93-94: “is is to argue that the vitality and life sustaining meaning of a scriptural text is at once influenced by and independent of its setting within a biblical book. us it is important to interpret it not only in relation to its original audience but also in light of where and how it is used in liturgy today. is is to argue that the liturgical context affects the interpretation of scriptural texts and that the proclamation of the same scriptural text in differing contemporary contexts requires interpreting that text in light of the differing liturgical settings in which it is used” [emphasis in original]. 17. P B C, “e Interpretation” (n. 13), p. 520. 18. Louis-Marie C, “What Makes the Liturgy Biblical? – Texts,” in SL  22 (1992) 121-133, p. 128.

   

85

the faithful. e liturgy’s ability to transform the words of the text into the presence of the Word has always made liturgy the locus par excellence for experiencing the vitality of the scriptural tradition in the church. 5. Conclusion What is said here about the Lectionary’s use of the Gospels embraces the Lectionary’s use of Scripture generally, as Kevin Irwin elaborates when he writes: is emphasis on new contexts enabling texts to be understood differently derives from the Scriptures themselves. […] e contribution of the liturgy […] is to allow the contexts in which the proclamation of the Word takes place to become an important factor in the interpretation of scriptural texts […]. is is to argue that when read at liturgy, Scripture texts should be dealt with (1) as multivalent pericopes taken from their settings in the Scriptures (2) that are proclaimed for a faith community, which proclamation implies that texts are enacted and effective in that community, and (3) that these texts receive their fullest expression as testimonies and witnesses of faith at liturgical celebrations which are particularly disclosive of the presence and action of God. Hence texts taken “out of context” now become texts in a new context, namely the communal act of memory that is liturgy.19

It is the liturgical proclamation of the word, as configured in the Lectionary, that activates the dynamism inherent in the Scriptures themselves. Rather than distorting them, liturgy makes the Scriptures fully what they are, the word of God present and active: “My word, says the Lord, shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and succeed in the thing for which I sent it” (Is 55:11). Just as Luke portrays Jesus at the synagogue in Nazareth realizing in himself the ancient Isaiah prophecy, so today the liturgical proclamation of Scripture fulfils in our hearing the presence of the risen Christ (Lk 4:21).20

19. I, Context and Text (n. 16), p. 98. 20. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, §7: “He is present in his word, in that he himself is speaking when scripture is read in church.”

C 

SUNDAY, THE WEEK, AND ORDINARY TIME A Return ad Fontes1 1. Introduction: Sundays in Ordinary Time Promulgated in 1969, decreed as mandatory for the universal church in 1971, the Roman Catholic Ordo Lectionum Missae (the Latin name for the Lectionary for Mass; henceforth OLM) has since been a standard feature in the church’s worship. It also serves, with some adjustments and adaptations, as the basic template for the Revised Common Lectionary (RCL), the Sunday Lectionary used by a broad swath of churches and denominations in the English-speaking world and beyond.2 e regular use of the OLM and of the RCL over these now many decades, however, does not preclude criticism and suggestions for improvement. Indeed, from the very outset, concerns have been raised regarding one or another feature of the OLM’s structural design and its scriptural content.3 Perhaps the greatest disquiet concerns the Sundays

1. is chapter first appeared in a book of collected studies (Gordon J – Bridget N [eds.], The Lively Oracles of God: Studies in Bible and Liturgy, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2021) upon an invitation from the editors to contribute a study on the Lectionary. 2. For the RCL, see C  C T, The Revised Common Lectionary: 20th Anniversary Annotated Edition, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 2012. For an extensive and current list of the churches using the RCL, see Regina A. B, The Word of the Lord at Mass: Understanding the Lectionary, Chicago, IL, LTP, 2015, p. 63-64. “e Reims Statement: Praying with One Voice of August 16, 2001,” n. 7, lists “churches in Scandinavia, Hispanic speaking areas, Korea, Japan, Netherlands, Venezuela, Polynesia, South Africa (including Afrikaans speaking churches),” https://www. anglican.ca/faith/worship/resources/reims-statement/ accessed June 11, 2020. 3. On the first readings from the Old Testament, see, for example, Ansgar F (ed.), Streit am Tisch des Wortes? Deutung und Bedeutung des Alten Testaments und seiner Verwendung in der Liturgie (Pietas Liturgica), St. Ottilen, EOS, 1997, esp. the essays in Part III: “Liturgie: Über des Stellenwert des Alten Testamentes im Gottesdienst,” p. 491868. For difficulties regarding the second reading, see, for example, Vincent T, “Les lectures du Nouveau Testament dans la liturgie rénovée,” in QL/SL 67 (1986) 235251, p. 244, 251; Adrien N, “La parole de Dieu et Vatican II,” in Pierre J – Reiner K – Gottardo P (eds.), Liturgia, opera divina e umani: Studi sulla riforma liturgica offerti a S. E. Annibale Bugnini in occasione del sue 70e compleano, Roma, Edizioni Liturgiche, 1982, 133-149, p. 142-143.

88

 

in Ordinary Time, the thirty-three or thirty-four “numbered” Sundays (hence the term “ordinary” from “ordinal”) between Christmas and Lent, resumed from aer Pentecost through to the following Advent. at these Sundays should be the source of so much consternation is no small matter, for together they represent some two-thirds of the yearly liturgical cycle. e issue, raised for the most part by preachers and homilists, pertains to the lack on these Sundays of a more thorough-going thematic link (“vertical correspondence”) among the three readings assigned to a given eucharistic celebration. Why could there not be – why should there not be – correspondence among all three readings as found elsewhere in the Lectionary’s annual cycle?4 is “disharmony” results from the principles of reading selection and reading distribution implemented for these Sundays. On the one hand, both the gospel passages and the second reading excerpts from the Apostolic writings follow independent, semicontinuous tracks (“horizontal sequences”) from Sunday to Sunday. Hence, the second and third readings rarely if ever show vertical (thematic) correspondence. On the other hand, the first readings from the Old Testament, unlike the second and third readings, do not display any sequential horizontal pattern. Rather, pericopes from the Old Testament are selected to correspond thematically with the gospel passage of the day.5 Attempted remedies to overcome or at least palliate the resultant “disharmony” are of two kinds. e simplest and most frequently adopted approach, sanctioned by the Church’s official documents and practiced in a number of dioceses, is simply to omit either the first or the second reading.6 e other more tentative and experimental approach, which has 4. See, for example, N, “La Parole” (n.  3), p.  148; William S, The Word in Worship: Preaching in a Liturgical Context, Nashville, TN, Abingdon, 1981, p.  37-39. is concern goes as well for the RCL as expressed by the Task Force for the revision of the Common Lectionary (which led to the current RCL) and recorded by Fred Kimball G in his Introduction to the CCT’s The Revised Common Lectionary (n. 2), ix-xxv, p. xxiii-xiv. 5. For further details on the reading selection and reading distribution for the Sundays in Ordinary Time, see my The Sunday Lectionary: Ritual Word, Paschal Shape, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1998, p. 141-162. 6. On the option to use either only the Old Testament readings or only the readings from the Apostolic writings, see “Introduction to the Lectionary for Mass,” in Elizabeth H (ed.), The Liturgy Documents: Essential Documents for Parish Worship, Chicago, IL, LPT, 2012, 325-363, §§12, 78, 79, n. 106, 107; however, the “General Instruction of the Roman Missal,” in Idem, 95-177, §§60, 61, seems to contradict this. See Adrien N, A Reading of the Renewed Liturgy, trans. by Mary M. M, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1994, p. 18, who mentions “France, Germany, and other countries.” See also his article “Eine ‘kleine Geschichte am Rande’: Zum Lektionar für die Messfeier der ‘gewöhnlichen’ Sonntage,” in Streit am Tisch des Wortes (n. 3) 649-657, p. 655-656.

,  ,   

89

met neither with official nor with general approval, foregoes the semicontinuous pattern for the second reading, instead selecting passages from the Apostolic writings that correspond thematically with the other two readings of the day.7 As a result, in such proposals there is vertical correspondence among all three readings on any given Sunday, with a horizontal, semicontinuous sequence reserved for the gospel reading only. What to make of this concern? What was, at least implicitly, the rationale informing the Lectionary design for the Sundays in Ordinary Time? My reflections below on this issue were prompted by Pierre Jounel’s succinct and intriguing assessment of these Sundays: “[t]he thirty-four Sundays per annum or of Ordinary Time represent the ideal Christian Sunday, without any further specification. at is, each of them is the Lord’s Day in its pure state as presented to us in the Church’s tradition”8 [except for the phrase per annum, emphasis added]. e Sundays in Ordinary Time, then, embody the most ancient tradition. ey are Sundays celebrated very much the way each and every Sunday was celebrated in the earliest decades of the Church before solemnities of the Lord and festal seasons developed. Why and in what sense does Jounel thus characterize these Sundays? And, as a result, why did the designers of the Lectionary opt for the principles of reading selection and reading distribution mentioned above to express the foundational and originary significance of these Sundays? In a first step, I scrutinize the assumption that there is (pervasive?) vertical correspondence elsewhere in the annual Lectionary cycle (Part 2). I then turn to official church documents to glean pertinent statements on Sunday and the week (Part  3), showing how these descriptions

Interestingly, Martin K, “Présence et rôle de la Bible dans la liturgie: Résultats et perspectives,” in Martin K – Bruno B – Arnaud J-L (eds.), Présence et rôle de la Bible dans la liturgie, Fribourg, Academic Press, 2006, 387-409, p. 398, writes that the same structural difficulty has led to the omission of the first reading from the Old Testament. 7. For an example of thematically selected second readings for the Sundays in Ordinary Time, see N, A Reading (n.  6), p.  9-17. For a proposal creating a semicontinuous horizontal track for the first reading from the Old Testament, with second and third readings selected to correspond thematically with the first reading of the day, see Hansjakob B, “Wortgottesdienst als Dialog der beiden Testamente: Der Stellenwert des Alten Testamentes bei einer Weiterführung der Reform des Ordo Lectionum Missae,” in Streit am Tisch des Wortes (n. 3) 659-689, esp. p. 678-687. 8. Pierre J, “Sunday and the Week,” in Irénée Henri D – Pierre J – Aimé Georges M (eds.), The Church at Prayer: An Introduction to the Liturgy, Vol. IV: The Liturgy and Time (New Edition), trans. by Matthew J. O’C, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1986, 1-29, p. 23.

90

 

impinge on the Sundays in Ordinary Time and on their current design in the Lectionary (Part  4). Finally, I offer two concluding observations on the importance of assessing any individual part or sector of the Sunday Lectionary in light of its overall design and architecture (Part 5). 2. Horizontal and Vertical Patterns outside Ordinary Time Despite having become a persistent desideratum for the Sundays in Ordinary Time, a more thorough-going vertical correspondence among all three readings remains a less pervasive pattern elsewhere in the Lectionary than is oentimes imagined:9 2.1. Major Feasts. e most obvious and thorough vertical correspondence among all three readings assigned to a celebration occurs, as can be expected, on major feasts such as Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, Ascension, and Pentecost. ese and similar instances call for scriptural passages most apt to express the event being celebrated. 2.2. Festal Seasons. e situation is more complicated for the festal seasons. With the exception of Christmas, the liturgical seasons of Advent, Lent, and Easter all consist of extended sequences of Sundays, each employing varying combinations of the principles of reading selection and reading distribution. As will be seen, horizontal patterns take priority, with vertical correspondence as a secondary pattern implemented where possible. a. Lent. For the first five Sundays of Lent, the gospels present two related horizontal patterns: Sundays 1 and 2 feature accounts of the Temptation and the Transfiguration drawn from each of the respective synoptic narratives (Matthew in Year A, Mark in Year B, Luke in Year C). e second horizontal pattern structures Sundays 3, 4, and 5: Year A presents texts oriented to Baptism; Year B, Johannine images of the paschal mystery; Year C, aspects of repentance and conversion. e first readings from the Old Testament display their own horizontal pattern, with each Sunday highlighting a distinct theme in the history of salvation: Sunday 1, primeval history; Sunday 2, ancestral history; Sunday 3, Moses; Sunday 4, the holy land; Sunday 5, eschatological fulfillment. Unlike the first and third readings, the second readings exhibit no 9. For a more detailed and extensive presentation of the principles of reading selection and reading distribution for the festal seasons, see B, The Sunday Lectionary (n. 5).

,  ,   

91

horizontal pattern, but are selected rather to correspond thematically with either of the other two readings or with both. While vertical correspondence, at least between two readings and oen among all three, occurs on nearly every Sunday, the horizontal patterns are the primary structural design. b. Easter. e Easter season, consisting of a sequence of eight consecutive Sundays (Easter Sunday to Pentecost Sunday), also contains salient horizontal patterns. ree related patterns structure the sequence of gospel readings for all three Years of the cycle. Aer Easter Sunday, which presents accounts of the discovery of the empty tomb, Sundays 2 and 3 relate appearances of the risen Jesus; Sunday 4 features excerpts from the Good Shepherd Parable from John  10; Sundays 5, 6, 7 assign passages from the Farewell Discourses (John 13–17). As for the first reading, the Lectionary forgoes the Old Testament, instead reviving an ancient tradition of reading Acts of the Apostles between Easter and Pentecost. Passages are selected and distributed in a somewhat loosely-conceived semicontinuous pattern, highlighting the key moments in the development and expansion of the primitive church. e second readings follow their own semicontinuous tracks: Year A, excerpts from 1 Peter; Year B, from 1 John; Year C, from Revelation. All three readings, therefore, have independent and distinct horizontal patterns, thus precluding in most instances any real possibility of vertical correspondence. c. Advent. e four Sundays of Advent offer their own blend of horizontal patterns and vertical correspondence. e gospels are organized in a horizontal sequence of time in reverse: Sunday 1 focuses on eschatological fulfilment, the Second and ird Sundays deal with the ministry of John the Baptist, the Fourth Sunday announces the Messiah’s imminent birth. e Old Testament readings, all but one excerpt drawn from prophetic literature, mirror the sequence of gospel themes through prophecies of the end time, of Israel’s salvation, or of a coming Messiah. Finally, the second readings are selected to correspond with either or with both of the other two readings. Vertical correspondence, while present in many instances, is not always particularly prominent. d. Christmas. e Christmas Season, since it is based on the two pillar feasts of the Nativity and the Epiphany rather than on a sequence of Sundays, manifests no horizontal patterns. Vertical correspondence on Sundays and the season’s feasts, therefore, plays a more obvious and important role than in the other three festal seasons. As this brief exposé shows, vertical correspondence, the thematic linkage of all three readings on any given feast or Sunday, is not a pervasive principle characterizing the annual Lectionary cycle of readings. More

92

 

important and consequential are horizontal patterns, with vertical correspondence playing a secondary role. is is because the horizontal patterns are a primary means of articulating the main themes of a liturgical feast or season, themes set forth in the Universal Norms on the Liturgical Year and the General Roman Calendar. Seasonal themes, horizontal patterns, vertical correspondence, in that order, then, underlie the reading selection and distribution patterns structuring the Lectionary. 3. Ordinary Time If, as concluded above, the sequence seasonal theme(s) → horizontal patterns → vertical correspondence determines the reading selection and reading distribution patterns for feasts and festal seasons, is there something similar at work for the Sundays in Ordinary Time?10 e following documents provide the necessary elements: (1) Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (SC); (2) Universal Norms on the Liturgical Year and the General Roman Calendar (UNLY); (3) Introduction to the Lectionary for Mass (ILM).11 e first identifies Sunday and the week as originary and foundational for, and in the history of, Christian liturgy. Next, the UNLY sets forth the themes of each liturgical season in turn, representing the first step toward implementing SC’s understanding of the annual liturgical cycle. Finally, the ILM elaborates the Lectionary principles of reading selection and distribution (horizontal and vertical patterns) that flesh out, in the annual cycle of Sundays, feasts, and seasons, the theological and thematic criteria expressed in the first two documents. 3.1. Vatican II: Sunday and the Week e Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy supplies the constituent elements of liturgy. Of paramount importance, because foundational and originary – and of particular pertinence for grasping the significance of the Sundays in Ordinary Time – are Sunday and the week. e key features of both, highlighted in italics, are contained in two paragraphs: SC §102. e Church is conscious that it must celebrate the saving work of the divine Bridegroom by devoutly recalling it on certain days throughout the course of the year. Every week, on the day which the Church has called the Lord’s Day, it keeps the memory of the Lord’s resurrection, which it also 10. Strictly speaking, Ordinary Time is not a “season” in the same sense as Advent, Christmas, Lent, and Easter (as implied in the use of prepositions: of for the Sundays of Advent, Christmas, Lent, and Easter, but in for the Sundays in Ordinary Time). 11. e full texts of these documents can be found in The Liturgy Documents (n. 6).

,  ,   

93

celebrates once in the year, together with his blessed passion, in the most solemn festival of Easter. SC §106. By a tradition handed down from the apostles and having its origin from the very day of Christ’s resurrection, the Church celebrates the paschal mystery every eighth day, which, with good reason, bears the name of the Lord’s day or Sunday. For on this day Christ’s faithful must gather together so that, by hearing the word of God and taking part in the eucharist, they may call to mind the passion, the resurrection, and the glorification of the Lord Jesus and may thank God, who “has begotten them again unto a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Pet. 1:3). Hence the Lord’s day is the first holy day of all and should be proposed to the devotion of the faithful and taught to them in such a way that it may become in fact a day of joy and of freedom from work. Other celebrations, unless they be truly of greatest importance, shall not have precedence over the Sunday, the foundation and core of the whole liturgical year.

Sunday12 • Sunday is the original Christian feast. It was on “the first day of the week” that Jesus was raised from the dead. Since the Jewish calendar at that time did not, with the exception of the Sabbath, provide names for the days of the week, the first day of the week was therefore the day aer the Sabbath or, in our current calendar and appellation, Sunday. Sunday as a Christian feast most probably arose at the outset, even before Paul’s apostolic career.13 12. Among the key sources consulted (and for further elaboration): Pope J P II, The Lord’s Day: Apostolic Letter Dies Domini of the Holy Father John Paul II to the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Catholic Church on Keeping the Lord’s Day Holy, Sherbrooke, QC, Médiaspaul, 1998; Henri D, “Dimanche,” in Fernand C – Henri L (eds.), DACL, 4/1, Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1920, cols. 858-994; Pierre J, Le Dimanche (Horizon du croyant), Paris, Desclée – Ottawa, Novalis, 1990; Idem, “Sunday and the Week,” in The Church at Prayer (n.  8) 11-29; Oskar M, “e Paschal Mystery and Its Celebration during the Liturgical Year and in the Sunday Mass,” in William B (ed.), The Liturgy of Vatican II: A Symposium in Two Volumes, Vol. 2. English edition Jovian L, Chicago, IL, Franciscan Herald Press, 1966, 209-229; Willy R, “Origine et signification de la célébration de dimanche dans le christianisme primitif,” in MD 148 (1981) 103-122; Idem, Sunday: The History of the Day of Rest and Worship in the Earliest Centuries of the Christian Church, trans. by Andrew Alexander Kenny G, London, SCM, 1968; Philippe R, “Les Pères. Signification du dimanche,” in Introduction, AsSeign1, Bruges, Biblica, 1962, 43-54; Bernard B et al., Le Dimanche. 9e Semaine liturgique, Institut Saint-Serge, Paris, 1963 (LO, 39), Paris, Cerf, 1965; Jean D, Bible et liturgie (LO, 11), Paris, Cerf, 1958, p. 329-354; Jean G, “Où en est la théologie du dimanche?” in MD 83 (1965) 7-32; Hansjörg   M and others, Feiern im Rhythmus der Zeit (Gottesdienst der Kirche: Handbuch der Liturgiewissenschaft Teil 5-6, Regensburg, F. Pustet, 1983. 13. D, “Dimanche” (n. 12), col. 895; J, Le Dimanche (n. 12), p. 14-17; J P II, The Lord’s Day (n. 12), §§21-22; Richard J. B, “e Lord’s Day,”

94

 

• From very early on, what became known as the Day of the Lord marked the occasion for the community of believers to gather for the celebration the Lord’s Supper, the Eucharist, thus underlining the paschal mystery of Jesus’ death and resurrection as the foundation not only of worship but of all of Christian life.14 Its antiquity is further corroborated by the fact that already in the first century the day of assembly acquired the name “the Lord’s day” (κυριακὴ ἡμέρα). By the second century, the name of the day and the tradition of assembly had become so engrained that the word κυριακή alone became a sufficient designation for both.15 Based on these and similar observations, scholars conclude that the Sunday observance, that is, as the regular time for Christians to assemble, is a totally Christian invention. • e regular celebration of Sunday preceded the annual commemoration of the resurrection on Easter.16 The Week • e foundational and originary significance of the week arises from the gospels’ indication that Jesus was raised “on the first day of the week”. • e week is a discrete and arbitrary measure of time, a cultural contrivance untethered to lunar or solar reckonings of time. e week goes on indefinitely and uninterruptedly in a recurrent and mathematically in Donald Arthur C (ed.), From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation, Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 1982, 222-250, p. 230; Matias A, “A eology of the Liturgical Year,” in Anscar J. C (ed.), Handbook of Liturgical Studies 5: Liturgical Time and Space (A Pueblo Book), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2000, 317-330, p.  320; Irmgard P, “e Paschal Mystery in Its Central Meaning for the Shape of Christian Liturgy,” in SL  26 (1996) 16-38, p.  34; R, Sunday (n. 12), p. 274-275; for an interesting discussion on this matter, see Gerard A. M. R, “La célébration de l’Eucharistie dans l’Église primitive,” in QL  74 (1993) 89-112. 14. B, “e Lord’s Day” (n. 13), p. 238. 15. B, “e Lord’s Day” (n. 13), p. 230; A, “A eology of the Liturgical Year” (n. 13), p. 320; P, “e Paschal Mystery” (n. 13), p. 34. 16. R, “Les Pères” (n. 12), p. 45; D, “Dimanche” (n. 12), cols. 905906; Cyrille V, Introduction aux sources de l’histoire du culte chrétien au Moyen Âge, Spoleto, Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 1964, p.  264; R, Sunday (n. 12), p. 215, 237; Pierre J, “Le dimanche et le temps de Pâques: la tradition de l’Église,” in MD  67 (1961) 163-182. To avoid ambiguity, it is helpful to distinguish between Easter as the once-for-all event of Jesus’ resurrection on the one hand and Easter as the annual liturgical commemoration of that event that emerged only in the second century on the other hand. us, every Sunday is a mini-Easter, here Easter referring to the unrepeatable and originary event of Jesus’ resurrection; Easter Sunday as the annual, liturgical commemoration of Jesus’ resurrection is Sunday writ large.

,  ,   

95

regular sequence, irrespective of calendar dates.17 As well, and unlike cycles based on nature (which always have fractions), the week is based exclusively on whole numbers.18 • As a cultural and arbitrary measure of time, the week can comprise varying numbers of days.19 e origin of the seven-day week is not altogether clear. Scholars generally point to two ancient traditions, the Jewish Sabbath tradition and the Greco-Roman planetary tradition, which eventually influenced each other in the early centuries of the first millennium .20 Nevertheless, by the time the Scriptures were written, the seven-day week had become the accepted measure of time in Jewish life and tradition. Given the nature of the week, major feasts in the Jewish annual calendar did not interrupt the weekly procession of time. For example, Passover was (and is) celebrated on 14 Nisan, no matter on what day of the week it falls in any given year. • e Gospels do not refer to lunar or solar computations to mark Jesus’ resurrection – they do not specify, for example, at what time of the month or phase of the moon, or again when in the annual solar cycle, his resurrection occurred. While lunar and solar computations are presupposed for determining each year the date of the Jewish Passover, and therefore of Jesus’ Last Supper and crucifixion, only the week factors in reckoning his resurrection. 3.1.2. Current Calendrical Traces of the Pre-eminence of Sunday and the week Historically and liturgically, later developments in Christian worship constitute additional layers superimposed on and emerging out of the foundation of Sunday and the week.21 e fundamental themes of Sunday 17. Eviatar Z, The Seven Day Circle: The History and Meaning of the Week, Chicago, IL – London, UK, University of Chicago Press, 1985, p. 4: “e week is the only major rhythm of human activity that is totally oblivious to nature, resting on mathematical regularity alone”; Daniel J. B, The Discoverers, New York, NY, Vintage Books 1983, p. 12. 18. According to Z, The Seven Day Circle (n. 17), p.  11 and 70, the lunar month is 29.5306 days, the solar year is 365.2422 days; also p. 60-61. Even the day, unlike the week, is not a whole number, requiring an occasional “leap second”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day accessed January 26, 2020. 19. Z, The Seven Day Circle (n. 17), p. 4, 44-59, 139; B, The Discoverers (n. 17), p. 3. 20. R, Sunday (n.  12), p.  9-42; B, The Discoverers (n.  17), p.  13; Z, The Seven Day Circle (n. 17), p. 5-26. 21. As V, Introduction (n.  16), p.  264, n.  77, opines: “Le problème n’est pas de savoir pourquoi le christianisme a développé une année liturgique à une époque

96

 

enhance the themes of the festal season Sundays, while the festal season themes in turn never override or suppress the foundational realities of Sunday and week, as the following instances attest: • The Annual Celebration of Easter Sunday. Since many eastern churches celebrated the crucifixion of Jesus on the Jewish calendar date 14 Nisan, which could fall on any day of the week and not necessarily on a Friday, Jesus’ resurrection three days later would then also not necessarily fall on a Sunday. e issue was finally resolved at the Council of Nicea in 325 which determined that the annual commemoration of the Lord’s resurrection always be celebrated on a Sunday (as had been the tradition in the west).22 • The Eighth Day: Although developed in the post-apostolic era, this tradition presupposes the biblical seven-day week, playing as it does on the symbolism of the seven days of creation recounted in Genesis. Jesus’ resurrection on the first day of the week, therefore, represents the eighth day of creation as well as the first day of a new week, hence the beginning of a new creation.23 • Octaves: Related to the symbolic meaning of the Eighth Day, an octave extends a feast through the following week into its eighth day. For example, the (first and original) octave of Easter computes Easter Sunday as the first day and extends to include to the following Sunday.24 relativement tardive, mais pourquoi une année liturgique comme telle a pu se constituer, avec un cycle de fêtes spécialisées, dont le christianisme n’avait nul besoin. En effet, chaque fois que l’Eucharistie est célébrée, la vie, la mort et la résurrection du Christ, donc le mystère du salut, sont célébrés. Chaque Eucharistie est une liturgie pascale; l’apparition de récurrence chronologiques spécialisées est un signe de l’historisation progressive du cérémonial et de la perspective événementielle introduite dans le culte.” 22. On the Quartodeciman controversy, see Adolf A, The Liturgical Year: Its History and Its Meaning after the Reform of the Liturgy, trans. by Matthew O’C, New York, NY, Pueblo, 1981, p. 58-59; Joseph A. J, La liturgie des premiers siècles jusqu’à l’époque de Grégoire le Grand (LO, 33), trans. by Francis A. B, Paris, Cerf, 1962, p. 46-48. e gravitational pull of Sunday is attested today as well where the Ascension is celebrated not on a ursday, the 40th day aer Easter, but rather on the following Sunday. 23. On the topic of the Eighth Day, see D, “Dimanche” (n. 12), cols. 879-880; R, Sunday (n. 12), p. 275-285; D, Bible et liturgie (n. 11), p. 355-387; J P II, The Lord’s Day (n. 12), §26; J, Le Dimanche (n. 12), p. 17; Charles P, “‘Le début des temps derniers…’ Le dimanche et le huitième jour dans le Nouveau Testament,” in MD 220 (1999) 73-87. 24. Herman A. J. W, “Étude liturgique: L’histoire de l’octave the Pâques,” AsSeign1, 43, Bruges, Biblica, 1964, 7-15; Jean H, “Les dimanches verts et Mystère Pascal,” in MD 46 (1956) 7-34, p. 8-9: “D’une semaine à l’autre, le dimanche rappelle alors l’octave avec tout le réalisme chrétien qui s’y rattache, et, d’un dimanche à l’autre, le mystère pascal communique son rythme et sa lumière, sa grâce et son eucharistie à toute la structure de l’année liturgique”; also, Z, The Seven Day Circle (n. 17), p. 96.

,  ,   

97

• Festal Seasons: With the exception of the Christmas season, the Advent, Lenten, and Easter seasons are sequences of Sundays and their intervening weeks. ese three festal seasons all begin on a Sunday, with the Sundays termed Sundays of their respective seasons.25 3.1.3. Perennial pre-eminence of Sunday and the Week. Regarding the possibility of celebrating Easter every year on a fixed calendar date, the Appendix to Sacrosanctum Concilium: A Declaration of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council on Revision of the Calendar comments: e sacred council likewise declares that it does not oppose efforts designed to introduce a perpetual calendar into civil society. But among the various systems which are being devised with a view to establishing a perpetual calendar and introducing it into civil life, those and only those are unopposed by the church which retain and safeguard a seven-day week, with Sunday, without the introduction of any days outside the week, so that the succession of weeks may be left intact, unless in the judgment of the Apostolic See there are extremely weighty reasons to the contrary.26 [emphasis added]

e Vatican II reform of the liturgy, then, rightly insists, as the above church documents show, on the foundational and originary nature of Sunday and the week. How, then, is this pre-eminence of Sunday and the week borne out in the Sundays in Ordinary Time and their Lectionary elaboration? 3.2. Universal Norms on the Liturgical Year and the General Roman Calendar (UNLY) Regarding Sunday, the week, and Ordinary Time, the document states the following: §4. On the first day of each week, which is known as the Day of the Lord or the Lord’s Day, the Church, by an apostolic tradition that draws its origin from the very day of the Resurrection of Christ, celebrates the Paschal Mystery. Hence, Sunday must be considered the primordial feast day [here referring to SC §102].

25. Liturgical Lent begins on a Sunday, counting six consecutive Sundays and the intervening weeks to the threshold of Holy Week; penitential Lent begins on Ash Wednesday. True to the fundamental meaning of Sunday as the original Christian feast, there are no penitential observances on the Sundays of Lent. 26. D, “Time in the Liturgy,” in The Church at Prayer (n. 8), p. 3-4. For the underlying rationale, see Z, The Seven Day Circle (n. 17), p. 80-82.

98

  §43. Besides the times of year that have their own distinctive character, there remain in the yearly cycle thirty-three or thirty-four weeks in which no particular aspect of the mystery of Christ is celebrated, but rather the mystery of Christ is itself honored in its fullness, especially on Sundays. is period is known as Ordinary Time.27

Paragraph 4 reiterates the description of Sunday and the week found in SC. Paragraph 43, however, which comes aer the document’s treatment of the festal seasons, deals specifically with Ordinary Time. Of signal importance is the distinction it posits between festal seasons, which celebrate a “particular aspect of the mystery of Christ”, and the remaining weeks (especially Sundays), which celebrate “the mystery of Christ […] in its fullness”. How, in light of all this, does the Lectionary go about articulating, appending scriptural flesh on the calendrical bones of, the Sundays in Ordinary Time? 3.3. Introduction to the Lectionary for Mass: is document briefly explicitates the principles of reading selection and the patterns of reading distribution implemented for the Sundays in Ordinary Time (see my Introduction above): §67. In contrast, the Sundays in Ordinary Time do not have a distinctive character. us the text of both the apostolic and Gospel readings are arranged in order of semi-continuous reading, whereas the Old Testament reading is harmonized with the Gospel.

e next paragraph offers the rationale for its design choice: §68. e decision was made not to extend to Sundays [in Ordinary Time] the arrangement suited to the liturgical seasons mentioned [festal seasons], that is, not to have an organic harmony of themes devised with a view to facilitating homiletic instruction. Such an arrangement would be in conflict with the genuine conception of liturgical celebration, which is always the celebration of the mystery of Christ and which by its own tradition makes use of the word of God not only at the prompting of logical or extrinsic concerns but spurred by the desire to proclaim the Gospel and to lead those who believe to the fullness of truth [emphasis added].

Due to the foundational and originary nature of Sunday, particularly as this is manifested in the Sundays in Ordinary Time, other structural reading patterns would, the document seems to imply, vitiate the “genuine conception of liturgical celebration”. e rationale underlying this 27. For a more detailed commentary on the significance of the paschal mystery in the Liturgical Year, see M, “e Paschal Mystery” (n. 12), p. 210.

,  ,   

99

statement appears in the rest of the sentence, which bears a measure of elaboration. First, as the Vatican II SC underscores, all liturgy celebrates the paschal mystery of Christ (SC §§5-7).28 Second, the Sunday Eucharist, by dint of being both Sunday (Lord’s Day [see above]) and the celebration of the Eucharist (the great thanksgiving whose climax is the death and resurrection of Christ), constitutes the summit of the Church’s liturgical activity (Presbyterorum Ordinis, “Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests,” §5). is liturgical context, then, permeates and suffuses all aspects of the Sunday eucharistic celebration, including the Liturgy of the Word. ird, as a result, the Liturgy of the Word calls to mind the reason for gathering – and for gathering at the table – as §10 of the ILM goes on to explain: e Church is nourished spiritually at the twofold table of God’s word and of the Eucharist: from the one it grows in wisdom and from the other in holiness. In the word of God the divine covenant is announced; in the Eucharist the new and everlasting covenant is renewed. On the one hand the history of salvation is brought to mind by means of human sounds; on the other it is made manifest in the sacramental signs of the Liturgy.

In light of these contextual factors, the proclamation of the Scriptures at the Sunday Eucharist is, in Paul Bradshaw’s historical review of the various ways that biblical readings have been (and are) used in worship, first and foremost kerygmatic or anamnetic rather than didactic (instructional or catechetical). at is, the Scriptures “provide the biblical warrant and foundation for the liturgical rite being celebrated” […] and are “intimately related to the meaning of what is being celebrated, interpreting and stimulating the liturgical action itself.”29 is well articulates what the second part of ILM §10 asserts: It can never be forgotten, therefore, that the divine word read and proclaimed by the Church in the Liturgy has as its one purpose the sacrifice 28. Helmut H, “Die Nähe des auferweckten Gekreuzigten in unserem Leben,” in BL 75/3 (2002) 162-167; Achille M. T, “In margine alla seconda edizione dell’‘Ordo Lectionum Missae,’” in Not 18 (1982) 243-280, p. 250, 252-256, points out how the Christocentric orientation of the liturgy is underscored in the 1981 edition of the Introduction to the Lectionary for Mass. 29. Paul B, “e Use of the Bible in Liturgy: Some Historical Perspectives,” in SL 22/1 (1992) 35-52, p. 39, 41. He points out however (p. 36, 41, 43) that, while the four different ways he identifies are not mutually exclusive, usually one predominates or is primary. Regarding the Roman Catholic Sunday Lectionary more specifically, see Reinhard M, “La liturgie de la Parole pendant la messe: L’anamnèse du Christ mise en scène,” in MD  243 (2005) 43-60. William S, The Word in Worship (n. 4), p. 33-34, captures well the blend of primary and secondary roles of the readings in the Romans Catholic Lectionary for Sundays and Solemnities when he observes that the post-Vatican II commission charged with its revision “[…] rejected, at least implicitly,

100

  of the New Covenant and the banquet of grace, that is, the Eucharist. e celebration of Mass in which the word is heard and the Eucharist is offered forms but one single act of divine worship.

In this way the Lectionary’s selection and distribution of readings for the Sundays in Ordinary Time lends a sharper relief than elsewhere in the annual cycle to the “genuine conception of liturgical celebration.” 4. Implications for the Sundays in Ordinary Time in the OLM Given the pre-eminence of Sunday and the unique character of the week, then, the semicontinuous reading arrangement of the second and third readings was deemed by the Lectionary’s designers to be a fitting way to express the “theme(s)” of the weekly procession of Ordinary Time Sundays. Because they are “numbered,” these Sundays are meant to evoke the on-going, undetermined, and uninterrupted weekly succession of time. is becomes all the more evident when compared with the Sundays of Advent, Lent, and Easter. For these festal seasons, the sequence of Sundays suggests progress toward a major feast (Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, respectively); the Sundays in Ordinary Time, however, point to the whole mystery of Christ. e only implied movement is toward the eschatological fullness of the kingdom of God. us, if there is a “theme” for these Sundays, it is the continued, sustained, and uninterrupted fidelity of discipleship, of following in Jesus’ footsteps throughout one’s life and the life of the believing community. e correspondence between the first and third reading, for its part, is intended to evoke the overarching story of salvation of which Jesus is the climax and fulfillment. Together, these two interlocking patterns were reckoned by the designers of the Lectionary to be the most appropriate in structuring these Sundays in the Lectionary.30 e following excerpt from John Paul other ways of going about its task. e Lectionary was not to be ordered around a ‘history of salvation’ motif (understood as a line running from the creation to the second coming), or around a systematic presentation of the theological teachings of the church, or according to a literary analysis of the parts of the Bible that were to be used. Nor were the readings to be chosen and ordered for the primary purpose of exhorting and encouraging people to lead more Christian lives. e Lectionary was there to proclaim the passion, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, fully realized in him and being realized in us who, through faith and baptism, have been joined to him.” 30. e RCL’s second option for the first reading, a broadly-conceived semicontinuous track for each Lectionary Year, results in three distinct horizontal patterns, one for each of the three readings. Vertical correspondence is therefore essentially precluded. For a fuller presentation, see C  C T, The Revised Common Lectionary (n. 2), p. 3-4, 57-58, 113-114. e RCL’s second option for the Old Testament reading works best for narrative books, as Ansgar F, “Die Rolle des Alten Testamentes in

,  ,   

101

II’s encyclical Dies Domini, while dealing with Sunday generally, summarizes well what the arrangement of the Sundays in Ordinary Time in particular seeks to express: §75. Since Sunday is the weekly Easter, recalling and making present the day upon which Christ rose from the dead [here, Easter in the sense of the event of Christ’s resurrection], it is also the day that reveals the meaning of time. It has nothing in common with the cosmic cycles according to which natural religion and human culture tend to impose a structure on time, succumbing perhaps to the myth of the eternal return. e Christian Sunday is wholly other! Springing from the resurrection, it cuts through human time, the months, the years, the centuries, like a directional arrow that points them toward their target: Christ’s Second Coming. Sunday foreshadows the last day, the day of the Parousia, which in a way is already anticipated by Christ’s glory in the event of the resurrection.31

5. Concluding Reflections While the above discussion might not dissipate, let alone resolve, the discomfort arising from the lack of thorough-going vertical correspondence among the three readings on any given Sunday in Ordinary Time, it nonetheless seeks to set the matter in its broader liturgical, calendrical, and especially Lectionary contexts. ese reflections prompt two concluding observations: First, it is important to assess any individual part or sector of the Lectionary in light of the whole, of its intended overarching architecture – intended, because the designers of the OLM had inherited a one-year Lectionary, in use for more than a millennium, that had no obvious plan or design, particularly for what were then called the Green Sundays.32 It is one of the main insufficiencies that the revisers of the Lectionary sought to address, and they did so by devising an integral arrangement whose constitutive parts can best be understood in light of its entire

Perikopenreformen des 20. Jahrhunderts,” in Ansgar F (ed.), Streit am Tisch des Wortes? (n. 3), p. 641, points out: “[…] eine lectio continua/semicontinua sinnvoll nur bei stark narrativen Texten funktionieren kann.” 31. The Liturgy Documents (n. 6), 43-83. 32. e Gospels among themselves had no obvious rationale or pattern; the Epistles seem to have followed a sort of semicontinuous pattern in canonical order for the excerpts from the Pauline letters between Pentecost and the following Advent. However, there was no link between the Epistles and Gospels. Gaston G, “Épîtres,” in Fernand C – Henri L (eds.), DACL, 5/1, Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1922, 246-343, cols. 325, 331-332, 343; James M, “Unfolding the Mystery of Christ: e Liturgy of the Word,” in Cat 13/5 (Sept. 1991) 2-12, p. 5; omas O’L, “Language, Music, Liturgy: Communicating the Word,” in ML 41/3 (Feb 2016) 27-38, p. 35.

102

 

architecture. at is why the ILM urges that those who espouse the revised Lectionary acquire […] a thorough knowledge of the structure of the Order of Readings, so that he [or she] will know how to work a fruitful effect in the hearts of the faithful. rough study and prayer he [or she] must also develop a full understanding of the coordination and connection of the various texts in the liturgy of the word, so that the Order of Readings will become the source of a sound understanding of the mystery of Christ and his saving work (§39).33

Second, because Sunday is foundational and originary, epitomizing the pristine experience of Christian worship, the functions of the three readings remain the same throughout. No matter where located in the annual cycle and irrespective of their specific content on any given Sunday or feast, the readings always relate to each other as follows: e first reading from the Old Testament evokes the wider story of salvation, of which Jesus, proclaimed in the Gospel, is the climax and fulfilment, interpreted and appropriated for Christian life as modeled in the second reading from the Apostolic writings.34 Just as it is helpful to consider the Lectionary as a whole rather than piecemeal, so is it important here as well to consider the readings in light of the unity of Scripture, centered on the paschal mystery of Christ, and not simply as individual, discrete entities.35 A return ad fontes, to the living waters of Christian worship as I have tried to show here, might help foster a better appreciation of the Lectionary design for the Sundays in Ordinary Time.

33. Helpful in this regard: Introduction to the Lectionary for Mass (indispensable); B, The Word of the Lord at Mass (n. 2); omas O’L, Making the Most of the Lectionary: A User’s Guide, London, SPCK – Harrisburg, PA, Morehouse, 2012; B, The Sunday Lectionary (n. 5); C  C T, The Revised Common Lectionary (n. 2). 34. See Gaudium et Spes §45; in the present volume, see Chapters 1 and 3 above. 35. See, for example, Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Homiletic Directory, Ottawa, CCCB, 2015, §§17, 18, 19.

C 

THE SECOND READINGS IN THE SUNDAY LECTIONARY An Appreciation 1. Introduction e second readings in the revised Lectionary for Sundays and Solemnities, drawn from the Apostolic writings, continue to be a challenge both for homilists and for worshipping assemblies.1 Preachers tend to avoid the second readings, restricting themselves to the first readings from the Old Testament or, even more likely, only to the third readings from the Gospels.2 For their part, the gathered community find the second readings difficult to grasp, all the more so when the selections are not coordinated thematically with the other two passages of the day.3 e tendency to neglect or at least marginalize the second readings results from two factors that hamper their being appreciated more fully. e first has to do with the Lectionary’s design, specifically the addition of a third reading to the traditional two and its consequences for the 1. While this chapter deals with the Roman Catholic Lectionary (Ordo Lectionum Missae), many of my observations are germane to one or another feature of the Revised Common Lectionary. On the latter, see C  C T, The Revised Common Lectionary: 20th Anniversary Annotated Edition, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 2012. 2. Vincent T, “Les lectures du Nouveau Testament dans la liturgie rénovée,” in QL/SL 67 (1986) 235-251, p. 244. 3. See, for example, Robert G – Romain S (eds.), Jours du Seigneur. Année liturgique, Vol. 4, Turnhout, Brepols, 1990, p. 12; Lucien D, Celebration of the Word, trans. by Jane M.-A. B, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1993, p.  12-13.  Adrien N, one of the members of the Consilium’s (the post-Vatican II commission for liturgical reform) Committee 11 for the revision of the Lectionary, bemoans the lack of correspondence among all three readings for the Sundays in Ordinary Time in his article “La Parole de Dieu et Vatican II,” in Pierre J – Reiner K – Gottardo P (eds.), Liturgia, opera divina e umana: Studi sulla riforma liturgica offerti a S. E. Mons. Annibale Bugnini in occasione del suo 70e compleano, Roma, Edizioni Liturgiche, 1982, 133149, p. 142-143. In a later publication, A Rereading of the Renewed Liturgy, trans. by Mary M. M, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1994, p. 6-18, he presents a proposal on these Sundays for selecting readings from the New Testament letters that correspond with the first and third readings of the day, thereby forgoing a semicontinuous arrangement for the second readings in favor of lecto selecta [originally published as “Les deuxièmes lectures des dimanches ordinaires,” in EcclOr 8 (1991) 125-136].

104

 

second reading. e other factor devolves from the genre and content of the New Testament letters from which the vast majority of second reading excerpts are drawn.4 In what follows, I first examine the two factors that inhibit appreciation of the second readings (Parts 2 and 3). I then set the second readings in their liturgical context through a sequence of nested frames to determine their function and significance (Part  4). Finally, in light of this discussion, I offer some concluding reflections in view of fostering a better appreciation of the second readings in the Sunday Lectionary (Part 5). 2. Addition of a Third Reading and Its Consequences e addition of a first reading from the Old Testament as a standard feature on Sundays and Solemnities has had an impact on the setting and role of the now second readings in the Sunday Lectionary. If, prior to the Vatican II revision of the Lectionary, readings from the Apostolic writings enjoyed the more prominent position of being first, they have now been relegated to second position, sandwiched between an Old Testament and a Gospel passage. A Responsorial Psalm as a meditative prolongation of the first reading results in a yet longer delay before the proclamation of the second reading.5 As well, the addition of a first reading has lengthened the overall average number of verses for the Liturgy of the Word, from 16.8 verses in the pre-Vatican II Lectionary to 21.8 verses in the current one. To compensate for this increase, the second readings were reduced from an average of 7.6 verses in the previous Lectionary to 5.8 verses in the current one.6 While there is manifestly a greater overall volume of material drawn from the Apostolic writings in the revised Sunday Lectionary’s three-year cycle compared to the previous Lectionary’s one-year cycle, their now 4. Most of second readings are drawn from the New Testament letters. e only exceptions are excerpts from Acts as second readings for the Christmas vigil and for the Baptism of the Lord, Years ABC (there are also optional second readings from the NT letters in Years B and C); excerpts from Revelation as second readings for Sundays 2 to 6 of the Easter Season, Year C, and for the Feast of Christ the King, Year B. Hence, except for the tally of the average number of verses indicated below in my next section, I will focus my comments primarily on the New Testament letters. 5. T, “Les lectures du Nouveau Testament” (n.  2), p.  251, aer a helpful and thorough overview of the use of the Apostolic writings in the revised liturgy, points this out. See also Aimé-Georges M, “À propos du nombre des lectures à la messe,” in Mirabile laudis canticum: mélanges liturgiques. Études historiques, la réforme conciliaire, portraits de liturgistes (BELS, 60), Roma, Edizione Liturgiche, 1991, 125-136. 6. ese statistics are from Elmar N, Entstehung und Bewertung der neuen Perikopenordnung des Römischen Ritus für die Meßfeier an Sonn- und Festtagen, Paderborn, Bonifatius, 1986, p. 192-193, 282, 334-335.

      

105

curtailed average length makes them all the more difficult to understand. Finally, because it is new, the addition aer a hiatus of more than a millennium of a reading from the Old Testament has garnered most of the attention, both in the post-Vatican II commission charged with the Lectionary’s revision and in subsequent literature.7 Among the major concerns are justifying the importance and presence of the Old Testament as first readings; weighing the challenge that an Old Testament selection poses to a worshipping community unfamiliar with that part of the Scriptures; and assessing the demand made on the assembly’s capacity to absorb three oen very disparate biblical excerpts.8 Because the “Epistle”, as the reading from the Apostolic writings was then called (except for a passage from Acts on Ascension and Pentecost, all were from the New Testament letters), had been a standard feature throughout most of the centuries prior to Vatican II,9 its continued presence in the current lectionary seemed altogether obvious and therefore drew (and continues to draw) little comment.10 7. By the 7th century and perhaps dating as far back as the middle of the 6th, the Roman Rite featured only two readings. See Gaston G, “Epître,” in Fernand C – Henri L (eds.), DACL, 5/1, Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1922, 246-343, cols. 246247; Cyrille V, Introduction aux sources de l’histoire du culte chrétien au Moyen Âge, Spoleto, Centro Italiano di Studi Sull’Alto Medioevo, 1964, p.  262-263; Eric P, A History of Liturgical Books: From the Beginning to the Thirteenth Century, trans. by Madeleine B, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1998, p. 85. 8. For example, Paul-Marie G, “e Reason for an Old Testament Lesson,” in Lancelot S (ed.), The New Liturgy: A Comprehensive Introduction, London, Longman & Todd, 1970, 59-72; omas O’L, “e Old Testament Readings: Should We Bother?” in NDR 11 (November 2013) 6-9; Joseph J, “e Old Testament in the New Testament and in the Liturgy,” in The Bible Today 28 (1990) 207-212; Rudolf B, “Bringing the Old Testament to Its Legitimate Place and Function in the Church’s Liturgical Reading of the Scriptures,” in SL  17 (1987) 19-25; Elmar N, “Das alte Testament in der gegenwärtigen Perikopenordnung,” in LJ 47 (1992) 174-189; Ansgar F (ed.), Streit am Tisch des Wortes? Deutung und Bedeutung des Alten Testaments und seiner Verwendung in der Liturgie (Pietas Liturgica), St. Ottilen, EOS, 1997, esp. the essays in Part III: “Liturgie: Über die Stellenwert des Alten Testamentes im Gottesdienst,” p. 491-868. 9. Olivier R, “Lecture et présence de l’Apôtre à la liturgie de la messe,” in MD 62 (1960) 69-78; G, “Epître” (n. 7), cols. 246-343. 10. For a succinct report on such discussions in the Consilium back in 1966 prior to the Lectionary’s official promulgation (1969), see Annibale B, The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975, trans. by Matthew J. O’C, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1990, p.  414-415. For a case in point that matters have not changed significantly since then, see Andrzej Ż, “Le prime e le seconde letture del Lezionario riveduto alla luce del Concilio Vaticano II,” in Damásio M (ed.), Sacrificium et Canticum Laudis: Parola, Eucaristia, Liturgia delle Ore, Vita della Chiesa. Miscellanea liturgica offerta al prof. Manlio Sodi in occasione del suo 70e genetaliaco, Citta del Vaticano, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2015, 47-68, who, in his fine presentation of the first and second readings in the revised Sunday Lectionary, comments on the reasons for introducing the Old Testament but has nothing to add on the rationale for the continued presence and role of what is now the second reading.

106

 

2.1. Provision for Omitting ese significant adjustments to the Liturgy of the Word give rise to pastoral concerns evidenced in the provision, discussed in the pre-Vatican II Lectionary revision commission and officially sanctioned in both the 1969 Introduction to the Lectionary for Mass (henceforth ILM) and its revised and augmented 1981 edition, for the omission of either the first or the second reading. e provision reads as follows: In Masses to which three readings are assigned, all three are to be used. If, however, for pastoral reasons the Conference of Bishops has given permission for two readings only to be used, the choice between the two first readings is to be made in such a way as to safeguard the Church’s intent to instruct the faithful more completely in the mystery of salvation. us, unless the contrary is indicated in the text of the Lectionary, the reading to be chosen as the first reading is the one that is closer to the theme of the gospel, or, in accord with the intent just mentioned, that is more helpful toward a coherent catechesis over an extended period, or that preserves the semicontinuous reading of some biblical book (§79).11

e paragraph begins with a clear statement that all three readings are to be used. It then presents, in a sort of concession for pastoral reasons (“If, however”), the option to use only two readings, that is, to choose to read only the Old Testament passage or the passage from the Apostolic writings plus the gospel. “Pastoral reasons” are further described as the concern for instruction or catechesis in the mystery of salvation. ere follow two guidelines to be applied in discerning which of the two readings to retain: the one that is “closer to the theme of the gospel” [in order to allow] (1) “[…] a coherent catechesis over an extended period” or (2) to preserve “the semicontinuous reading of some biblical book”. Both guidelines refer to structural issues that affect what can be called in the degree of integration (thematic or “vertical” correspondence) of the three readings assigned to a Sunday or Solemnity. In a footnote, the 1981 edition of the ILM provides two examples on how one might implement the guidelines: For example: in Lent the continuity of the Old Testament readings corresponds to the unfolding of the history of salvation; the Sundays in Ordinary Time provide the semicontinuous reading of one of the letters of the apostles. In these cases it is right that the pastor of souls choose one or other of the readings in a systematic way over a series of Sundays so that he [sic] may establish a coherent plan for catechesis. It is not right to read

11. “Lectionary for Mass, Introduction,” Liturgy Documents, Vol. 1, Essentials for Parish Worship, Chicago, IL, LTP, 2012, 325-363.

      

107

indiscriminately on one day from the Old Testament, on another from the letter of an apostle, without any orderly plan for the texts that follow.

Both paragraph §79 of the ILM and the appended note presuppose familiarity with the overall structural design of the Lectionary, especially the two general principles underlying its architecture and the various horizontal patterns that these principles generate, for these in great part determine the type and degree of integration or vertical correspondence among the readings assigned to a given celebration. 2.2. Reading Integration e two general structural principles governing the selection and distribution of readings in the Sunday Lectionary are lectio selecta and lectio semicontinua. Lectio selecta, as the name implies, refers to those instances where the theme of the feast or of the liturgical season serves as the primary determinant for the choice and placement of biblical readings. Lectio semicontinua describes the selection and distribution of sequential readings from a particular biblical book over a series of consecutive Sundays, all the while skipping some passages (hence semi; see ILM §§66-68). e implementation of lectio selecta in festal seasons produces what can be called “horizontal patterns” of thematic sequences spanning at least two, usually several, consecutive Sundays. Both these overarching principles and horizontal patterns must be identified in weighing the option for omitting the first or the second reading. e following brief overview of how these principles are implemented in the Lectionary will show that, when it comes to deciding which of the two readings to omit, the first or the second, the result is not without a certain ambiguity. • e greatest degree of integration among all three readings occurs on solemnities (Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, Ascension, Pentecost). e entire Christmas season fits well under this umbrella, for, unlike the other festal seasons that are constituted by a series of consecutive Sundays, this season rests on the two pillar feasts of Christmas and Epiphany whose themes govern the season’s Sundays. However, since solemnities rather than a series of contiguous Sundays characterize the season, the guidelines stated above would appear not to apply. • For Advent, the first and second readings take their cues from the gospel excerpts, which, for their part, express the themes of the season and therefore exhibit a horizontal pattern of time in reverse: on the First Sunday, the promise of eschatological fulfilment; on the Second

108

 

and ird Sundays, John the Baptist as precursor to Jesus’ public ministry; on the Fourth Sunday, anticipations of the Messiah’s birth. Since the first and second readings are selected and situated to support and elaborate the gospel themes, neither display horizontal patterns among themselves. us, vertical correspondence is a strong feature throughout the season. It is not clear, then, in light of the two guidelines presented in ILM §79, which of the two, the first or the second reading, it would be preferable to omit. • In Lent, both the gospel readings and the Old Testament readings manifest horizontal patterns. For the Gospels: the First and Second Sundays present the Temptation and the Transfiguration; Sundays ree, Four, and Five differ in each of the three Years of the cycle: in Year A, the focus is on Baptism; in Year B, on different images of the paschal mystery; in Year C, on repentance and conversion. For the Old Testament readings there is a salvation-history sequence: First Sunday, primeval history; Second Sunday, ancestral history; ird Sunday, Moses; Fourth Sunday, the Holy Land; Fih Sunday, prophecies of endtime fulfillment. e second readings are selected to express the season’s themes as well as to provide links between the Old Testament and the gospel readings of the day. As hinted in the example provided in note 106 to ILM §79, the recommendation would lean toward omitting the second readings, which, unlike the other two readings, do not display a horizontal pattern across the Sundays of Lent. • Matters are somewhat different for the Easter season. Here, all three readings, selected to express the main themes of the season, each have their own horizontal sequences, thus essentially precluding vertical correspondence. e horizontal gospel patterns are as follows: the Second and ird Sundays present appearances of the risen Jesus; the Fourth Sunday features excerpts from the Good Shepherd Parable from John 10; the Fih, Sixth, and Seventh Sundays offer passages from the Farewell Discourse in John 14–17. e first readings are from the Acts of the Apostles, selected and distributed in a loosely-conceived semicontinuous, and therefore horizontal, pattern. Second readings are excerpted from 1 Peter in Year A, 1 John in Year B, and Revelation in Year C, each following its own semicontiunous track. Since both the first and the second readings present horizontal patterns with no attempt to furnish vertical correspondence, it is not clear which of the two readings, the first or the second, it might be better to omit. • Ordinary Time presents its own combination of patterns. e Sundays are designed according to independent semicontinuous patterns for both the gospels (Matthew in Year A, Mark in Year B, and Luke in

      

109

Year C) and the second readings (from the various New Testament letters), the first readings being selected to correspond to the gospel passage of the day with, therefore, no horizontal pattern among them. e tendency here would be to omit the second readings, which, despite their semicontinuous pattern, are nonetheless for that very reason not integrated with the first and third readings. As this brief survey demonstrates, the degree of integration among the three readings assigned to any one Sunday or Solemnity varies considerably.12 Applying the two guidelines proposed in ILM §79 oen leaves matters unclear, especially when there are equally valid reasons for omitting either the first or the second readings. e implied message from the statements in §79 (“all three readings are to be used […]. If, however […]”) seems to be that the first and the second readings, despite being required, are nonetheless not entirely indispensable. 3. Genre and Content of the New Testament Letters To the ambiguity stemming from the Lectionary’s structure, a yet more decisive factor would favor omitting the second reading rather than the first. is factor pertains to the genre and content of New Testament letters. Letter as a discourse genre differs significantly from the narrative genre found in the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and in a number of the Old Testament excerpts (and both genres from those in excerpts from prophetic and wisdom literature). A useful way to highlight the specific characteristics of the letter is to compare it with narrative. Unlike for narratives, what letters refer to cannot be easily pictured whether in imagination or in another visual medium (e.g., film or theater). Narratives relate stories with settings, characters, and plots; they evoke an event-filled world-in-motion. Letters, however, do not seek to tell a story so much as to comment, usually in a sort of implied conversation or dialogue. Whereas narrative is mediated through the voice of a narrator and is generally articulated in past tense verbs to represent events that happened then-and-there (e.g., “Jesus entered the synagogue”), the letter is in the author’s own voice and favors present tense verbs because it deals with here-and-now matters of mutual concern to the implicated parties (e.g., “I want you to know”). Unlike for narrative, in the letter the hearer/reader is directly addressed and involved, resulting in a greater communicative tension. 12. Despite what T, “Les lectures du Nouveau Testament” (n. 2), suggests, p. 251.

110

 

As for content, the New Testament letters, rather than recount foundational events as do the Gospels (what happened in the past), are occasional writings, that is, they are occasioned by current issues of common interest and concern to both parties, sender and receiver. In the New Testament, these matters arise from the lived experience of the churches.13 ey explain, theologize, argue, exhort, always endeavoring in one way or another to elucidate the link between daily experience and the overarching story line of what God has done in Christ, of the paschal mystery.14 e letters presuppose the story recounted in the Scriptures, both of Israel and of Jesus, instead interpreting the story for the believing communities being addressed and helping them appropriate it in their daily lives, how to live their baptismal identity as the renewed People of God, as disciples of Christ, as the church in the world.15 For example, in the Pauline church at Corinth, the question arose whether it was fitting for believers to eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols. In 1 Corinthians 8–10 Paul responds by distinguishing between, on the one hand, le-over meat that, aer having been sacrificed but not entirely consumed at a city-wide festival, was aerwards made available for purchase on the market, and, on the other hand, meat that was sacrificed at an intimate family or social celebration and then eaten in that setting. What matters, writes Paul, is whether one was present or not at the sacrificial ritual itself. In the first instance, where one’s attendance was unlikely, there is no problem; in the second instance, however, one’s presence at the actual ritual, followed as it was with a meal, is problematic, and this for two reasons: potential for scandal and potential for counter-witness. Regarding scandal, Paul writes that if recently-initiated members of the community, still not fully convinced that there are no 13. In another (if indirect) instance of the neglect of second readings, it is interesting to note that in his discussion of the Lectionary’s use of Scriptural genres, David N. P, Sacrament: The Language of God’s Giving, New York, NY, Crossroad, 1999, p. 149-164, writes extensively about narrative and its various expressions but omits mention of the literary genre of letter. 14. Reinhard M, “La liturgie de la Parole pendant la messe: L’anamnèse du Christ mise en scène,” in MD 243 (2005) 43-60, p.  54; Stanley K. S, “Letters. Greek and Latin Letters,” in David Noel F (ed.), ABD, Vol. 4, New York – London – Toronto – Sydney – Auckland, Doubleday, 1992, 290-293, p. 290; Paul R, Temps et récit II, Paris, Seuil, 1984, p.  127-128, who distinguishes between recounting (raconter) and commenting (commenter), pointing out that the former is characterized “par la détente ou le détachement”, the latter “par la tension ou l’engagement”. 15. David N. P, “The Word of the Lord”: Liturgy’s Use of Scripture, Maryknoll, NY, Orbis Books, 2001, p. 52: “Paul is clearly concerned about how Christians live day by day and about their publicly visible ethical behavior. However, he relates all moral conduct to faith in Christ and to faith in the new day which has dawned in him”; also, T, “Les lectures du Nouveau Testament” (n. 2), p. 244.

      

111

idols, “see you, who possess knowledge, eating in the temple of an idol, might they not, since their conscience is weak, be encouraged to the point of eating food sacrificed to idols? So by your knowledge those weak believers for whom Christ died are destroyed” (1 Cor 8:10-11). Regarding counter-witness, Paul admonishes that sharing sacrificial meat offered to an idol would send the wrong message: “What do I imply then? at food sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons [idols] and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons” (1 Cor 10:19-21; NRSV). Interpreting and appropriating the paschal mystery for Christian life – discerning what builds up the community or what might present a counterwitness to the Good News – is always Paul’s fundamental concern. In short, the letters speak to the churches in their identity and role as embodiments of the paschal mystery in their specific contexts. 4. Reframing: The Second Readings in Their Liturgical Setting e somewhat ambiguated situation of the second readings deriving from their structural setting in the Lectionary and further compounded by their genre and content as letters poses unique challenges toward appreciating their presence and role in the Sunday Lectionary. To counter this tendency to marginalize, let alone omit, them, it is vital to set them in their liturgical context. In the following, I propose to reconceive them in a series of nested frames, the smaller ones nested inside the increasingly larger ones, thereby providing a more fitting way to perceive them. 1. First frame: The three assigned readings. e role and function of the second readings can best be determined by placing them in the context of the other two readings with which they are assigned. e three readings, irrespective of their specific content on any given Sunday or Solemnity, always have the same functions: the first reading from the Old Testament evokes the story of salvation of which Jesus in the gospel reading is the climax and fulfillment, as interpreted and appropriated for Christian life in the second reading.16 e first reading, then, reminds the 16. For a somewhat similar formulaic description of the functions of the readings, see Christoph U, “Du ‘fleuve à cent voix’ à la ‘Parole de Dieu’,” in Martin K – Bruno B – Arnaud J-L (eds.), Présence et rôle de la Bible dans la liturgie, Fribourg, Academic Press, 2006, 295-315, p. 310; also, yet more directly and succinctly, omas O’L, “Language, Music, Liturgy: Communicating the Word,” in ML 41/3 (Feb 2016) 27-38, p. 28. For the Easter Vigil as the fundamental

112

 

worshipping assembly that they are the People of God, the gospel reading that they are disciples of Christ, the second reading that they are church. 2. Second frame: The Liturgy of the Word. e role and function of the second reading, when set within the larger context of the Liturgy of the Word, provide a model and pattern for the homily. is is because the second readings from the New Testament letters and the homily both manifest the same fundamental aim: to interpret and appropriate the paschal mystery for Christian life. What the letters sought to do then the homily seeks to do now, as the following description in the United States episcopal document Fulfilled in Your Hearing (FIYH) underlines. e homily […] is not so much on the Scriptures as from and through them […]. [T]he preacher does not so much attempt to explain the Scriptures as to interpret the human situation through the Scriptures. In other words, the goal of the liturgical preacher is not to interpret a text of the Bible (as would be the case in teaching a Scripture class) as much as to draw on the texts of the Bible as they are presented in the lectionary to interpret peoples’ lives.17

In a similar vein, Ralph Keifer, aer citing the incident of Jesus at the synagogue in Nazareth from Luke 4, comments regarding the Liturgy of the Word as proclamation, which includes the homily: e text functions not as handing on something from time past as much as it does as a pointer to what God is doing here and now. e proclamation occurs, not in the bald reading of the text, nor in commentary about what God may have done in time past, but in the moment when text and preacher name what God is doing here and now, and challenge those present to a response. e proclamation of the word (reading and preaching) serves not simply to inform, but rather to reveal, to call attention to the event of God in the world. Rather than interpreting the text, the proclamation takes the text to interpret the assembly of hearers: it tells them how God is acting in their midst.18

paradigm giving rise to this “formula,” see Normand B, The Sunday Lectionary: Ritual Word, Paschal Shape, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1998, p. 68 and Chapters 1 and 3 in the present volume. 17. e Bishops’ Committee on Priestly Life and Ministry. National Conference of Catholic Bishops, Fulfilled in Your Hearing: The Homily in the Sunday Assembly, Washington, DC, United States Catholic Conference, 1982, p. 20. See the commentary on this document by Robert W, “e Homily Fulfilled in Our Hearing,” in Wor 65 (1991) 27-37, p.  31; also David A. S, “Narrative Signification and the Paschal Mystery: Liturgy, Participation, and Hermeneutics,” in QL 96 (2015) 41-63, esp. p. 62; Joyce Ann Z, “Homily as Proclamation,” in LitMin 1 (1992) 10-16. 18. Ralph A. K, To Hear and Proclaim: Introduction to the Lectionary for Mass with Commentary for Musicians and Priests, Washington, DC, National Association of Pastoral Musicians, 1983, p. 70 [emphasis in original].

      

113

us, both the New Testament letters and the homily, mutatis mutandis, manifest the same fundamental aim: letting the paschal mystery take root in the lives of believers and letting the lives of believers find a home in the paschal mystery.19 While the what, the issues of concern arising from lived contexts, are understandably different in Paul’s day compared to today, the role and purpose of his letters then and homilies now, their why and how, remain substantially the same, that of interpreting and appropriating of the paschal mystery for Christian life.20 It is not insignificant in this regard that, like the letters, the homily is in the form of a personal address. 3. Third frame: Sunday Eucharist. Both the first and second frames, contextualizing the second readings as one among three readings and as constitutive of the Liturgy of the Word, are themselves nested in a third and still larger framing context: the Sunday Eucharist. According to the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium [SC]) §§5-7, all liturgy is centered in and flows out of the paschal mystery of Christ’s death and resurrection.21 is is all the more intensely so for the Sunday Eucharist. Sunday is the Lord’s Day, the original Christian feast commemorating the resurrection. It is the day on which from the very beginning believers 19. is is my adaptation of David N. P’s comments in Sacrament (n. 13), p. 88 and n. 36, on the purpose of enculturation: “letting the Gospel take root in a culture and […] letting the culture find a home within the Gospel.” In his own wording he adapts ideas found in John Paul II’s encyclical Redemptoris Missio §52; see also Mary Catherine H, “Naming Grace: A eology of Proclamation,” in Wor 60/5 (Sept 1986) 434449, p. 448. 20. Paul J, The Holy Preaching: The Sacramentality of the Word in the Liturgical Assembly (A Pueblo Book), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2000, p. 62-63, 167; John F. B, “Biblical Preaching in the Liturgy,” in SL  22 (1992) 100-118; Rémi C, “L’homélie, action liturgique de la communauté eucharistique,” in MD  227 (2001/3) 9-34. See also SC §56, ILM §10: the two-fold table of the Liturgy of the Word and the Eucharist forms one single act of worship; Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Homiletic Directory, §§12, 18, 24, Ottawa, CCCB, 2015. For an assessment of the Homiletic Directory, see omas A. K, “By Way of Comment: e 2014 Homiletic Directory,” in Wor  91 (January 2017) 65-76; Jeremy D, “e Homiletic Directory: A Brief Comment,” in Not 50 (2014) 97-110. 21. On the Paschal mystery suffusing liturgy, see ILM §4; Irmgard P, “e Paschal Mystery in Its Central Meaning for the Shape of Christian Liturgy,” in QL/SL  76 (1996) 6-38, p. 29; Robert T, “e Liturgical Year: Studies, Prospects, Reflections,” in Wor 55 (1981) 2-23, esp. p. 13-18; Helmut H, “Die Nähe des auferweckten Gekreuzigten in unserem Leben,” in BL 75/3 (2002) 162-167. For liturgy as the primary context for interpreting the Scriptures, see U, “Du ‘fleuve à cent voix’ à la ‘Parole de Dieu’” (n. 16), p.  312, 314; Achille M. T, “‘Célébrer’ la Parole de Dieu: Lignes théologico-liturgiques,” in Achille M. T – Alessandro P (eds.), La prédication liturgique et les commentaires de la liturgie. Conférences Saint-Serge. XXXVIIIe semaine d’études liturgiques. Paris, 25-28 juin 1990 (BELS, 65), Roma, Edizioni Liturgiche, 1992, 221-246, p. 228.

114

 

gathered to celebrate the Eucharist, the ritual expression par excellence of the paschal mystery and the summit of the Church’s liturgical activity.22 As a result, the Sunday eucharistic context suffuses the Liturgy of the Word, as Paul Bradshaw, in a helpful historical review of the various ways the Scriptures have been (and continue to be) used in worship, points out. In the context of Sunday Eucharist, the use of the Scriptures is first and foremost kerygmatic or anamnetic rather than didactic. us, Bradshaw further concludes that in such a setting the Scriptures “provide the biblical warrant and foundation for the liturgical rite being celebrated […]” and are “intimately related to the meaning of what is being celebrated, interpreting and stimulating the liturgical action itself.”23 is does not preclude other purposes, but the kerygmatic remains primary, as William Skudlarek explains. e committee charged with revising the lectionary, he writes, […] rejected, at least implicitly, other ways of going about its task. e lectionary was not to be ordered around a “history of salvation” motif (understood as a line running from the creation to the second coming), or around a systematic presentation of the theological teachings of the church, or according to a literary analysis of the parts of the Bible that were to be used. Nor were the readings to be chosen and ordered for the primary purpose of exhorting and encouraging people to lead more Christian lives. e lectionary was there to proclaim the passion, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, fully realized in him and being realized in us who, through faith and baptism, have been joined to him.24

22. “Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests (Presbyterorum Ordinis),” §5; SC §§10, 47, 56; Aymon-Marie R, “Toute la messe proclame la parole de Dieu,” in Parole de Dieu et liturgie (LO, 25), Paris, Cerf, 1958, 127-158. See also Chapter 6 in this volume: “Sunday, the Week, and Ordinary Time: A Return Ad Fontes.” 23. Paul B, “e Use of the Bible in Liturgy: Some Historical Perspectives,” in SL  22 (1992) 35-52, p.  39-41; see also James M, “Unfolding the Mystery of Christ: e Liturgy of the Word,” in Cat  13/5 (Sept 1991) 2-12, p.  5; Mark S, in Barbara S – Anne Y. K (eds.), Called to Participate: Theological, Ritual, and Social Perspectives, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2006, p.  51; Benedikt K, “Wort Gottes in der Liturgie,” in LJ  63 (2013) 167-183, p.  179-180. is assessment tempers, or at least reframes as secondary, the mention of instruction and catechesis in ILM §79 cited earlier. Secondary as well is the doxological aspect of the proclamation of the Scriptures in the context of the Sunday Eucharist as evidenced in the interesting parallels between the rituals surrounding the proclamation of the Gospel and the rituals that accompany the proclamation of the Eucharistic Prayer. On this see Albert G, “Dem Word Gottes Gestalt geben: Heutige Anfragen an tradierte Formen des Wortgottesdienstes,” in Peter H – omas S (eds.), Wie das Wort Gottes Feiern? Der Wortgottesdienst als theologische Herausforderung (QD, 194), Freiburg – Basel – Wien, Herder, 2002, 147-165, p. 157-159. 24. William S, The Word in Worship: Preaching in a Liturgical Context, Nashville, TN, Abingdon, 1981, p. 33-34; Ambroos V, “Le service de la Parole,” in QL 56 (1975) 225-256, p. 256; Michel T, “Les livres du Nouveau Testament: Deuxièmes lectures,” in MD 166 (1986) 83-105, p. 94. 

      

115

e essence of proclamation lies in naming, in recalling in order to identify “what’s really going on” in “what’s happening.”25 If the proclamation of the first reading from the Old Testament names and identifies the celebrating assembly as the People of God, if the proclamation of the gospel passage names and identifies the assembly as disciples of Christ, then the proclamation of the second reading from the New Testament letters names and identifies the assembly as church. Being church is of prime importance, for the church is the sacrament of Christ who is himself the Ursakrament (the primordial sacrament): just as Christ is the sacrament of encounter with God, so the church is the sacrament of encounter with the risen Christ, and, through Christ, with God.26 Assembling as church is a visible manifestation and embodiment of the presence and saving activity of the living Christ at any one time and in any one place.27 Omitting the second readings, then, means forgoing this important reminder and warrant, this making present through oral proclamation of who we are, of how and why we do what we do when we gather at the twofold table of Word and Sacrament. 5. Conclusion: Toward a Better Appreciation As a concluding summary and future orientation toward fostering a better appreciation of the second readings, let me re-purpose the three queries – what, how, and why – used earlier. What to do. Enhancing appreciation for the second readings calls for setting them in their liturgical context, a context composed of three major nesting frames. Moving now from larger to smaller, all liturgy is centered in the paschal mystery of Christ, and most intensely so at the Sunday Eucharist; the primary purpose of the Liturgy of the Word is the proclamation of the mystery of Christ, and as such is a constitutive part of the one act of worship at the twofold table of word and sacrament; the 25. H, “Naming Grace” (n. 19). 26. is statement is elaborated from the title of Edward S’s book Christ the Sacrament of Encounter with God and inspired by my reading of J, The Holy Preaching (n. 20), p. 44-64, esp. 52, 60; also p. 21, 29, 33, 49, 51; Louis-Marie C, The Sacraments: The Word of God at the Mercy of the Body (A Pueblo Book), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2001, p. xxi-xxii, 44, 160; Vatican II Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes), §45. On the Church as sacrament, see Karl R, “e New Image of the Church,” in Theological Investigations X, trans. by David Bourke; New York, NY, Herder and Herder, 1973, 3-29. 27. J, The Holy Preaching (n. 20), p. 28, 47; David N. P, “Sacrament: Event Eventing,” in Michael D – Richard F (eds.), A Promise of Presence: Studies in Honor of David N. Power, Washington, DC, Pastoral Press, 1992, 271-299, p. 291

116

 

second readings function as an anamnesis of being church where the paschal mystery is interpreted and appropriated for Christian life. e second readings, especially from the New Testament letters with their blend of doctrine (interpretation) and exhortation (appropriation), provide models for this endeavor. In this context, these texts attain the fullest expression of what they are, how they function, and why they were written: letters addressed to communities of faith for their upbuilding. Liturgy is the home of Scripture, not least of the second readings from the New Testament letters, the context where they fully come into their own as living word of God.28 How to do it. is will require increased familiarity with the liturgical nesting frames and the several layers that comprise them. First, it is important to set the New Testament letters, regarding both genre and content, in their historical contexts. Next, being conversant with the overall design of the Lectionary through an attentive reading of the ILM, especially the expanded 1981 edition, is indispensable.29 ird, in the same vein, developing an understanding of the overarching unity of the Scriptures – as presented most insistently, for example, in chapter III of the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum, §§11-13)30 – goes hand in hand with the unity of the Lectionary’s architecture and 28. See Louis-Marie C, “La Bible dans son site liturgique,” in Jean-Louis S – Henri-Jérôme G (eds.), La Bible, Parole addressée (LD, 183), Paris, Cerf, 2001, 49-68, p.  58; Idem, The Sacraments (n.  26), p.  46-47; Kevin I, Context and Text: Method in Liturgical Theology, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1994, p. 93-94; T, “‘Célébrer’ la Parole de Dieu” (n. 21), p. 238; Francis M, Sacred Scripture: The Disclosure of the Word, Naples, FL, Sapientia Press, 2006, p. xii. 29. is desideratum is expressly stated in §39 of the ILM: ose who espouse the use of the revised Lectionary are urged to have “[…] a thorough knowledge of the structure of the Order of Readings, so that he [or she] will know how to work a fruitful effect in the hearts of the faithful. rough study and prayer he [or she] must also develop a full understanding of the coordination and connection of the various texts in the liturgy of the word, so that the Order of Readings will become the source of a sound understanding of the mystery of Christ and his saving work.” See also V, “Le service de la Parole” (n. 24), p. 248; O’L, “Language, Music, Liturgy” (n. 16), p. 35; B, The Sunday Lectionary (n. 16); Regina B, The Word of the Lord at Mass: Understanding the Lectionary, Chicago, IL, LTP, 2015; Martin C, Guide to the Revised Lectionary, Chicago, IL, LTP, 1998; Horace T. A, Jr. “Preaching and Lectionary,” in Martin D (ed.), Like a Two-Edged Sword: the Word of God in Liturgy and History. Essays in Honour of Canon Donald Gray, Norwich, UK, Canterbury, 1995, 195-212, p. 209. 30. “But since sacred scripture must be read and interpreted with its divine authorship in mind, no less attention must be devoted to the content and unity of the whole of scripture, taking into account the tradition of the entire church and the analogy of faith, if we are to derive true meaning from the sacred texts” (DV §13), Vatican II: The Basic Sixteen Documents, Austin F (ed.), Northport, NY, Costello – Dublin, Dominican Publications, 1996, 97-115, 106.

      

117

underscores proclamation as the primary aim of the Liturgy of the Word.31 Fourth, consulting relevant documents on preaching and the attendant literature inspired by these documents can accentuate the critical role that both the homily and the second readings play in nurturing the identity, as well as helping discern what constitutes gospelinspired activity, of the church.32 Finally, the paschal mystery focus of all liturgy can be gleaned from a careful reading of SC §§5-7 and the literature commenting on this essential Vatican II rediscovery. It is not so much a matter of homilists preaching on the second readings – although this would be desirable – as preaching from them and through them, that is, being inspired through and beyond their “what” to focus more percipiently on “how” and “why” they interpret and appropriate the paschal mystery as they do. Why do it. Most importantly, these efforts will serve the liturgy’s fundamental aim of proclaiming and celebrating the paschal mystery. Abetting this aim, the New Testament letters at the Sunday Eucharist evoke the mystery of being church (“those who are called out,” as the Greek word ekklēsia signifies), called to be shaped and molded into the paschal mystery and to be witnesses of God’s salvific action in the world through, with, and in Christ. Such a proclamation, an anamnesis of being church, provides continuity with believing communities through the ages, from the very beginning until now and into the future, communities of faith that have always engaged in – and will continue to do so as inherent in their very raison d’être – the perennial task of interpreting the paschal mystery and of appropriating it in their lives. It is Christ who calls forth to be church, for “he himself is speaking when scripture is read in church” (SC §7), not least the second readings. It is altogether right and just that to this proclamation the assembly should voice its assent by acclaiming, “anks be to God.”

31. See, for example, Homiletic Directory (n. 20), §§17, 18, 19; ILM §5; Aymon-Marie R, “Lectures bibliques et Mystère du Salut,” in MD  99 (1969) 7-27, p.  25-26; Yves-Marie B, “Bible et liturgie,” in Carlo B – Alessandro P (eds.), La liturgie, interprète de l’Écriture. II. Dans les compositions liturgiques, prières et chants. Conférences Saint-Serge, XLIXe semaine d’études liturgiques, Paris, 24-27 juin 2002 (BELS, 126), Roma, Edizioni Liturgiche, 2003, 259-276, p. 269. 32. Patrick P, “Vatican II – nouvelle appréciation de la Parole de Dieu,” in Présence et rôle de la Bible dans la liturgie (n. 16), 205-225, p. 214-125.

C 

THE PAULINE LETTERS IN THE SUNDAY LECTIONARY The Paschal Mystery and the Ekklēsia 1. Introduction e Jubilee Year proclaimed by Pope Benedict XVI in celebration of the 2000th anniversary of the birth of the Apostle Paul offers an opportune occasion for surveying and evaluating the use of Paul’s letters in the Sunday and Feast Day Lectionary.1 It is especially through this Lectionary that the vast majority of worshippers are exposed to the Apostle’s writings where they appear as the second of three readings assigned to a eucharistic celebration. e following discussion first deals with what constitutes the Pauline corpus in the New Testament and identifies the extent of its use in the Sunday Lectionary. A second section determines where and how the excerpts from the letters of Paul are distributed in the Lectionary’s threeyear cycle. e information from these first two sections sets the stage for studying and briefly illustrating in a third section the role the letters play in the Sunday and Feast Day Liturgy of the Word. 2. WHAT? The Pauline Corpus in the New Testament and in the Sunday Lectionary At the outset, it is necessary to specify what will be meant by “the letters of Paul” for the purposes of this study. Biblical scholarship does not consider all the letters attributed to Paul to have been written by him.2 e Pauline authenticity of the Pastoral Letters (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus) is nearly universally questioned while that of Ephesians, Colossians, and 1. e Jubilee Year was officially proclaimed in Pope Benedict XVI’s homily at first vespers for the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, celebrated at the Basilica Saint Paul Outside the Walls in Rome on June 28, 2007. 2. Raymond E. B, An Introduction to the New Testament (ABRL), New York, NY, Doubleday, 1996, p. 585-589 discusses this matter in chapter 25 (“Pseudonymity and DeuteroPauline Writings”); Raymond F. C, Letters That Paul Did Not Write: The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pauline Pseudepigrapha (GNS, 28), Wilmington, DE, Michael Glazier, 1988.

120

 

2 essalonians continues to be greatly debated. e Letter to the Hebrews presents a special case. Although it has been occasionally attributed to Paul, even in antiquity it was acknowledged to be quite different in style and content from the preceding thirteen letters. More accurately categorized as an essay, it ends with the typical final greetings of a letter, but lacks an opening salutation found in all the others.3 In what follows, then, the “Pauline corpus” includes the thirteen letters attributed to Paul.4 Even if not all written by him, the six letters of uncertain authenticity nonetheless clearly extend the Pauline trajectory established by the seven letters whose authorship is not in doubt: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 essalonians, and Philemon. Of the twenty-seven books that constitute the New Testament, twentyone are in the literary genre of letter. In addition to the thirteen listed above from the Pauline corpus, the following eight texts complete the epistolary roster: Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude.5 Altogether this collection of twenty-one letters contains 2732 verses (34%) of the 7969 verses in the New Testament. As a separate block, the thirteen letters of the Pauline corpus constitute nearly 25% of the entire New Testament, or 74% of the epistolary material.6 In light of these statistical tallies alone, it would have seemed strange if the revised 3. See for example the introduction to this New Testament book by Harold W. A in Harold W. A (ed.), HarperCollins Study Bible: Fully Revised and Updated, New York, NY, HarperCollins, 2006, p. 2035-2036. e Canadian edition of the Sunday Lectionary consistently prints the phrase introducing the reading of a passage from this New Testament book as “A reading from the letter to the Hebrews,” with no mention of Paul. C C  C B, Lectionary: Sundays and Solemnities, Ottawa, ON, CCCB, 1992. See also B, An Introduction to the New Testament (n. 2), p. 683-704. 4. See Frank J. M, New Testament Theology: Exploring Diversity and Unity, Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 2007, p.  99-100: e canonical order of the thirteen letters “is determined by two principles. First, the letters that are addressed to churches precede those addressed to individuals. Second, the longer letters in each category tend to precede the shorter ones.” 5. B, An Introduction to the New Testament (n. 2), p .409: “[...] the Table of Contents of printed Bibles lists twenty-one of the twenty-seven NT books as ‘Letters’ or ‘Epistles’ – a surprising statistic when we realize that none of the forty-six OT books carries that designation.” From this collection are drawn the bulk of the second readings in the Sunday Lectionary (with the exception of Revelation for the Sundays of Easter in Year C and two passages from Acts of the Apostles during the Christmas season). For a detailed, descriptive presentation of the second readings in the Sunday Lectionary, see Michel T, “Les livres du Nouveau Testament. Deuxièmes lectures,” in MD 166 (1986) 83-105. For a thorough presentation and analysis of the second readings in the Sunday Lectionary, see Elmar N, Entstehung und Bewertung der neuen Perikopenordnung des Römischen Ritus für die Meßfeier an Sonn- und Festtagen, Paderborn, Bonifatius, 1986, p. 334-370. 6. e Pauline corpus of 13 letters contains 2032, or nearly 25%, of the 7969 verses in the New Testament, fully 74% of the 2732 verse total of the 21 letters.

      

121

Sunday Lectionary, designed to implement the express wish of the Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy to offer the “more significant part” (praestantior pars) of Scripture, had refrained from including at least some material from such a significant portion of the New Testament.7 ere are, of course, more important reasons, discussed below, for incorporating excerpts from the Pauline corpus. A survey of the use of the Pauline corpus in the Sunday Lectionary presents its own set of tallies. e Sunday Lectionary as a whole cites 3294 of the 7969 verses (41%) of the entire New Testament. Of these 3294 verses appearing in the three-year cycle, 648 (19.5%) are drawn from the Pauline corpus and occupy 157 (86%) of the approximately 183 second reading slots in the three-year cycle.8 To the remaining second reading slots are assigned excerpts from other letters, viz. Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John (there are no selections from 2 John, 3 John, and Jude in the Sunday Lectionary). In the 157 times that material from the Pauline letters appears, only 128 different passages from the thirteen letters are actually cited, for in a number of instances the same passage is used on two or more occasions while in other instances there is overlap of the same verses in two or more passages selected. e following table offers a statistical overview of some of this information. As is the case throughout the revised Sunday Lectionary, despite more than triple the number of readings it contains compared to the pre-Vatican II Lectionary that featured a one-year cycle with only two readings per Sunday and Solemnity, no biblical book is read in its entirety.9 Of the Pauline corpus, only Ephesians surpasses the 50% mark, with all the other letters hovering around 30%. Moreover, the individual passages selected and distributed over the three-year cycle are relatively short, averaging,

7. e complete passage of paragraph 51 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy reads: “e treasures of the Bible are to be opened up more lavishly so that a richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God’s word. In this way the more significant part of the sacred scriptures will be read to the people over a fixed number of years.” Austin F (ed.), Vatican Council II: The Basic Sixteen Documents: Constitutions, Decrees, Declarations, Northport, NY, Costello – Dublin, Dominican Publications, 1996, p. 136. 8. roughout these Lectionary statistics, I have counted only once the verses that are excerpted on more than one Sunday or Feast Day. For example, Phil 2:5-11 is read on Passion Sunday in all three Years A, B, and C, but I have counted the verses in my tabulation only once. In other instances, there is an overlap of several verses in excerpts for two or more second reading slots. As a result, there are 128 different passages from the Pauline corpus used to fill 157 second reading slots. 9. For a list of and comments on the pre-Vatican II Sunday Lectionary as it is found in the Missale Romanum of 1570, see my book The Sunday Lectionary: Ritual Word, Paschal Shape, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1998, p. 14-19.

Romans 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus Philemon Total

Letter

433 437 257 148 155 104 95 89 47 113 83 46 25 2032

Total no. of verses

No. of verses cited in the Lectionary 114 165 47 45 90 47 35 29 17 19 25 7 8 648

Percentage in the Lectionary 26% 38% 18% 30% 58% 45% 37% 32% 36% 17% 30% 32% 32% 32%

No. of times used as 2nd reading 35 34 10 10 20 11 11 7 3 3 5 7 1 157

No. of different passages cited 31 27 10 8 14 9 7 7 3 3 5 3 1 128

122  

      

123

according to Elmar Nübold’s helpful computation, 8.2 verses.10 ese statistics point out all the more conspicuously the pericopic nature of the Lectionary.11 us the Lectionary does not pretend or intend to offer the entire content of the Pauline corpus, let alone of the entire Bible, but selections only. Indeed, a pericopic Lectionary presupposes familiarity with the Bible, which for today’s assemblies remains a desideratum more than a reality.12 Where and how, then, are these selections distributed? 3. WHERE? The Sunday Lectionary Distribution of Readings from the Pauline Corpus e liturgical year is made up of two kinds of seasons, festal seasons (Advent, Christmas, Lent, and Easter) and Ordinary Time. e Lectionary distinguishes between these two main types of seasons by employing different combinations of reading selection and reading distribution patterns. For the festal seasons, the main patterns are modalities of lectio selecta: passages are selected in harmony with the main themes of a season, usually with some form of correspondence among the three readings on any given Sunday or Solemnity.13 In Ordinary Time, the featured pattern is semicontinuous reading, an adaptation of the ancient practice of lectio continua: excerpts from a biblical book are read in sequence over designated series of Sundays.14 ese seasonal patterns apply as well for 10. N, Entstehung (n. 5), p. 334-335. 11. e word pericope comes from two Greek words meaning “a cutting around”, hence “A short passage, section, or paragraph in a writing” (Oxford English Dictionary). e 648 verses of the Pauline corpus cited in the Lectionary represent about 8% of the New Testament, but 32% of the Pauline corpus itself. 12. Just over 13% of the Bible, not counting the Psalms, appears in the three-year cycle of the Sunday and Feast Day Lectionary. 13. For example, the 1981 edition of the “Introduction to the Lectionary for Mass” has this to say: for Advent, “e readings from an apostle serve as exhortations and as proclamations, in keeping with the different themes of Advent” (§93); for Lent, “e readings from the letters of the apostles have been selected to fit the gospel and the Old Testament readings and, to the extent possible, to provide a connection between them” (§ 97). Elizabeth H (ed.), The Liturgy Documents: A Parish Resource, 3rd ed., Chicago, IL, LTP, 1991, 127-164. e exception here is the Easter season, where the first, second, and third readings follow their own tracks. However, the main themes of the season nonetheless guide the selection and distribution of the passages. 14. e practice of lectio continua goes back to the ancient, pre-Christian synagogue service. See Charles P, “e Reading of the Bible in the Ancient Synagogue,” in Martin Jan M – Harry S (eds.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading, and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1998, 137-155; Joseph A. J, The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development, Vol. I, trans. by Francis A. B, New York, NY, Benziger, 19511955, p. 293-403.

124

 

the second readings, most of which, as noted above, are taken from the Pauline corpus. e following tables isolate the second readings in each festal season in turn, including the Easter Triduum. e selections that are not from the Pauline letters appear in italics. Advent Sunday 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

Year A Rom 13:11-14 Rom 15:4-9 Jas 5:7-10 Rom 1:1-7

Year B 1 Cor 1:3-9 2 Pet 3:8-14 1 ess 5:16-24 Rom 16:25-27

Year C 1 ess 3:12–4:2 Phil 1:4-6.8-11 Phil 4:4-7 Heb 10:5-10

Christmas Christmas Vigil Night Dawn Day Holy Family

A: B: C:

Mary, Mother of God (Jan 1) 2nd Sunday aer Christmas Epiphany Baptism of the Lord

A: B: C:

Acts 13:16-17.22-25 Titus 2:11-14 Titus 3:4-7 Heb 1:1-6 Col 3:12-21 Heb 11:8.11-12.17-19 I John 3:1-2.21-24 Gal 4:4-7 Eph 1:3-6.15-18 Eph 3:2a.5-6 Acts 10:34-38 1 John 5:1-9 Titus 2:11-14; 3:4-7

Lent Sunday 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Passion Sunday

Year A Rom 5:12-19 2 Tim 1:8-10 Rom 5:1-2.5-8 Eph 5:8-14 Rom 8:8-11 Phil 2:6-11

Year B 1 Pet 3:18-22 Rom 8:31-34 1 Cor 1:18.22-25 Eph 2:4-10 Heb 5:7-9 Phil 2:6-11

Year C Rom 10:8-13 Phil 3:17–4:1 1 Cor 10:1-6.10-12 2 Cor 5:17-21 Phil 3:8-14 Phil 2:6-11

      

125

Easter Triduum Holy ursday: 1 Cor 11:23-26 Good Friday: Heb 4:14-16; 5:7-9 Vigil: Rom 6:3-11 Easter Sunday: Col 3:1-4 or 1 Cor 5:6-8

Easter Ascension Pentecost

Year A Eph 1:17-23

Year B Eph 4:1-13

1 Cor 12:3b-7.12-13 1 Cor 12:3b-7 or Gal 5:16-25

Year C Heb 9:24-28; 10:19-23 1 Cor 12:3-7 or Rom 8:8-17

As the above lists show, passages from the Pauline letters are arranged in no obvious pattern among themselves. ey have been selected to help articulate the themes of the season and to correspond with one or both of the other readings of the day. e Advent readings, for example, stress the theme of awaiting the coming of the Lord at the end of the ages, one of the two main themes of the season. ere are no readings from the Pauline corpus selected for the Sundays of the Easter season. Instead, in a return to ancient tradition, the Lectionary assigns passages from 1 Peter in Year A, 1 John in Year B, and Revelation in Year C.15 During the Sundays in Ordinary Time, the featured pattern is semicontinuous reading. Different sections of 1 Corinthians are distributed at the beginning of Ordinary Time in each year of the cycle, while swaths of the Letter to the Hebrews (not among the 13 Pauline letters, of course) are read toward the end of Ordinary Time in Years B and C. Otherwise, the letters are read in semicontinuous sequence within the same year of the cycle.16

15. It is surprising to note that no excerpts from Paul on the resurrection, one of the most important topics particularly in the seven authentic letters, appear in the Easter season. e focus of this season is not so much on the resurrection of Jesus as on its consequences in the life of the believing communities. 16. e “Introduction to the Lectionary for Mass” explains as follows: “ere is a semicontinuous reading of the Letters of Paul and James [...]. Because it is quite long and deals with such diverse issues, the First Letter to the Corinthians has been spread over the three years of the cycle at the beginning of Ordinary Time. It also was thought best to divide Hebrews into two parts; the first part is read in Year B and the second in Year C. Only readings that are short and readily grasped by the people have been chosen” (§107).

126

  Sundays in Ordinary Time

Sun 2

nd

Year A 1 Cor 1:1-3

3rd

Year B

Year C

1 Cor 6:13c-15a.17-20 1 Cor 12:4-11

1:10-13.17-18

7:29-31

12:12-30

th

1:26-31

7:17.32-35

12:31–13:13

th

2:1-5

9:16-19.22-23

15:1-11

th

2:6-10

10:23–11:1

15:12.16-20

4 5 6

7th

3:16-23

th

8 9

th

4:1-5

15:45-50

3:1b-6

Rom 1:16-17; 3:20-26.2

th

10

2 Cor 1:18-22 4:6-11

15:54-58 Gal

1:1-2.6-10

4:18-25

4:13–5:1

1:11-19

5:6-11

5:6-10

2:16.19-21

th

5:12-15

5:14-17

3:26-29

th

13

6:3-4.8-11

8:7.9.13-15

5:1.13-18

14th

8:9.11-13

12:7-10

6:15-18

15th

8:18-23

th

8:26-27

2:13-18

th

17

8:28-30

4:1-6

2:6-14

18th

8:35.37-39

4:17.20-24

3:1-5.9-11

19th

11th 12

16

Eph

1:3-14

Col

1:15-20 1:24-28

9:1-5

4:30–5:2

th

11:13-15.29-32

5:15-20

st

21

11:33-36

22nd

12:1-2

23rd

13:8-10

2:1-5

Phlm 9b-10.12-17

14:7-9

2:14-18

1 Tim 1:12-17

1:20c-24.27

3:16–4:3

2:1-7

th

2:1-11

5:1-6

6:11-16

th

4:6-9

th

28

4:10-14-19-20

4:12-13

2:8-13

29th 1 

1:1-5b

4:14-16

3:14–4:2

th

1:5c-10

5:1-6

4:6-8.16-18

st

2:7b-9.13

7:23-28

nd

4:13-18

9:24-28

2:16–3:5

5:1-6

10:11-14.18

3:7-12

20

th

24

25th Phil 26 27

30 31

32

33rd 34

th

1 Cor 15:2-26.28

Jas

Heb

Rev

Heb

11:1-2.8-19 12:1-4

4:32–5:2.21-22

12:5-7.11-13

1:17.18.21b.22.27

12:18-19.22-24a

2:9-11

1:5-8

2 Tim 1:6-8.13-14

2

Col

1:11-22

1:12-20

      

127

Because the following Solemnities occur during Ordinary Time, the readings are selected and distributed according to the principles applied in the festal seasons: Solemnity

Year A

Year B

Year C

Holy Trinity

2 Cor 13:11-13

Rom 8:14-17

Rom 5:1-5

Body and Blood

1 Cor 10:16-17b

Heb 9:11-15

1 Cor 11:23-26

Sacred Heart

1 John 4:7-16

Eph 3:8-12.14-19

Rom 5:5b-11

e use of semicontinuous reading during the bulk of the Sundays in Ordinary Time allows for a more thorough and systematic exposure to much of the material contained in the Pauline corpus. However, given the percentage of each letter actually appearing in the Lectionary, the possibility of worshippers grasping the full content and flow of an argument in any one letter is very much mitigated.17 ese observations raise the question of the purpose of the Sunday Eucharistic Lectionary and, within this discussion, the role and contribution of the readings from the Pauline corpus. 4. WHY? The Purpose of the Sunday Lectionary Appropriation of the Pauline Letters While the Sunday and Feast Day Lectionary can appear at first glance to be a patchwork of relatively disjointed biblical excerpts, it is in fact organized and structured according to a liturgical logic centered on the paschal mystery of Christ.18 Like a magnet attracting iron filings, the paschal mystery draws to itself the scriptural passages that are most apt to express and articulate its various aspects, particularly as these aspects are refracted through the main themes of each liturgical season. William Skudlarek underlines this fundamental selection and distribution principle in a comment worth quoting in full. In designing the Sunday 17. Vincent T, “La lecture du Nouveau Testament dans la liturgie rénovée,” in QL(P) 70 (1986) 239-251. For the Sunday Lectionary, he illustrates these limitations through a study of where and how the excerpts from the Letter to the Romans are distributed, p. 243-245. 18. Regarding the centrality of the paschal mystery in all liturgy, see Aymon-Marie R, “Qu’est-ce que le mystère pascal?” in MD 67 (1961) 5-22; Pierre-Marie G, “Le mystère pascal dans le renouveau liturgique: esquisse d’un bilan historique,” in MD 67 (1961) 23-32; the entire issue of La Maison-Dieu 232 (2002); Raniero C, Le mystère pascal dans l’histoire, dans la liturgie, dans la vie, trans. by Florence L, Paris, Salvador, 2000; Gail R, “e Gi of ree Readings,” in Wor 73 (1999) 2-11, p. 4.

128

 

Lectionary as it did, he writes, the Vatican II committee charged with the revision […] rejected, at least implicitly, other ways of going about its task. e lectionary was not to be ordered around a “history of salvation” motif (understood as a line running from the creation to the second coming), or around a systematic presentation of the theological teachings of the church, or according to a literary analysis of the parts of the Bible that were to be used. Nor were the readings to be chosen and ordered for the primary purpose of exhorting and encouraging people to lead more Christian lives. e lectionary was there to proclaim the passion, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, fully realized in him and being realized in us who, through faith and baptism, have been joined to him.19

Taken together in their totality, the biblical passages selected for the Lectionary constitute what might be called a Sunday eucharistic canon: they are patterned and structured specifically for the eucharistic celebration on the Lord’s Day and according to the themes of the several seasons of the liturgical year.20 e selections from the Pauline corpus, then, serve this same overarching aim. How do they do so? What dimensions do they add to the Lectionary’s proclamation of the paschal mystery? 4.1. Original Contexts Assigned as pericopes in the Sunday Lectionary, the selected passages from the Pauline corpus have necessarily been excerpted from their original contexts.21 ey have been decontextualized in order to be recontextualized into the structures and patterns of the Lectionary where on any 19. William S, The Word in Worship: Preaching in a Liturgical Context, Nashville, Abingdon, 1981, p. 33-34. See also Ambroos V, “Le service de la Parole: Essai d’une approche de théologie pastorale,” in QL 56 (1975) 225-256, p. 246; Reinhard M, “La liturgie de la Parole pendant la messe: l’anamnèse du Christ mise en scène,” in MD 243 (2005) 43-60, p. 53; Jean-Louis S, “Destin du mystère pascal dans la christologie,” in MD 240 (2004) 59-87, p. 60. 20. Joris P, “Les lectures bibliques liturgiques pour les dimanches et les fêtes dans l’usage romain actuel,” in Achille M. T – Alessandro P (eds.), La liturgie, interprète de l’Écriture I. Les lectures bibliques pour les dimanches et fêtes. Conférences Saint-Serge, XLVIIIe Semaine d’études liturgiques, Paris, 25-28 juin 2001, Roma, Edizioni Liturgiche, 2001, 57-73, p.  72; Horace T. A, “e Ecumenical Import of Lectionary Reform,” in Peter C. F – James M. S (eds.), Shaping English Liturgy: Studies in Honor of Archbishop Denis Hurley, Washington, DC, Pastoral Press, 1990, 361-384; Paul D C, “Au commencement était le Verbe,” in MD 189 (1992) 19-40, p. 38. 21. Of course, every biblical passage in the Lectionary has been excised from its original context. A similar hermeneutical assessment could be made for both the Old Testament and the Gospel readings. For a rapid sketch of the hermeneutics of all three readings on any given Sunday as presented in the Lectionary, see below.

      

129

given Sunday or Solemnity they appear side by side with two other biblical passages, a first reading from the Old Testament and the third reading from one of the Gospels. But it is precisely what these excerpts are in their original contexts that compels their inclusion as constitutive elements of the Liturgy of the Word. ree aspects in particular that characterize the Pauline letters in their original contexts merit elaboration, aspects that provide the keys to their role in the Sunday Lectionary. 4.1.1. Letter Genre e New Testaments books that constitute the Pauline corpus are letters. As such they fall under the general category of rhetoric, for their fundamental aim is to persuade.22 Ancient rhetoric arose primarily in public oratorical settings. It was later adapted to written documents such as letters to function in lieu of face-to-face communication. e conventional formatting features of the letter genre intend to compensate somewhat for the loss of the original oral setting: a salutation naming the sender(s) and the addressee(s), the use of I-you language of direct address, the dealing with current issues of concern to both parties.23 All of these features are found in the thirteen letters of the Pauline corpus.24 In addition, intensifying their rhetorical/oratorical flavor, they are all, even the three “pastorals” which are addressed to individuals, intended not as personal, private letters but rather as official communications to be read aloud in the midst of the assembled community (Col 4:16; 1 ess 5:27). In contrast, the Gospels and Acts are narratives. If the letters imply an orator who seeks to persuade, the Gospels and Acts imply a narrator who seeks to tell a story. If the letter uses an I-you style of communication in the present tense, the story recounts past events, and generally in the third person. If the letter seeks to involve the listeners or readers in a conversation or discussion, a narrative makes the listeners or readers into 22. For a helpful overview of ancient rhetoric and the New Testament, see George A. K, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism, Chapel Hill, NC, University of North Carolina Press, 1984. Countless studies on the rhetorical nature of Paul’s letters can be found in any bibliographic repertoire of New Testament studies. 23. In the Pauline letters we have only one half of a conversation, that of the author(s), but there is much we can glean about the opposite parties from the indications in the letters themselves. For example, in 1 Cor 7:1, aer having dealt with a number of issues that probably had been related orally to Paul by those bearing the letter to him, Paul explicitly turns to matters they wrote about: “Now concerning the matters about which you wrote [...],” while in 1 Cor 5:9 Paul mentions a prior letter he had sent to the community at Corinth. 24. On this topic, see, for example, Jerome M-O’C, Paul the LetterWriter: His World, His Options, His Skills, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1995.

130

 

spectators, inviting them to picture in imagination what took place thenand-there.25 While one could rather easily represent on stage or on film the events recounted in the Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles, it would be much more difficult with the content of Paul’s letters. By their nature as letters, then, these New Testament books evoke an immediacy all their own, thrusting the two implicated parties in the midst of lively discussions on matters of keen interest in their here-and-now. 4.1.2. ematization What kind of issues and concerns occasioned the writing of the Pauline letters? Everything in Christian experience and reality stems from the paschal mystery of Christ: if the crucified Jesus is raised from the dead, then God’s end-time victory over the powers of sin and death is already inaugurated, the promised fulfilment is being realized. How, then, is one to understand what God has done in Jesus Christ in light of the scriptural story and witness? How is one to live this new reality? e letters evince the need to explain, to conceptualize, to enflesh this unexpected newness. In short, the letters provide the earliest Christian instances of what can be called theological thematization. e need to explain appears, for example, in a number of passages where the Pauline letters re-read major aspects of the story of salvation in light of the Christ event: creation and fall (Christ as last Adam, Rom  5:12-21; 1 Cor  15:20-28, 44-49), the call and faith of Abraham (Rom 4; Gal 3), the role of the Mosaic Law (Rom 3, 5-8; Gal), the inclusion of the Gentiles in the new faith (Rom  1-4; 9-11; Gal; Eph  2). e concern to conceptualize can be seen, for example, in the Christological hymns of Philippians 2:6-11 and Colossians 1:15-20, which explore the fullness of the meaning of Christ, reaching back before the creation of the world and looking forward to the final consummation of all things.26

25. John L. W, “Saint Paul and the Apostolic Letter Tradition,” in CBQ 45 (1983) 433-444, p. 433: “us, whereas the window of the gospels looks out on Jesus of Nazareth, the agent who initiated God’s kingdom, the letter looks out on the conversation between apostle and community. Or, to rephrase the position of the letter, the letter opens onto the debate over the nature of the new reality and the norms whereby it is to be ordered.” Similarly, Jan Christiaan B, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought, Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1982 [1980], p. 353. 26. For a succinct summary of the Pauline reinterpretation of the scriptural story in light of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, see N. omas W, The New Testament and the People of God, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1992, p. 405-407; also, Ben W, III, Paul’s Narrative Thought World: The Tapestry of Tragedy and Triumph, Louisville, KY, Westminster/John Knox, 1994, p. 352-355.

      

131

If in the Gospels the confessions regarding who Jesus is remain indirect and cryptic because they are necessarily limited to what the various characters in the story could know of him prior to his resurrection, the epistolary confessions are bold and explicit.27 e efforts to enflesh and live the new reality in Christ elicit such questions as how to deal with the complex issues of the churches’ relationship with Judaism on the one hand and with pagan society on the other. For example, in Galatians 2:11-21 Paul (vehemently!) insists that within the Christian community kosher food regulations no longer apply. He argues that separating Jewish-Christians, who would be observing kosher laws, and Gentile-Christians, who would be exempt from these laws, into two different table fellowships would in effect be treating the Gentile-Christians in the community as still among the “Gentile sinners”. But if in his death and resurrection Christ has conquered the power of sin, then those baptized in Christ, even if of Gentile origin, are no longer sinners. Separate table fellowship, therefore, would be a counter-witness to the redemptive efficacy of Christ’s paschal mystery.28 Ephesians presents the same message in more general and serene terms: [...] in his flesh [Christ] has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it [...] the Gentiles have become fellow heirs, members of the same body, and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel (Eph 2:14-16; 3.6).29

27. On how each of the gospel narratives is sensitive to the difference between what was possible to say about Jesus before his resurrection and what was possible aer, see Eugene E. L, The Past of Jesus in the Gospels (SNTS MS, 68), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991. is distinction is all the more evident when the gospel narratives are compared with the rhetorical nature of the New Testament letters, as Lemcio points out (p.  10, 29). M, “La liturgie de la Parole pendant la messe” (n. 19), p. 54: “Ce qui différencie la lecture de l’Évangile des autres lectures néotestamentaires est son caractère narratif. L’actualisation narrative de l’origine est une caractéristique générale du rituel humain et de la fête. C’est le mode littéraire primaire et donc irremplaçable de la présentation historique, en face de formes de langage plus réflexives telles qu’en contient la littérature épistolaire du Nouveau Testament.” Messner’s focus at this point in his article is uniquely on the Gospels, and he therefore makes no mention of Acts of the Apostles, which of course is also a narrative. Similarly, see W, The New Testament and the People of God (n. 26), p. 398. 28. See my article “e Logic of Paul’s Argument on the Curse of the Law in Galatians 3:10-14,” in NovT 39 (1997) 1-21; Gordon W, “e eology of Unclean Food,” in EvQ 53 (1981) 6-15. 29. e translation used throughout is the New Revised Standard Version.

132

 

In the context of pagan society, Paul in 1 Corinthians 8–10 discusses the complex issue of whether Christians should be allowed to eat meat sacrificed to idols. If the meat was purchased on the market sometime aer the ritual sacrifice has been performed, there is no problem, Paul opines (1 Cor 10:25). However, if one is invited to a family or other social event where the ritual sacrifice actually takes place and is then followed by a communal meal that one is expected to share, one must decline: “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons” (1 Cor 10:21).30 us in discussing practical issues, Paul always seeks to show the link between doctrine and behaviour: beliefs find their expression in behaviours, behaviours witness to one’s beliefs.31 Doctrine and exhortation go hand in hand. 4.1.3. Identity and Mission Together the two features of the Pauline letters described above – the living immediacy of the letter genre and the theological thematization of their content – speak to and of the reality of church. e letters intend to inculcate and cultivate in their addressees an awareness of who they are as church communities and of their role in the story of salvation. Because the death and resurrection of Christ is the inauguration of God’s end-time victory over the powers of sin and death, the Pauline churches embody the emerging New Creation (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15).32 ey are the renewed Israel of God (Gal 6:16).33 ey are Abraham’s offspring in faith (Gal 3:29). ey are the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:27). Hence the solicitude for the saints permeating the letters, urging that they behave in ways worthy of their calling. Hence also the concern in the pastoral letters

30. On this issue, see especially Gordon D. F, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1987, p. 357-491. 31. On the link between belief and behavior, see, for example, Wayne A. M, The Origins of Christian Morality: The First Two Centuries, New Haven, CT, Yale UP, 1993, p. 16-17, 196; Gordon D. F, “Towards a eology of 1 Corinthians,” in David L (ed.), SBL 1989 Seminar Papers, Vol. 28. Chico, CA, Scholars Press, 1989, 265-281. 32. “Paul’s church is not an aggregate of justified sinners or a sacramental institute or a means for private self-sanctification but the avant-garde of the new creation in a hostile world, creating beachheads in this world of God’s dawning new world and yearning for the day of God’s visible lordship over his creation, the general resurrection of the dead,” B, Paul the Apostle (n. 25), p. 155. 33. N. omas W, Paul in Fresh Perspective, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 2005, esp. p. 108-129, p. 129: “[Paul] is constantly labouring to produce and maintain cells of Jews and Gentiles loyal to Jesus as Messiah and Lord, living in the power of the Spirit, under the nose of Caesar and in some key cities of the empire.”

      

133

addressed to Timothy and to Titus that they become worthy leaders guiding the churches entrusted to their care. When identity is strong, a vibrant mission follows. By their witnessing, whether at home or by reaching out to others, the churches shine like bright stars in the darkness (Phil 2:14-16) and help foster the transformation of the world through the living out and the dissemination of the gospel (1 ess 1:7-8; Rom  8:19-21). e letters themselves are perhaps the most visible attestations of this mission, for the communities to whom they are addressed necessarily were founded through the outreach of the apostles and their co-workers (e.g., Prisca and Aquila [Rom 16:3 and 1 Cor 16:19]; the household of Stephanas [1 Cor 16:15]; Euodia and Syntyche [Gal  4:2]). As Acts of the Apostles relate, these missionaries were themselves sent forth through the instigation of the Holy Spirit by already-established churches (e.g., Acts 13:1-3). 4.2. Lectionary Context In the Lectionary, the excerpts drawn from the Pauline letters share the overarching anamnetic aim of the eucharistic celebration: to recall in order to make present. e three readings of the Liturgy of the Word seek to evoke34 and summon the presence of the full story of salvation as found in the Scriptures. More specifically, the first reading from the Old Testament is meant to evoke the story of salvation of which Jesus, proclaimed in the third reading from the gospel, is the climax and fulfilment, interpreted and appropriated for Christian life as exemplified in the second reading.35 How do the passages from Paul in particular realize their anamnetic role of interpreting and appropriating the paschal mystery for Christian life? e very same three features of the letters that devolve from their original contexts are redeployed in similar yet 34. “Evoke” in the etymological sense (from the Latin ē- “out” plus vocāre “to call”: “To call up (a memory) from the past” (Oxford English Dictionary). See especially Achille M. T, “Bible et liturgie,” in Domenico S – Achille M. T (eds.), DEL, Vol. 1, Adaptation française sous la direction d’Henri D, Turnhout, Brepols – Montréal, Sciences et culture, 1992, 129-144, p.  136: “En effet, une fois convoquée, l’assemblée liturgique évoque d’abord, par la proclamation de la Parole, les merveilles que Dieu accomplit pour elle, pour ensuite, dans la louange et la supplication, invoquer, en y joignant l’action de grâce, la bonté du Père, débordant d’amour pour le Fils” [emphasis in original]; Idem, “‘Célébrer’ la Parole de Dieu: lignes théologico-liturgiques,” in Achille M. T – Alessandro P (eds.), La prédication liturgique et les commentaires de la liturgie. Conférences Saint-Serge. XXXVIIIe semaine d’études liturgiques, Paris, 25-28 juin 1990, Roma, Edizioni Liturgiche, 1992, 221-246, p. 237-238. 35. M, “La liturgie de la Parole pendant la messe” (n. 19), p. 44-46; V, “Le service de la Parole” (n. 19), p. 234.

134

 

new ways by their being recontextualized in the Lectionary. While all three features are present throughout, one or the other is more prominent according to how the excerpts are used in the various liturgical seasons. e discussion that follows illustrates in reverse order, without intending to be exclusive or exhaustive, some instances of these three features at work. 4.2.1. Identity and Mission e use of the Pauline letters in Ordinary Time provides perhaps the best illustration of the identity/mission theme gleaned from their original settings. As they follow their own semicontinuous track, and therefore independent of any intended thematic link with either the first or the third readings, the Pauline passages offer a sequential, if piecemeal, run through a letter or section of a letter. Instead of serving more directly to illuminate the theme of a season or of a feast, here the Lectionary seeks to evoke in a sustained way the experience of being church lived by the first ecclesial communities. A good example of Paul seeking to inculcate awareness of church appears in Galatians 3:26-29, read on the 12th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year C: […] for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. ere is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.

Or again, Philippians 2:1-4, read on the 26th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year A: If then there is any encouragement in Christ, any consolation from love, any sharing in the Spirit, any compassion and sympathy, make my joy complete: be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others.

e concern for mission can be found exemplified in 1 Timothy 2:1-4, read on the 25th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year C: I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity. is is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

      

135

e proclamation of the second readings from the Pauline letters, then, prompts our own awareness and consciousness of being church. By reading them today in our midst, we write ourselves into their story and let their story be written into ours.36 We are what the letters say it means to be church; we are doing what the letters say the church does. We are the current embodiment of church, in continuity with the earliest communities evidenced in the letters. It is our turn to be inheritors, bearers, and transmitters of the story of salvation, to be the Body of Christ in the world.37 e presence of the Pauline communities in our midst evoked through proclamation necessarily elicits such musings as: If the story of salvation is our story, what is our role and our place in its on-going drama? What is our contribution in hastening the coming of God’s reign in Christ? What chapter of the story of salvation are we destined to write? What will we hand on to the next generations of believers? How do we manifest and exercise solicitude toward one another as members of the Body of Christ? 4.2.2. ematization e slotting of excerpts from the Pauline letters as second readings enhances and renders yet more explicit the theological thematizations they articulate, for in the Lectionary these passages are in conversation with a first reading from the Old Testament and a third reading from one of the Gospels. A paradigmatic example from the festal seasons can be found on the First Sunday of Lent in Year A. According to the Universal Norms on the Liturgical Year and the General Roman Calendar, “Lent is ordered to preparing for the celebration of Easter, since the Lenten liturgy prepares for celebration of the Paschal Mystery both catechumens, by the various stages of Christian Initiation, and the faithful, who recall their 36. Isabelle R-C, “La liturgie comme citation,” in Con 259 (1995) 119126; V, “Le service de la Parole” (n.  19), p.  233; T, “Bible et liturgie” (n. 34), p. 136, esp. p. 141: “La relation qui naît alors entre l’assemblée et la parole de Dieu est telle qu’elle fait entrer le hic et nunc (ici et maintenant) de cette assemblée dans le hieri et in saecula (hier et pour les siècles) du salut.” 37. is is the sense of 1 Cor 15:1-3a, read on the fih Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year C: “Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters, of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which you also stand, through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you – unless you have come to believe in vain. For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received [...].”; the same is reflected in 2 Tim 3:14-15, read on the 29th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year C: “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.”

136

 

own Baptism and do penance” (§27).38 In all three years of the Lectionary cycle, the First Sunday of Lent presents as the gospel reading the story of the Temptation of Jesus, the Matthean version in Year A, the Markan in Year B, and the Lukan in Year C. e Old Testament reading selected to correspond thematically with the Matthean version in Year A is the story of the temptation and fall of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2–3. Just as Adam and Eve were tempted by the devil, so was Jesus; but unlike Adam and Eve, Jesus did not succumb to the devil’s wiles. e Lectionary selects Romans 5:12-21 as a bridge between, and an explicit thematization of, the first and third readings: in his obedience unto death and in his resurrection, Christ conquered the powers of sin and death. Like Adam he is the source and originator of a humanity, but unlike the humanity in Adam destined to death as a consequence of sin, the new humanity in Christ is destined to eternal life as a consequence of grace. us the passage from Romans theologically develops the full significance of what is presented implicitly and figuratively in the first and third readings. In just three relatively short passages proclaimed on the First Sunday of Lent, the entire story of salvation is evoked both through narrative (first and third readings) and through theological thematization (second reading).39 e second reading from Romans serves the liturgical aims of Lent by intimating that Baptism, to be solemnly celebrated at the Easter Vigil, means putting on Christ who through his obedient death and glorious resurrection has overcome the powers of sin and death. e link between theology and behaviour that characterizes the Pauline letters is also readily observed in the festal seasons. As a case in point, the excerpt from Titus for the Christmas mass during the night, aer first proclaiming the mystery being celebrated, goes on to exhort believers to witness to this mystery by the proper behavior: e grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all, training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and in the present age to live lives that are self-controlled, upright, and godly, while we wait for the blessed 38. “Universal Norms on the Liturgical Year and the General Roman Calendar,” in Elizabeth H (ed.), The Liturgy Document: Essential Documents for Parish Worship, Vol. 1, 5th edition, Chicago, IL, LTP, 2012, 209-220. 39. On the creative effect resulting from placing side by side three biblical passages drawn from different parts of the Scriptures, see, for example, Yves-Marie B, “Bible et liturgie,” in Carlo B – Alessandro P (eds.), La liturgie, interprète de l’Écriture II. Dans les compositions liturgiques, prières et chants. Conférences Saint-Serge, XLIXe Semaine d’études liturgiques, Paris, 24-27 juin 2002, Roma, Edizioni Liturgiche, 2003, 259-276, p. 272; also, my article “e Bible and Liturgy,” in William F (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1998, 138-146, reproduced as Chapter 1 in the present volume.

      

137

hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ. He it is who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds (Titus 2:11-14).

Here the full import of Christ’s coming, especially in his death, is evoked as the basis for engaging in behaviour in the present age that is worthy of the fullness to come, a message to be pondered and applied as much today as it was when first penned. 4.2.3. Letter genre e immediacy characterizing the letter genre with its I-you style and its dealing with current matters of major import carries over into the Lectionary. e direct address of the letters – especially the use of the vocative “brothers and sisters” – mirrors the dialogical address-response nature of the eucharistic celebration: “e Lord be with you – And also with you”; “Li up your heart – We li them up to the Lord”; “e Gospel of the Lord – Praise to you Lord Jesus Christ.” It is in the immediacy of direct address that we are constituted as church here and now. And because we are thus constituted and addressed as church, that which is being proclaimed in the Pauline readings – what it means to be constituted and addressed as church – is being fulfilled in our hearing.40 By our eavesdropping, as it were, on the concerns that preoccupied the Pauline communities, we are reminded that just as the transforming power of the paschal mystery was at work in their efforts to live as the church in their world, so also today it is in the realities of our lives that we are being shaped and molded into that same paschal mystery of Christ.41 us the words of Paul in his letter to the Philippians, a passage read on the Fih Sunday of Lent Year C, speak to our own yearning today: More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow

40. See Kevin W. I, Models of the Eucharist, Chicago, IL – New York, NY – Mahwah, NJ, Paulist Press, 2005, esp. chapter 3: “e Effective Word of God,” p. 96-121. 41. T, “Bible et liturgie” (n. 34), p. 137: “En résumé, la parole de Dieu proclame l’histoire du salut, et la célébration liturgique, en proclamant la Parole, réalise le mystère du salut qu’elle contient et transmet” [emphasis in original].

138

  I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or have already reached the goal; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Beloved, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but this one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus (Phil 3:8-14).42

In these multifaceted ways, the original features of the Pauline letters come to life by being proclaimed during the Liturgy of the Word. Renewed in the awareness of our identity and mission, armed with rich theological thematization, and addressed and constituted as church here and now, we are ready to confess our faith and gather at table of the Eucharist. 5. Conclusion e second readings from the Pauline corpus add an essential dimension to the Sunday eucharistic celebration. If the first reading from the Old Testament calls to mind the long story of salvation of which Jesus in the gospel reading is the climax and fulfilment, the second readings from Paul remind us of who we are as church that we might faithfully and patiently work toward its promised fulfilment. Indeed, they point out that it is precisely in the daily reality of being church – in the efforts to interpret, appropriate, and live the faith – that the paschal mystery is at work shaping us into the configuration of Christ’s death and resurrection, as Skudlarek pointed out in his comments cited earlier: “e lectionary was there to proclaim the passion, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, fully realized in him and being realized in us who, through faith and baptism, have been joined to him.”43 It is no wonder, then, that including readings from the Pauline letters is an age-old liturgical tradition reaching back to at least the fourth, very likely as early as the second, century.44 e recon42. Other passages that speak of being shaped into the paschal mystery are: Rom 6:311, read at the Easter Vigil and on the 13th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year A; Rom 8:1129, various parts of which are read on Lent 5A, Ord Time 14A, Trinity Sunday B, Ord Time 15A, 16A, 17A; 2 Cor  5:14-17, read on Ord Time 12B and on Lent 4C; Galatians 3:26-29, read on Ord Time 12C; Phil 3:8-14, read on Lent 5C; Col 2:12-14, read on Ord Time 17C; etc. 43. S, The Word in Worship (n.  19), p.  33-34 [emphasis mine]. See also V, “Le service de la Parole” (n.  19), p. 246; M, “La liturgie de la Parole pendant la messe” (n. 19), p. 53; S, “Destin du mystère pascal dans la christologie” (n. 19), p. 60. 44. See J M, First Apology §67, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1, ed. William A. J, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1970, p. 55-56; John R, “A History of Lectionaries: From the Synagogue at Nazareth to Post-Vatican II,” in Int 31 (1977) 116-130; J, The Mass of the Roman Rite (n.  14), p. 293-403; Olivier

      

139

textualization of the excerpts from the Pauline letters in the Liturgy of the Word plumbs the depths of their theological significance.45 By being proclaimed at the Sunday Eucharist, these texts become more fully what they are so that we might become more fully who we are, the living embodiment of the experience and reality of church, sacrament of Christ’s presence in the world.46 at is why the lector ends the reading by announcing that what is taking place in our midst is “e Word of the Lord”. With Paul and his churches, and with all the churches throughout the ages, we join in saying. “anks be to God!”

R, “Lecture et présence de l’Apôtre à la liturgie de la messe,” in MD 62 (1960) 69-78. For lists of epistle readings in the earliest preserved lectionaries, see esp. Gaston G, “Épitres,” in Fernand C – Henri L (eds.), DACL, Vol. 5/1, Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1922, cols. 245-344. 45. For a more thorough discussion, see especially Louis-Marie C, Symbole et sacrement. Une relecture sacramentelle de l’existence chrétienne (CF, 144), Paris, Cerf, 1987, 206-218. 46. On the sacramentality of the Word, see C, Symbole et sacrament (n. 45), p. 218-232; V, “Le service de la Parole” (n. 19), p. 227-237.

C 

FRAMED TO BREAK THE FRAME The Liturgical Proclamation of John’s Gospel 1. Introduction In concert with the theme – Narrativité, oralité et performance – of the 7 international colloquium of the Réseau de Recherches en Narratologie et Bible (RRENAB) held at the Université de Montréal, June 5-7, 2014, I here explore some of the effects of liturgical (oral) performance of a narrative biblical text and the narrative features and strategies that produce these effects. More specifically, I intend to show how the liturgy sets up a series of successively descending framed insets such that the innermost inset, by breaking through its embedding frames, re-ascends to embrace the gathered assembly in its here-and-now celebration. Aer briefly ascertaining the performative nature of liturgy and its proclamation of Scripture, I turn to Isabelle Renaud-Chamska’s observation that for the most part liturgy is quotation. is opens the way to a narrative study of quotation, particularly of direct reported speech – its form and its function – as a key feature of the liturgical proclamation of Scripture, which I then illustrate with a short passage from John’s Last Supper Discourse. In addition to the form and function of direct reported speech, an examination of the referential content of Jesus’ words in the selected passage shows that the inset breaks through its embedding frames to include the members of the celebrating liturgical assembly. is effect of the liturgy’s use of direct reported speech in the proclamation of Scripture is rendered all the more palpable through oral performance, which I discuss via the concept of “voice”. Finally, I conclude with some reflections on how such an analysis of what occurs in the liturgical proclamation of narrative – the liturgy’s “point of view” – might enhance its performance. th

2. The Proclamation of Scripture as (Liturgical) Performance e proclamation of biblical narrative exhibits the essential features of performance. According to Richard Bauman, performance is both a “mode of communicative display” and the “event” in which such display

142

 

takes place. As communicative display, performance features a performer who “assumes responsibility to an audience for a display of communicative virtuosity, highlighting the way in which the act of discursive production is accomplished, above and beyond the additional multiple functions the communicative act may serve.”1 e liturgical proclamation of the Scriptures has both a performer (a lector) and an audience (the liturgical assembly). is kind of performance requires a certain virtuosity perfected through training, and it employs a more formal and scripted use of language than normally found in everyday life.2 More importantly, the proclamation of Scripture exhibits all of the features Bauman assigns to performance as event: “In anthropological usage, those scheduled, bounded, programmed, participatory events in which the symbols and values of a society are embodied and enacted before an audience – such as ritual, festival, spectacle, theater, concert – are oen termed ‘cultural performances’.”3 As part of a ritual celebration, the proclamation of Scripture is scheduled according to a liturgical calendar, framed within an encompassing Liturgy of the Word, programmed in the form of selected excerpts organized in a lectionary, and participatory due to the assembly’s attentiveness and their voiced responses to the formulas opening and closing the reading of each passage.4 In particular, I would like to stress the event nature of this ritualized performance of Scripture in liturgy. As event, it can take place only in the here-and-now, that is, in the presence and in the present time of the worshipping assembly. 5 Each proclamation of Scripture, therefore, 1. Richard B, “Performance,” in David H – Manfred J – MarieLaure R (eds.), RENT, London, UK – New York NY, Routledge, 2005, 419-420. 2. See §52 of the “Introduction” to the Lectionary for Mass in Lectionary: Sundays and Solemnities, Ottawa, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2009, p. xxiii. 3. B, “Performance” (n. 1), p. 420. 4. Ibid., “e collaborative participation of an audience is an integral component of performance as an interactional accomplishment.” See also Aidan K, On Liturgical Theology: The Hale Memorial Lectures of Seabury-Western Theological Seminary 1981, New York, NY, Pueblo, 1984, p.  136-137; Rowan W, “e Discipline of Scripture,” in On Christian Theology (CCT), Oxford, UK – Malden, MA, Blackwell Publishers, 2000, 44-59, esp. 50-51; Albert H, “e Rediscovery of the Liturgy by Sacramental eology (1950-1980),” in SLit 15 (1982-1983) 158-177, p.  158: “Just like music, [liturgy] exists only when it is performed […].” 5. See, for example, Charles S. P, “e Word: Liturgical Act, Liturgical Art,” in LitMin 5 (Summer 1996) 121-127; Iréné Henri D in Iréné Henri D et al. (eds.), Principles of the Liturgy (The Church at Prayer: An Introduction to the Liturgy, Vol. 1), trans. by Matthew J. O’C, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1987, p. 274; Achille M. T, “‘Célébrer’ la parole de Dieu: Lignes théologico-liturgiques,” in Achille M. T – Alessandro P (eds.), La prédication liturgique et les

    

143

since it is a verbal performance, is a speech-event. And while liturgy as ritual is by nature repetitive, each celebration is unique and unrepeatable: “no performance,” Bauman explains, “can ever be perfectly replicated.”6 Any repetition is a result of decontextualization and recontextualization: the time and place of a performance are never exactly the same as that of any previous or any successive performance. e same biblical passage proclaimed on the same feast each year is never performed or replicated exactly the same way, nor is the same passage performed the same way in three different churches on any given Sunday.7 ese characteristics of the liturgical proclamation of Scripture – ritualized performance of unrepeatable speech-events – will emerge as key features of direct reported speech analyzed below. But first, liturgy as quotation. 3. Liturgy as Quotation Interestingly, in the Roman Catholic eucharistic liturgy, except for a presider’s few monitions and the homily, all the texts spoken, proclaimed, or sung, whether voiced by the presider(s) or by the assembly, are words handed down by tradition and take the form of reported speech. e Eucharistic Prayers themselves are pastiches of citations, near-citations, allusions, evocations of one or another passage, phrase, or word bequeathed by Scripture or liturgical tradition, as Isabelle Renaud-Chamska astutely observes in an article entitled “La liturgie comme citation.”8

commentaires de la liturgie. Conférences Saint-Serge, XXXVIIIe semaine d’études liturgiques, Paris, 25-28 juin 1990 (BELS, 65), Roma, Edizioni Liturgiche, 1992, 221-246. 6. B, “Performance” (n. 1), p. 420. 7. Bernhard O, Performanzkritik der Paulusbriefe (WUNT, 296), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2012, p. 61. 8. Isabelle R-C, “La liturgie comme citation,” in Conc 259 (1995) 119126; Idem, “Les citations bibliques dans la liturgie chrétienne,” in Carlo B – Alessandro P (eds.), La liturgie, interprète de l’Écriture II. Dans les compositions liturgiques, prières et chants. Conférences Saint-Serge, XLIXe semaine d’études liturgiques, Paris, 24-27 juin 2002 (BELS, 126), Roma, Edizioni Liturgiche, 2003, 17-35, esp. p. 17-19; in the same volume, Yves-Marie B, “Bible et liturgie,” 259-276, p. 265; Michel P, “Verbe, voix, corps et langage,” in MD 226 (2001) 33-50. e ritualized reading of sacred texts is an ancient and widespread practice, as William A. G points out in his monograph Beyond the Written Word: Oral Aspects of Scripture in the History of Religion, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 1987, p. 65: “Recitation or reading aloud of scripture is a common feature of piety in virtually every scriptural tradition […]. In the early synagogue and early Christian church, the reading aloud of scripture in worship was fundamental to communal life, just as it was in pagan cults of the Hellenistic Mediterranean such as that of Isis.”

144

 

While she illustrates this constitutive, speech-event dimension primarily with a number of formulaic expressions used in the Sunday eucharistic celebration, the phenomenon of liturgy as citation is all the more prominent and explicit in the proclamation of the Scriptures, for here the liturgy engages in direct reported speech, as the introductory formula indicates: “A reading from […].”9 In structural terms, the liturgy serves as embedding or quoting frame, while the scriptural text, for example of John’s Gospel, plays the role of embedded or quoted inset.10 e Gospel of John in turn, since it is a narrative, serves as embedding or quoting frame for the numerous embedded insets of the characters’ words: “Jesus said to his disciples […].” Both frames and both insets are speech-events: as speech-event, the liturgical frame (primary or outer frame) addresses the present assembly, with John’s Gospel serving as (primary) inset embedded in it; John’s Gospel itself serves as a framing speech-event (secondary or inner frame) addressing the reader, with the characters’ words, speech-events in their own right, as (secondary) insets.11 Any study of the performance of biblical texts in liturgy, therefore, must take into consideration the fact that quoting is constitutive of this liturgical action: it is the performance of a speechevent (Jesus’ words) within a speech-event (John’s Gospel) within a speechevent (liturgical proclamation). 4. Frame and Inset: Formal Features of Direct Reported Speech In terms of form, direct reported speech brings together into mimetic representation two or more speech-events: a framing, embedding instance, and a framed, embedded instance. A speech-event by nature is unique, irreplaceable, and non-reproducible. is devolves from its

9. is introductory statement underlines the fact that the words to be spoken are not those of the lector. See Isabelle R-C, “La lettre et la voix,” in MD  190 (1992) 25-49, p. 40. 10. at the liturgy of the word quotes Scripture, see B, “Bible et liturgie” (n.  8), p.  266. On the use of the narratological concepts of frame and inset, see Meir S, “Proteus in Quotation-Land,” in PT 3 (1982) 107-156, p. 108; Idem, “Point of View and the Indirections of Direct Speech,” in LS 15 (1982) 67-117, p. 69; the term “speech-event” comes from the latter article. Further on “frame,” see Manfred J, “Quotation eory,” in David H – Manfred J – Marie-Laure R (eds.), RENT, London, UK – New York, NY, Routledge, 2005, 479-480. For the use of “frame” as an apt term to describe the proclamation of Scripture in a liturgical setting, see Richard B, “Commentary: Foundations in Performance,” in JSoc 15 (2011) 707720, p. 710, 712. 11. To be more specific, the liturgy quotes the author of John, the author quotes the implied author, the implied author quotes the narrator, the narrator quotes the characters.

    

145

being an event, and hence it is dependent on its specific here-and-now contextual coordinates,12 with its own participants, characters, settings, aims, point of view, etc.13 Each speech-event, the framing discourse and the reported discourse, retains its formal autonomy, as the shiing deictics indicate.14 For example, an omniscient narrator will refer to the story’s characters in the third person and in the past tense; the characters in the story, however, in addressing one another, will tend to use first and second person pronouns, speak in the present tense, and refer to objects and events in the world they experience.15 Since a speech-event cannot by nature be reproduced, it therefore requires another speech-event, or framing instance, in which the original speech-event appears, not in its original state, however, but rather as a re-presentation, an image or mimesis, of the original. Moreover, the represented object has the peculiarity of not being a thing, but a discourse. As Meir Sternberg points out, the represented object is a “subject or manifestation of subjective experience: speech, thought, and otherwise expressive behavior; in short, the world of discourse as opposed to the world of things. In this general sense, all reported discourse – from the direct through the free or the plain indirect to the most summary or allusive quotation – is a mimesis of discourse.”16 Wallace Martin concurs: “[…] when a character speaks, the words are not a substitute for, or representation of, something else. e language of the character is the character, just as the words you and I speak are ourselves, in the eyes of 12. S, “Proteus in Quotation-Land” (n. 10), p. 130: “For the uniqueness of a discourse rests less in its physical make-up as a sequence of sounds or words than in the contextual coordinates that give that sequence its meaning and function as an expressive structure.” Similarly, while using different concepts, Antoine C, La seonde main, ou le travail de la citation, Paris, Seuil, 1979, p. 56-57. 13. e frame and the inset bring “together two (or more) speech-events that by nature are removed from each other in time and place and state of affairs, in the identity of the participants, in their characters, outlooks, interpersonal relations, goals, milieus, languages or dialects […],” S, “Point of View” (n.  10), p.  72; C, La seconde main (n. 12), p. 57. 14. Marie-Laure R, “‘Je’ Is ‘Un Autre’: Fiction, Quotation, and the Performative Analysis,” in PT 2 (1981) 127-155, esp. 134, 136-147. See also Cynthia L. M, “Discourse Functions of Quotative Frames in Biblical Narrative,” in Walter R. B (ed.), Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers (SBL SS, 27), Atlanta, GA, Scholars Press, 1995, 155-182, p.  158: “us, the relation between direct quotation and its frame as one of independence is manifested in two ways. First, the quotation is syntactically independent of the frame. Second, pronominal reference within the quotation is not identical to that of the frame, but is determined with reference to the frame and in accord with the pragmatic context.” 15. R, “‘Je’ Is ‘Un Autre’” (n. 14), p. 138-139, discusses the inadequacy of the terms “omniscient” or “third-person” narrator, but they are sufficient for our purposes here. 16. S, “Proteus in Quotation-Land” (n. 10), p. 197

146

 

others.”17 Citing someone else’s words, that is, speaking once again the discourse of another, is in fact re-presenting that person. Finally, the objects represented in the quoted words are not those of the quoting, framing, or embedding instance, but those of the speaking subject in the quoted, framed, or embedded inset: it is the world as perceived and experienced from the point of view of the quoted subject that is represented to the reader. Applied to the several speech-events in the series of embeddings and insets involved in the liturgical proclamation of John’s Gospel, for example (see further below), the following observations can be made, beginning with the innermost inset of Jesus’ words and moving outward to the liturgical speech-event as primary encompassing frame. (1) Jesus’ words in John 15 are presented as once having been an original speech-event, words purportedly spoken to his disciples during the Last Supper celebrated in an upper room in Jerusalem on the night before he died. e words, since they are presented as being spoken by Jesus, are a manifestation and expression of his subjective experience, of his point of view: this is how he sees himself, the disciples, the world, etc. (2) John’s Gospel in turn constitutes the narrative frame embedding Jesus’ words. e inset (Jesus’ words) is separated by more than half a century in time and probably many miles geographically from the speech-event that is John’s Gospel. John’s Gospel, with its own contextual coordinates, is the manifestation of that author’s (subjective) point of view: the Gospel narrative is how John sees the story of Jesus, which he represents in discourse addressed to the Gospel’s readers. (3) Finally, always moving outward from inset to frame, the liturgy constitutes the final embedding speech-event with its own contextual coordinates: the here-and-now of the worshipping assembly, removed in time and place (and language) from both the speech-event of John’s Gospel and the speech-event of Jesus at the Last Supper. It is the manifestation of the liturgy’s point of view, for the liturgy, in proclaiming John’s Gospel, is engaging in discourse: this is how the present celebrating assembly sees and interprets John’s story of Jesus. Moving in the opposite direction from encompassing frames to encompassed insets, the liturgy’s speechevent, then, represents the discourse or speech-event of John’s Gospel which in turn represents the discourse or speech-event of Jesus’ words. Formally, each event is independent and unique due to its particular spatio-temporal contextualisation. 17. Wallace M, Recent Theories of Narrative, Ithaca, NY – London, UK, Cornell University Press, 1986, p. 50 [emphasis in original].

    

147

5. Frame and Inset: Functional Features of Direct Reported Speech If the speech-event of the quoting frame and the speech-event of the quoted inset are different, unique, and irreplaceable because they are events and therefore retain formal independence, bringing them together puts them in motion and thereby creates tension. According to Antoine Compagnon, the etymology of the Latin verb  citare, from which is derived the English “cite” and “citation”, intimates as much: “Citare […] c’est mettre en mouvement, faire passer du repos à l’action […]; [la citation] est un leurre et une force motrice, son sens est dans l’accident ou dans le choc.”18  Sternberg points in the same direction when he writes that “to quote is to mediate and to mediate is to interfere.”19 is is because (1) the embedding, quoting frame is superimposed on the embedded, quoted inset, thus subordinating the latter to the former as part to whole. is necessarily affects point of view, “for the perspectives of the global speaker and his audience are superimposed on those of the original participants.”20 It is not simply a matter of sequential order, frame followed by inset, but rather of frame enveloping and absorbing the inset for its communicative goals and effects. Moreover, (2) the inset is no longer a speech-event, but now becomes an image or representation of the original speech-event. e original speech-event cannot be reconstructed, for it has been excised from its context and is now dominated and invaded by the new context of the framing, embedding, quoting speech-event.21 (3) Because it is cut from its original context and now serves the communicative interests and aims of the frame, the two speech-events are in dynamic tension: “Qua representational discourse, therefore, each act of quotation serves two masters. One is the original speech or thought that it represents, pulling in the direction of maximal accuracy [formal aspect]. e other

18. C, La seconde main (n. 12), p. 44-45; R-C, “Les citations bibliques” (n. 8), p. 19. 19. S, “Proteus in Quotation-Land” (n. 10), p. 108; C, La seconde main (n. 12), p. 38. 20. S, “Proteus in Quotation-Land” (n. 10), p. 131. Also, Meir S, “Epilogue: How (Not) to Advance toward the Narrative Mind,” in Geert B – Jeroen V (eds.), Cognitive Poetics: Goals, Gaps and Gains, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2009, 455-532, esp. p. 487-488. 21. B, “Performance” (n. 1), p. 420: “In one influential conception of performance, developed by Richard Schechner [Between Theater and Anthropology, Philadelphia, PA, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985], performance means ‘never for the first time’, which locates its essence in the decontextualisation and recontextualisation of discourse, with special emphasis on the latter. At the same time, no performance can ever be perfectly replicated, ideologies to the contrary notwithstanding.”

148

 

is the frame that encloses and regulates it, pulling in the direction of maximal efficacy [functional aspect]. Reported discourse thus presents a classic case of divided allegiance, between original-oriented representation (with its face to the world) and frame-oriented communication (with its face to the reader).”22 How do these functional aspects actually translate in a particular instance of quoting? Simply put, the quoting instance seeks to create in its hearers/readers as convincing an impression as possible that the then-and-there of the inset’s quoted speechevent is taking place here-and-now, and it does so by speaking again (for maximal communicative efficacy) the very words of the characters (for maximal formal accuracy). It effects the former by doing the latter, creating the impression of dispelling, or at least rendering ambiguous, fluid, and porous the spatio-temporal distance between the two speechevents, the quoting and the quoted. If formally the two speech-events are independent, functionally and dynamically they are inextricably intertwined. Applied to the three speech-events in the liturgical proclamation of Jesus’ words in John’s Gospel, these functional aspects of direct reported speech yield several observations. Beginning as above with the innermost inset and working outward, Jesus’ words cited in John’s Gospel have been incorporated into and invaded by John’s embedding frame. Jesus’ words, therefore, are no longer an actual speech-event, but a representation of the (purportedly) original event, a mimesis of discourse. e new context of John’s frame interferes with the original context for John’s communicative aims. In other words, what John quotes, how he quotes, when in his narrative he quotes, and why he quotes cannot but color the point of view of the original speech-event. e here-and-now of the framing communication takes precedence over and dominates the (now past) here-and-now communication between Jesus and his disciples: John’s speech-event addressing his readers (for maximal communicative efficacy) insists that these are the very words of Jesus (for maximal formal accuracy). John’s strategy of quoting Jesus directly is intended to create the impression that it is Jesus himself who is speaking, and if it is Jesus himself speaking, then what is being transmitted is Jesus’ subjective point of view. Next, John’s Gospel itself is an embedded inset of the liturgy’s speechevent of proclamation. As the Gospel’s embedding frame invades and interferes with and colors the embedded inset of Jesus’ words, so in like manner does the embedding liturgical frame vis-à-vis the embedded 22. S, “Proteus in Quotation-Land” (n. 10), p. 152.

    

149

inset of John’s Gospel. e original speech-event of John communicating to his readers now becomes a representation or mimesis of discourse serving the aims of the framing speech-event of the liturgy. What, how, when, and why the liturgy quotes devolves from the liturgy’s interests: the liturgy addressing the assembly (for maximal communicative efficacy) underscores that these are the very words of John (for maximal formal accuracy). e liturgy’s strategy of quoting John directly is intended to create the impression that it is John’s narrator who is speaking, a narrator who in turn quotes Jesus’ very words. Only through this double embeddedness – quoting an instance that itself quotes – can Jesus’ words be made present to the liturgical assembly. is combination of maximal communicative effect via maximal formal accuracy becomes all the more evident with the content of Jesus’ words, to which I now turn. 6. Content of Jesus’ Words in John 15:1-11 John’s Gospel manifests a predilection for quoting characters in the story it narrates. Fully 72% (627 of 868) of the verses in John’s Gospel are devoted, in part or in whole, to words attributed in direct reported speech to characters. Of this 72%, nearly two-thirds (421 verses) contain, in part or in whole, words attributed to the character Jesus. ree types of expressions or locutions among the many that Jesus speaks merit consideration for the communicative effect they create: (1) instances where Jesus uses a generic subject, that is, a subject that does not specify any person in particular in the audience he is addressing, such as ὁ πιστεύων (the one who believes), ὁ μένων (the one who remains), πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων (everyone who believes), ἐὰν μή τις (unless one) + verb (and similar expressions); (2) instances, at times even in the same verse, where Jesus shis from the locution just mentioned to the second person plural “you” or vice versa; and (3) instances in which Jesus uses future tense verbs, especially when coordinated with one or  both of the previously-mentioned locutions. All three can be found concentrated within a short passage from John’s Last Supper Discourse, John  15:1-11 (New Jerusalem Bible), reproduced here to facilitate reference: John 15:1-11 I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2Every branch in me that bears no fruit he cuts away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes to make it bear even more. 3You are clean already, by means of the word that I have spoken to you. 4Remain in me, as I in you. As a branch cannot bear fruit all by itself, unless it remains part of

150

  the vine, neither can you unless you remain in me. 5I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me, with me in him, bears fruit in plenty; for cut off from me you can do nothing. 6Anyone who does not remain in me is thrown away like a branch – and withers; these branches are collected and thrown on the fire and are burnt. 7If you remain in me and my words remain in you, you may ask for whatever you please and you will get it. 8It is to the glory of my Father that you should bear much fruit and be my disciples. 9I have loved you just as the Father has loved me. Remain in my love. 10If you keep my commandments you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and remain in his love. 11I have told you this so that my own joy may be in you and your joy be complete.

(1) e locutions usually translated in English as “whoever”, “anyone who”, “the one who”, “no one who” appear more than five dozen times on the lips of Jesus and are sown pretty much throughout the entire Gospel narrative. Such pervasive usage clearly constitutes a characteristic trait of Jesus’ discourse in John. Because the referential sense remains indefinite and generic, these locutions include not only anyone in the audience Jesus is addressing, but anyone at any time and place. Two instances, for example, occur in John 15:5-6: ὁ μένων ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ οὗτος φέρει καρπὸν πολύν […]. ἐὰν μή τις μένῃ ἐν ἐμοί, ἐβλήθη ἔξω ὡς τὸ κλῆμα καὶ ἐξηράνθη καὶ συνάγουσιν αὐτὰ καὶ εἰς τὸ πῦρ βάλλουσιν καὶ καίεται (“Whoever remains in me, with me in him [or her], bears fruit in plenty […]. Anyone who does not remain in me is thrown away like a branch – and withers; these branches are collected and thrown on the fire and are burnt”). e present participle μένων (“remaining”) or the third person singular present subjunctive phrase ἐὰν μή τις μένῃ (“Unless one remains”), since they are generic and unspecified, apply to anyone, not simply those to whom Jesus addresses these words in the purported original speech-event. As a result, these expressions reach beyond the here-and-now of Jesus’ original speechevent to include the readers addressed in the speech-event of John’s framing narrative (John’s hearers/readers) as well as the assembly addressed in the speech-event of the liturgical proclamation.23 In other words, the 23. On a similar locution found in the Bread of Life discourse (Jn 6:54), Jo-Ann A. B, Dialogue and Drama: Elements of Greek Tragedy in the Fourth Gospel, Peabody, MA, Hendrickson, 2004, p. 157, points out that “on the dramatic axis [in the story world], Jesus’ signifier has no referent. On the theatrical axis [in the discourse], it is possible and even probable that the first audience contained people who had eaten bread and drunk wine blessed with words such as those found in 1 Cor 11:25 and believed that the terms regarding those who ate Jesus’ flesh and drank his blood could or did refer to them […]. Perhaps more important, on the theatrical axis, the disparity between how Jesus’ words are received prior to his resurrection and how they are taken aer that event become

    

151

meaning of the innermost inset of Jesus’ words referentially breaks through the double embedding frames to reach the here-and-now of the liturgical assembly that is doing the quoting in its own speech-event. As well, since direct reported speech allegedly re-presents the actual words of Jesus which express his subjective point of view, all three “audiences” – Jesus’ audience in the story, John’s hearers/readers, and the liturgical assembly – are embraced in Jesus’ subjective intention and awareness. e framed “one” (or its equivalent) is indeed the one whom Jesus has in mind. us, the use of direct reported speech first by the liturgy (which quotes John) and then by John’s Gospel (which quotes Jesus), now with the content of what Jesus says added to the formal and functional aspects of direct reported speech discussed earlier, serves well the liturgy’s aim of creating in the assembly the sense of Jesus’ words being present, and of the present assembly already having been present in Jesus’ intention and point of view. rough the embedding frames and embedded insets, the liturgy reaches down through John’s then-and-there to Jesus’ thenand-there, to make both rebound upward through the frames to the assembly’s here-and-now so that those who hear may embrace Jesus’ words and live accordingly. (2) At times, the locution discussed above in (1) is paired with the second person plural. A case in point is the entire verse only partially cited above. In full it reads: ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος, ὑμεῖς τὰ κλήματα. ὁ μένων ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ οὗτος φέρει καρπὸν πολύν, ὅτι χωρὶς ἐμοῦ οὐ δύνασθε ποιεῖν οὐδέν (“I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me, with me in him [or her], bears fruit in plenty; for cut off from me you can do nothing”). Here Jesus moves from “you are the branches” to “the one who remains in me” to “without me you can do nothing.” While the second person plural “you” refers to the disciples whom Jesus is addressing in his original speech-event, this “you” becomes ambiguous by being paired with the “whoever” locution. As a result, the generic, referentially unspecified “one” bleeds into the contiguous “you” of the last part of the verse “you can do nothing,” thereby including the “you” in the “one”.24 In this way, those addressed clear to the gospel’s audience.” See also Josaphat C. T, Apprehension of Jesus in the Gospel of John (WUNT, 2 Reihe, 399), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2015, p 165. 24. e order of presentation, whether globally or locally, in a time art such as narrative influences the rhetorical impact and significance. See Meir S, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press, 1985, p. 478-479, 490-491; Emma K, “Not (Yet) Knowing: Epistemological Effects of Deferred and Suppressed Information in Narrative,” in David H (ed.), Narratologies: New Perspectives on Narrative Analysis, Columbus, OH, Ohio State University, 1999, 33-65.

152

 

as “you” are no longer limited to the here-and-now of the original speech-event, but subtly tends to include the “you” addressed in John’s narrative and the “you” addressed in the liturgical celebration. A similar effect occurs in the next two verses, the first verse with a generic, referentially unspecified subject, the following verse shiing to the second person plural “you”: ἐὰν μή τις μένῃ ἐν ἐμοί, ἐβλήθη ἔξω ὡς τὸ κλῆμα καὶ ἐξηράνθη καὶ συνάγουσιν αὐτὰ καὶ εἰς τὸ πῦρ βάλλουσιν καὶ καίεται. ἐὰν μείνητε ἐν ἐμοὶ καὶ τὰ ῥήματά μου ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ, ὃ ἐὰν θέλητε αἰτήσασθε, καὶ γενήσεται ὑμῖν (“Anyone who does not remain in me is thrown away like a branch – and withers; these branches are collected and thrown on the fire and are burnt. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, you may ask for whatever you please and you will get it”). is same shiing from the generic subject “one” or its equivalent to the plural “you” in fact is a feature of all of John 15:1-11. e ambiguity well serves John’s aims and the liturgy’s aims. It creates a sense of contextual indeterminacy and fluidity, with the effect that those who hear experience themselves as being addressed directly by Jesus’ words: across time and space he is speaking to them in their here-and-now. (3) e third content-related feature contributing to frame-breaking insets in John is Jesus’ use of the future tense verbs, particularly in coordination with or juxtaposition to the two previously discussed locutions. Here, the generic, unspecified referentiality of “one”, ambiguating and extending the sense of the contiguous plural “you”, is made to reach beyond and outside the context of the original speech-event by means of a future orientation, as, for example, in verse 7 cited above: ὃ ἐὰν θέλητε αἰτήσασθε, καὶ γενήσεται ὑμῖν (“you may ask for whatever you please and you will get it”). Because the preceding “one” in v. 6 is indefinite, making the referential meaning of the adjoining “you” of vv. 7a and 7b fluid, the use of the future in v. 7c acquires greater extension through cumulative effect. e future can at one and the same time be the future of the disciples of the original inset’s context, the future of John’s hearers/readers, and the future of the worshipping assembly. In all three instances, those being included in the “one” and addressed as “you” are present in Jesus’ subjective intention and point of view because they hear his words. e liturgy’s ritual proclamation of the Scriptures, then, employs the performative discourse strategy of quoting to achieve its aim of actualizing, of making present for the gathered assembly, the Gospel tradition that the church has inherited. e formal, functional, and content-referential features of certain narrative passages from Scripture, as illustrated

    

153

in excerpts from John’s recounting of Jesus’ Last Supper Discourse with its use of the generic, non-specific “one” locutions that in turn render the plural “you” and future verbs referentially fluid and more extensive, are the mechanisms that create and facilitate this outcome, an outcome whose effect is all the more perceptible through (oral) proclamation. 7. The Role of “Voice” in Liturgical Proclamation Having analyzed the phenomenon of direct reported speech as the key feature of liturgical proclamation, particularly in the case of a narrative text, I now return to the concept of performance presented in my opening section to show how performance enhances and intensifies quotation’s communicative effect. To do so, I focus on “voice”, or what Patrick O’Neill calls “the ventriloquism effect”.25 O’Neill begins by stating that all narratives “are uttered, whether metaphorically or literally, by the voice of a narrator.”26 By “literally” he has in mind a teller telling a story to someone who is listening. In doing so, the teller speaks the voice of the story’s narrator. By “metaphorically”, on the other hand, he points to the silent reading of a narrative where the reader imaginatively “hears” a voice telling the story, the “voice” of the narrator.27 In both instances, but more obviously in the case of telling, the narrator, in quoting a character in the story, voices the quoted words of the character, creating the impression that the hearer is within ear-shot of the character’s voice and hears the character directly. But it is always the voice of the teller the hearer hears, for the teller is in effect enacting or performing t he words of the narrator who in turn is performing the words of the character, for

25. Patrick O’N, The Fictions of Discourse: Reading Narrative Theory, Toronto – Buffalo, NY – London, UK, University of Toronto Press, 1996, p. 58-82. 26. Ibid., p. 60. 27. Even in silent reading, voice and sound are not absent. See Walter J. O, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word, London – New York, NY, Methuen, 1982, p. 8 “‘Reading’ a text means converting it to sound, aloud or in the imagination […]. Writing can never dispense with orality.” Also, Hans-Georg G, Truth and Method, 2nd rev. edition, trans. revised by Joel W – Donald G. M, London, UK – New York, NY, Continuum, 2004 [1975]), p. 153: “[…] there is obviously no sharp differentiation between reciting and silent reading. Reading with understanding is always a kind of reproduction, performance, and interpretation. Emphasis, rhythmic ordering, and the like are part of wholly silent reading too. Meaning and understanding of it are so closely connected with the corporeality of language that understanding always involves an inner speaking as well”; and Wolfgang I, The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response, Baltimore, MD – London, UK, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978, p. 150, and especially p. 125-129: “e Text as Event.”

154

 

both narrator and character are absent.28 Otherwise, there would be no need to quote.29 In the case of John’s Gospel, John’s narrator quotes the words of Jesus, and does so in the narrator’s own “voice,” for Jesus is absent from the narrator’s speech-event addressing the narratee. Liturgical proclamation adds another framing layer to John’s Gospel, as mentioned above. e same “voicing” phenomenon is replicated at this higher level: the lector quotes John’s narrator, who is absent from the liturgical speech-event, and does so in the lector’s own voice, enacting or performing the narrator’s speaking. As a result, the liturgical assembly hears only the lector’s voice, who speaks the words of John’s narrator, who in turn speaks the words of Jesus. e simultaneous and concurrent sound-effect of the one voice speaking John’s narrator and necessarily Jesus’ words devolves from the nature of liturgy as event and from the oral-aural nature of the 28. Alla B-C, The Word’s Body: An Incarnational Aesthetic of Interpretation, University, AL, University of Alabama Press, 1979, p. 1. A re-presentation or mimesis is a performance, as Egbert J. B points out in his article “Mimesis as Performance: Rereading Auerbach’s First Chapter,” in PT 20 (1999) 11-26, p. 16-17: “e discussion of mimesis in connection with performance, in fact, is inevitable insofar as the very word mímēsis in Ancient Greek denotes an action, a performance. e substantive mímēsis is an action noun formed from the verb mimeîsthai (to represent or imitate). Moreover, this verb is in the middle voice, which means that its grammatical subject is necessarily affected by the action denoted: Mimeîsthai is what people do, not what things are. us mímēsis originally does not denote a relation between a text (as in a finished product) and its referent, but between an action (i.e., a process) and its model. is ‘performative’ sense of mímēsis is prominent in the third book of Plato’s Republic (393b-d), where the word seems to be used for the first time as a theoretical term. Mímēsis is used here to denote impersonation, ‘becoming another’, and is applied to the passages in Homer that we would characterize as ‘direct speech’ or ‘character’s speech’. In these passages, according to Plato, the poet, Homer, becomes his character, assimilates himself to him or her […]” [emphases in original]. Florian C, “Reported Speech: Some General Issues,” in Florian C (ed.), Direct and Indirect Speech (TL SM, 31), Berlin – New York, NY – Amsterdam, Mouton de Gruyter, 1986, 1-28, p. 2: “In direct speech the reporter lends his voice to the original speaker and says (or writes) what he said, thus adopting his point of view, as it were. Direct speech, in a manner of speaking, is not the reporter’s speech, but remains the reported speaker’s speech whose role is played by the reporter”; Tullio M, “e Force of Reportive Narratives,” in PaLin 17 (1984) 235-265, p. 256: “[...] while the narrator reports an event, in using reported speech he also enacts that event [...] [R]eported speech is a performative speech act. e performative character of reported speech contributes to its veracity, to its power to convince. Nevertheless, the truth at stake is not that of the logician (propositional) but rather the felicity or happiness of the conditions. e important thing to bear in mind [is] that while the narrator reports an event, in using reported speech he also enacts that event” [emphasis in original]. 29. See my article “e Illusion of Immediacy: A Narrative-Critical Exploration of the Bible’s Predilection for Direct Discourse,” in Theoforum 31 (2000) 131-151, reproduced in Normand B, Narrative Time in the New Testament: Essays on Mark, John, and Paul (Terra Nova, 8), Leuven – Paris – Bristol, CT, Peeters, 2020, 7-27.

    

155

performance of Scripture. For sound is always an event: it is ephemeral; it unfolds temporally in only one direction and cannot be reversed; it is produced only in the here-and-now; it indicates present (in time) and presence (in space).30 All of these aspects of voice conspire to enhance the effect of the liturgical proclamation of the kind of locutions illustrated in the short passage from John’s Last Supper Discourse. e immediacy of the lector’s voice as sound abets the effect of the locutions’ capacity to break through their embedding frames, creating the impression that Jesus is speaking not only to his disciples, not only to John’s narratee, but also, and perhaps all the more expressly, to the liturgical assembly being addressed. Jesus is rendered “present” to the assembly, but this presence comes about only through the voicing of the words of the embedding frames and the embedded insets: Jesus’ words are so framed to break their frames.31 As the primary quoting instance whose point of view dominates, the liturgy quotes John who in turn quotes Jesus so that Jesus’ point of view might be awakened and made present. Due to the character Jesus’ use of the indefinite and generic “one” in his locutions, the liturgical assembly, hearing these “very words of Jesus” voiced by John’s narrator via the liturgy’s lector, experiences itself as included in Jesus’ point of view, in his subjective referential intention. It is for this communicative effect that the Scriptures are presented orally in Roman Catholic eucharistic celebrations. While in today’s world most members of the liturgical assembly are literate, the liturgy would never invite the assembly to read silently the day’s scripture passages in pew Bibles or pocket missals. In liturgical celebration, the Scriptures are to be performed, for liturgy is an event. Indeed, the Scriptures were made

30. See especially Walter J. O, The Presence of the Word: Some Prolegomena for Cultural and Religious History, Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota Press, 1981 [1967], p. 111-175, Chap. 3: “Word as Sound.” 31. “Especially Jesus’ farewell discourse in John 14–17 reads as a déjà vu account of how the primitive Church was to experience and propagate the risen Christ: He was to be present among his followers through the Spirit. is presence was manifested in keeping and speaking his words. Our knowledge of the oral tradition suggests that this is the proper context within which to understand this discourse,” J. A. (Bobby) L, Oral and Manuscript Culture in the Bible: Studies on the Media Texture of the New Testament – Explorative Hermeneutics, 2nd edition (BPCS, 7), Eugene, OR, Cascade Books, 2013, p.  166-167. See also Kristina D, “Transmissions from Scripturality to Orality: Hearing the Voice of Jesus in Mark 4:1-34,” in Annette W – Robert B. C (eds.), The Interface of Orality and Writing: Speaking, Seeing, Writing in the Shaping of New Genres, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2010, 119-129.

156

 

to be read aloud.32 For all these reasons, then, liturgy is the true home of scripture.33 8. Reflections on Performance What incidence can the above analysis of the liturgy’s use of direct reported speech in proclaiming biblical narrative have on its performance, a performance which perforce has characteristics peculiar to it? e liturgical proclamation of biblical narrative sets in motion a dynamic tension between facets that, although distinct, are as inseparable as two sides of a coin. According to Alla Bozarth-Campbell, the lector at one and the same time incarnates the text and witnesses to it.34 In voicing the text the lector must necessarily interiorize the words and their meaning, yet the words, since they are words of another, remain exterior to him or her.35 e lector as one who incarnates the text invests her or his intelligence, emotions, and public reading skills, etc., so as to re-present well the voices being cited. At the same time, since the words being quoted are those of another, the lector must divest her- or himself 32. R-C, “La lettre et la voix” (n.  9), p.  29 ; Louis-Marie C, “L’archi-oralité des textes liturgiques. L’exemple de la prière eucharistique,” in MD 226 (2001) 123-138, esp. p.  126-129; William A. G, “Scripture as Spoken Word,” in Miriam L (ed.), Rethinking Scripture: Essays from a Comparative Perspective, Albany, NY, State University of New York Press, 1989, 129-169; Richard W. S, “Taking Place/Taking Up Space,” in Holly E. H – Philip R-J (eds.), The Bible in Ancient and Modern Media: Story and Performance (BPCS 1), Eugene, OR, Cascade Books, 2009, 129-141; Joanna D, “e Gospel of John in Its Oral-Written Media World,” chap. 2 in The Oral Ethos of the Early Church: Speaking, Writing, and the Gospel of Mark (BPCS, 8), Eugene, OR, Cascade Books, 2013, 31-39, p. 32, 34: in antiquity, the word was written for the ear. Also, Dewey maintains that, of all the books in the New Testament, Mark and John are the most orally-oriented (p. 35). In a private communication aer reading a dra of this paper, André W, underscoring the oral aspect of the Scriptures, aptly comments: “Chez les Juifs, Écriture (au sens des Écritures) se dit miqra’; proclamation (qara’ renvoie toujours à une émission de sons bien audibles)” [reproduced here with his kind permission]. 33. Rowan W, “e Discipline of Scripture” (n.  4), p.  51: Aer describing what he calls a “dramatic” mode of reading Scripture, i.e., “by following it through in a single time-continuum, reading it as a sequence of changes, a pattern of transformations,” Williams goes on to comment: “If it is correct to see the ‘dramatic’ mode of exegesis as part of what the sensus litteralis in its diachronic character includes, there is clearly a sense in which literal reading involves public performance – a tangible ‘taking of time’ now for the presentation of the time of the text. us the use of a scriptural Lectionary bound to the festal cycle (annual, biennial or triennial) is a major mediation of the literal sense. And at certain seasons, above all the paschal celebration, this is intensified in a way very evidently designed to bring our time and the time of the canonical narrative together.” 34. B-C, The Word’s Body (n. 28), p. 65. 35. R-C, “La lettre et la voix” (n. 9), p. 40-41.

    

157

of anything that might give the impression of owning the words being voiced: as much as the lector incarnates the words of Scripture, he or she is being addressed by them as well. is peculiar characteristic of the liturgical proclamation of biblical narrative emerges most explicitly in the instances discussed above when, for example, the character Jesus in John’s Gospel uses locutions featuring a generic “one” that at times also encompasses the “you” being addressed, and where future verbs further qualify both “one” and “you”: the lector, and not only the worshipping assembly, are included in Jesus’ intention. And while this phenomenon is less obvious when a lector voices John’s narrator, it is nonetheless at work here as well due to the dynamism that devolves from the liturgy’s use direct reported speech. at is why the proclamation of biblical narrative in liturgy remains a reading, as the opening phrase of a liturgical proclamation indicates (“A reading from […]”), and not a recitation nor a dramatization. If the lector seeks to espouse the liturgy’s point of view, then, a careful balance between investing one’s imagination and talents in the words being spoken, along with a certain divesting oneself through restraint and humility before the words being spoken, is to be cultivated.36 9. Conclusion e power of performance enhances and intensifies what is already inherent in the phenomenon of quotation, particularly quotation used as a narrative strategy. Framing the words of another in an inset can create the effect, at times subliminally, at times overtly, of breaking through the very frame doing the framing. And since framing and quoting have to do with speech-events, “voice” plays an integral and essential role. e liturgy’s use of John’s Gospel, with its predilection for placing carefully craed locutions in the mouth of Jesus, exploits the oral performance of framing and quoting to its calculated, palpable advantage. It makes the past present and the present experienced as the intended future of a past speech-event, all of this in what can only properly be called “liturgical time”. A heightened awareness of what transpires in the liturgy’s proclamation of biblical narrative – its strategy of setting up a series of quoting instances and quoted insets – can further enhance and help guide its performance. 36. Ibid., p. 40: “Dans la liturgie, une certaine retenue est de mise […]. La tradition ecclésiastique de son côté vise à modérer et contenir l’activité gestuelle, au nom de la vertu et de la décence.” See also B, “Commentary” (n. 10), p. 712-713.

C 

NEHEMIAH 8 AND LITURGICAL PROCLAMATION Reading Ezra Reading1 1. Introduction In the entire three-year cycle of readings, the Sunday and Feast Day Lectionary selects a sole passage from the dual book of Ezra-Nehemiah. e excerpt, drawn from the first part of the eighth chapter of Nehemiah (8:1-4a, 8-10), is assigned as the first reading on the ird Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year C. As is the case for all Old Testament readings during Ordinary Time, it is chosen to be paired with the gospel passage of the day. On this particular Sunday, the gospel pericope recounts the Lukan episode of Jesus inaugurating his ministry when on the Sabbath he goes to the synagogue in his home town of Nazareth, reads from the book of the prophet Isaiah, and declares: “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing” (Luke 4:12-21). Although one might expect the Old Testament selection of the day to be the Isaiah passage Jesus cites, the Lectionary offers the Nehemiah excerpt instead. It is an inspired choice, for in this episode Ezra solemnly reads from the book of the Law before the assembled men, women, and children of Jerusalem and the surrounding countryside. 2. Historical and Literary Context While Bibles today present Ezra and Nehemiah as two separate books – a tradition begun by the Christian scholar Origen in the third century – they were originally written as one work. Together they narrate events that took place over the span of nearly a century, from 515 to approximately 420 . e work as a whole is composed of different written sources and various documents, which, aer undergoing several stages of compiling and redacting, were finalized in their present form 1. is short piece first appeared in The Bible Today 37/4 (1999) 223-226 as a contribution to a thematic issue on the Book of Nehemiah. e journal’s editor suggested I focus on the use of that biblical book in the Sunday Lectionary, which explains the specific topic of the article.

160

 

sometime between 400 and 300 . As a result, a number of literary hitches and chronological discrepancies make it difficult for historians to reconstruct a precise account of what happened. Be that as it may, the text as it stands narrates three distinct phases in the long saga of Israel’s return from the Babylonian Exile (587-353 ). Released by Cyrus the Great in 535 , the Persian king who had conquered the Babylonians, a first wave of exiled Jews returns home, where, over many years and despite much opposition, they rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, finally dedicating it in 515 (recounted in Ezra 1–6). A second wave returns approximately a half century later under the leadership of the priest-scribe Ezra who had been charged by the Persian king Artaxerxes to help organize and revitalize the disheartened community in Jerusalem and Judea (Ezra 7–10). Finally, some twelve years later, also with the authorization of the Persian government, Nehemiah leads a third wave of exiles home to Jerusalem where as governor he promotes the rebuilding of the city walls (Neh 1–7). e Lectionary’s excerpt from Nehemiah 8 follows immediately upon this highly-edited reconstruction of postexilic history. Chapter eight of Nehemiah contains two related episodes. In the first, the people of the city and the Judean countryside gather on the first day of the seventh month at Jerusalem’s Water Gate to listen to Ezra and his Levitical assistants read from, and provide interpretations of, the Law of Moses (Neh 8:1-12). In the second episode, the family leaders, returning on the next day to study the Law, discover that Moses has commanded everyone to observe the Feast of Booths on the seventh month. Since this is indeed the seventh month, all the people celebrate the festival with great rejoicing (Neh 8:13-18). ese two scenes, however, constitute but the first act of what appears to be a covenant renewal ceremony held by the restored community. e subsequent confession in chapter 9, followed by the people’s pledge to observe the Law in chapter 10, form the second and third acts of the ceremony, thus shaping the entire three-chapter sequence as a climactic liturgy marking the successful end of the restoration – of the people, the Temple, and the city – aer the Babylonian Exile. Ezra’s reading from the book of the Law opens the celebration. 3. The Event at the Water Gate e first four verses of Nehemiah 8 succinctly sketch the event: all the people gather at an open space near Jerusalem’s Water Gate and ask Ezra to bring out the book of the Law of Moses. Ezra consents and then, standing on a specially-constructed wooden platform, proceeds to read

    

161

from dawn until midday to “the men, women, and children old enough to understand”. e following verses color in the details. On the platform, Ezra is accompanied by thirteen community leaders, six on his right and seven on his le (Neh 8:4b, omitted in the Lectionary account, lists the names of these leaders). As he solemnly opens the scroll for all to see, the people stand. Before beginning to read, Ezra blesses the Lord; the people respond with shouts of “Amen, amen”, li their hands in prayer, and prostrate themselves on the ground (Neh 8:5-6). While the Law is read by Ezra and explained by the assisting Levites (Neh 8:7-8; v. 7, omitted from the Lectionary account, lists the names of the Levites), the people begin to weep. But Ezra comforts and encourages them saying: “Today is holy to the Lord your God. Do not be sad, and to not weep […]. Go, eat rich foods and drink sweet drinks, and allot portions to those who had nothing prepared; for today is holy to our God. Do not be saddened this day, for rejoicing in the Lord must be your strength” (8:9-10). e attendant Levites repeat Ezra’s words, and finally the people go off to celebrate as they are bid (8:11-12, which are not in the Lectionary account). A number of items in the passage merit comment. In 8:1, it is the people, “gathered as one in the open space before the Water Gate”, who ask Ezra “to bring forth the book of the law of Moses”. us, the initiative for the occasion comes not from the religious authorities but from the people themselves. e book of the law of Moses belongs to everyone; as scribe, Ezra serves the people as the book’s steward. Moreover, although the Temple has been rebuilt, the law-reading ceremony takes place in a “profane” location near the city gate, perhaps to assure sufficient space for the crowd, but also perhaps so that the men on the one hand and the women and children on the other hand, who would otherwise be occupying separate Temple courtyards, might be gathered together as one people. e sequence of rituals before the reading itself – the solemn opening of the scroll for all to see, the people rising out of reverence, the pronouncing of a blessing, the people responding with “Amen, amen”, liing the hands, and worshipping faces to the ground (8:5-6) – suggests that a number of liturgical practices, later standardized in synagogal services where reading from the Scriptures is the central activity, were already familiar in early postexilic Judaism. Many of the same elements, adapted to Christian liturgy, serve to usher in the proclamation of the Gospel. Ezra did not simply read to the people, as the semitechnical language in 8:8 spells out. He read “plainly […] interpreting it so that all could understand what was read.” “Interpretation” here could simply mean that the  text was read in Hebrew, which fewer and fewer people spoke or

162

 

understood aer the Exile, and was followed by a translation in Aramaic. However, “interpretation” also seems to mean that Ezra, along with the Levites assisting him, explained and applied the ancient laws to the present situation of the listeners. Surprisingly, the people weep (8:9). In light of the reading and its interpretation, they realize the chasm between what the Law prescribed and how they had in fact been behaving. Ezra, however, urges them not to be sad but to consider this day “a day holy to the Lord your God”, a time of renewal (8:9). e very fact that the people asked to hear the Law of God read and interpreted, that they listened so attentively and took it so seriously, is a sign, implies Ezra, that the salvation and grace once offered to past generations continues to be at work in their lives now. Despite the nightmare of the Exile, despite the ensuing troubles and uncertainties, God is still their God, and they are still God’s people. Indeed, they are to rejoice, for “the joy of the Lord” will be a sign for them of the strength and protection they need to live faithfully according to the Law (8:10). e event on that first day of the seventh month at the city’s Water Gate offered the people reassurance in the present and resolve for the future, for continuity with God’s saving past was secured and their identity as God’s people reaffirmed. 4. Liturgical Proclamation: “fulfilled in your hearing” is incident recorded in the book of Nehemiah underscores the compelling nature of proclaiming Scripture in the midst of the worshipping assembly. Given today’s high literacy rate and the availability of inexpensive printed materials, it would be easy enough at the Sunday Eucharist for people to read the selected Scripture passages quietly to themselves instead of hearing them proclaimed aloud. Yet, the Church insists on oral proclamation. In great part this is due to the dynamics inherent in the medium of sound. Sound indicates presence. Among human beings, speaking usually indicates personal presence – speaker and listener(s) must be physically present to one another. Sound also indicates the present. Perhaps more than the other sensory modalities, sound reminds us that we live in time – it continues only as long as it is produced. Once the source stops, sound ends. e dynamics of sound, because they require personal presence (speakers and listeners in the same place) in the present (at the same time), foster community. In addition to the natural effects of the dynamics of sound in oral/ aural contexts, liturgical proclamation is rendered all the more powerful because the content being sounded are the Scriptures. In voicing not

    

163

their own words but the ancient words of the written text through which prior generations articulated their experience of God’s passion to save, lectors awaken the dormant signs on the page into personal presence in the present. e story of Ezra reading the ancient Law of Moses to the people demonstrates how making present the past can happen only in liturgical proclamation. As we read aloud and listen to the story of Ezra reading aloud, we are doing what we are “watching” him do. Moreover, only through our doing what he is doing can Ezra appear, for unless the words written in Nehemiah 8 are performed in oral proclamation they remain but voiceless signs in which Ezra’s presence awaits awakening. Liturgical proclamation breathes life into the dried bones of inscribed words. rough the dynamics of sound, oral proclamation effects a “real”, “present” presence of the voices of those who spoke long ago and of the words God spoke to them. As a result, the world of the text meets our world. e biblical story writes itself into our lives, and we write our lives into the biblical story. In this way, we know ourselves as the people of God living out and inscribing in history our own chapter in the story of salvation. 5. Conclusion In the very act of reading and hearing the Scriptures, God’s saving power becomes event, “happens” now for us in our midst, just as it did for the people gathered around Ezra so many generations ago. It is no wonder, then, that the words of Jesus at the synagogue in Nazareth continue to inspire, to breathe life into, our liturgical proclamation: “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” e Lectionary’s judicious choice of Nehemiah 8, plus its felicitous pairing with Luke 4, provide the warrants for the lector declaring what is happening in our midst to be “e word of the Lord.”

C 

LUKE’S DISTINCTIVE SUNDAY LECTIONARY PROFILE1 1. Introduction More perhaps than any other feature, the assigning of a Synoptic Gospel to each year of its three-year cycle of readings – Matthew to Year A, Mark to Year B, and Luke to year C – stands out as the hallmark of the Sunday Lectionary. e First Sunday of Advent 2000 will mark the eleventh time [Advent 2021 marks the sixteenth time] since the Lectionary’s promulgation in 1969 that the liturgy turns to the readings for Year C, the year dedicated to Luke.  Based on liturgical concerns, the Sunday Lectionary appropriates roughly 60% of each of the four Gospels over the three-year cycle of readings.  What is Luke’s “Sunday Lectionary profile”?  Which Lukan passages have been selected and where in the liturgical year have they been assigned? A discussion of two intertwined factors – the relationship of Luke’s Gospel to the other two Synoptic Gospels, Matthew and Mark, and the shape of the liturgical year – will help answer this query. 2. The Distinctiveness of the Third Gospel A side-by-side comparison reveals that the first three Gospels narrate remarkably similar accounts of Jesus’ career ranging from his baptism in the Jordan to the women’s discovery of the empty tomb on Easter morning.  Mark is the shortest of the three, being slightly more than half the length of either Matthew or Luke. Nearly all of the episodes contained in Mark have parallels in Matthew, while 65% of Mark finds parallels in Luke.  e material all three have in common is called the Triple Tradition. But Matthew and Luke, being much longer than Mark, contain material beyond what they share in common with Mark. A good portion of this additional, non-Markan material is shared by Matthew and Luke, material called the Double Tradition (or “Q”). Triple Tradition and Double Tradition material still does not account for all the episodes contained in 1. is chapter first appeared in The Bible Today 38 (2000) 337-342 upon the invitation from the editor to contribute an article for a thematic issue on the Gospel of Luke.

166

 

Matthew and in Luke. e 25% or so le over in Matthew, that is, material with no parallels in either Mark or Luke, is simply called “M”. Similarly, the roughly 40% in Luke having no parallels either Matthew or Luke is dubbed “L” material.  What makes Luke’s Gospel distinctive?  As a perusal of the episodes he shares in common with Mark and/or Matthew points out, Luke puts his own special stamp on the traditions relating the words and deeds of Jesus. In light of this, one can only surmise that Luke has le his imprint on “L” material as well, whatever the source of those stories might be. But beyond his editorial style, the very fact that Luke included so many unique stories – e.g., the annunciation and birth of John the Baptist, the annunciation and birth of Jesus, the parables of the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, the Rich Man and Lazarus; the disciples of Emmaus, etc. – significantly distinguishes his Gospel from the others.  is special Lukan material appears in three sections of his Gospel: in the infancy narrative (chapters 1–2), in the “travel narrative” of Jesus’ journey from Galilee to Jerusalem (9:51–19:27), and in the narratives of the appearances of the risen Christ (24:13-53). 3. Luke’s Gospel in the Sunday Lectionary e designers of the Lectionary strove to underscore as much as possible the distinctiveness of each evangelist. When it came to assigning passages from Luke, they gave such prominence to what is unique in the ird Gospel that nearly half of the 60% of Luke appearing in the Sunday Lectionary comes from his “L” material. is represents nearly 75% of all of Luke’s “L” material, which, as mentioned earlier, constitutes 40% of the entire Gospel. Luke’s “Sunday Lectionary profile” is in large part created by this heavy dose of “L” stories and episodes. Which “L” passages have been selected for inclusion in the Sunday Lectionary, and where have they been placed? Here, the second key factor comes into play, the shape of the liturgical year. As it does for the Bible generally throughout its three-year cycle of readings, the Sunday Lectionary selects and distributes Lukan passages according to liturgical concerns. e liturgical year has two types of seasons, festal seasons (Advent, Christmas, Lent, and Easter) and Ordinary Time (the weeks between the end of the Christmas season and the beginning of Lent, and the weeks between the end of the Easter season and the following Advent), to which the Lectionary responds with different principles of reading selection. For the festal seasons, the Lectionary employs the principle of lectio selecta (selected readings), choosing biblical passages to articulate the main themes of the season or of the feast being celebrated.  For the

’    

167

Sundays in Ordinary Time the Lectionary adapts the ancient principle of lectio continua in the form of semicontinuous reading: excerpts from a biblical book are read in sequence over a series of Sundays, all the while skipping over some episodes. As a result of these two principles of selection, not all of the Lukan passages in the Sunday Lectionary have been assigned to Year C – a number of passages appear in the festal seasons of Years A and B as well. e following inventory lists Luke’s “L” material the Lectionary has selected, first in the festal seasons and then in Ordinary Time. 4.1. “L” Material in the Festal Seasons Advent-Christmas Cycle: • e Magnificat (excerpts only, as Responsorial Psalm: 1:47-48, 49-50, 53-54), ird Sunday of Advent, Year B • Annunciation to Mary (1:26-38), Fourth Sunday of Advent, Year B • John’s preaching (3:1-6), ird Sunday of Advent, Year C • Mary visits Elizabeth (1:39-45), Fourth Sunday of Advent, Year C • Birth of Jesus (2:1-16), Christmas at night, Years ABC • Visit of the Shepherds (2:15-20), Christmas at dawn, Years ABC; Feast of Mary, Mother of God (New Year’s Day), Years ABC • Purification of Mary, Prophets Simeon and Anna (2:22-40), Feast of the Holy Family, Year B • e twelve-year-old Jesus in the Temple (2:41-52), Feast of the Holy Family, Year C Lent-Easter Cycle: • Exhortation to repentance (13:1-9), ird Sunday of Lent, Year C • e Parable of the Prodigal Son (15:1-3, 11-32), Fourth Sunday of Lent, Year C • e disciples of Emmaus (24:13-35), ird Sunday of Easter, Year B • Jesus’ appearance to the Eleven (24:35-48), ird Sunday of Easter, Year C 4.2. “L” Material in Ordinary Time, Year C: The Ministry in Galilee: • Jesus’ rejection at Nazareth (4:21-30), Fourth Sunday • e great catch of fish (5:1-11), Fih Sunday • Woes (added to the Beatitudes; 6:24-26), Sixth Sunday

168

 

• e widow of Nain (7:11-17), Tenth Sunday • A woman anoints Jesus’ feet; women accompany Jesus (7:36-8:3), Eleventh Sunday The Travel Narrative: • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Jesus passes through Samaria (9:51-56), irteenth Sunday e Parable of the Good Samaritan (10:30-37), Fieenth Sunday Martha and Mary (10:38-42), Sixteenth Sunday e Parable of the Friend at Midnight (11:5-8), Seventeenth Sunday e Parable of the Rich Fool (12:13-21), Eighteenth Sunday Jesus’ teaching on the faithful servant (12:32-48), Nineteenth Sunday Jesus’ teaching on places at table (14:1, 7-14), Twenty-second Sunday e Parable of the Prodigal Son (15:11-32), Twenty-fourth Sunday e Parable of the Unjust Steward (16:1-13), Twenty-fih Sunday e Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (16:19-31), Twenty-sixth Sunday Jesus heals ten lepers (17:11-19), Twenty-eighth Sunday e Parable of the Unjust Judge (18:1-8), Twenty-ninth Sunday e Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican (18:9-14), irtieth Sunday Zacchaeus (19:1-10), irty-first Sunday

5. Boundless Graciousness e above repertoire shows that the Sunday Lectionary makes every effort to incorporate as much of the distinctive Lukan material as possible within the constraints of the liturgically determined three-year cycle of readings. What particular facet of the Good News does this “L” material offer? As a whole, Luke’s special material sketches the portrait of a God of inexhaustible and overwhelming graciousness.  Faced with humankind’s profound neediness, God manifests a beneficence that knows no bounds: the creator of all and sovereign over all deigns to liberate an undeserving world enslaved by the powers of sin and death. While this divine graciousness finds incomparable expression in the death and resurrection of Jesus, his every word and deed radiate it as well.  For example, he extends God’s beneficence to the poor and the marginalized.  To the bere widow of Nain, doomed to loneliness and poverty through the loss of what remained of family and of financial support, Jesus restores her deceased son.  He saves ten lepers from the despairing and ostracized existence to which their slowly corrupting bodies condemned them.

’    

169

In the stories and episodes concerning riches, status, and authority, Jesus encourages his hearers and followers both to receive God’s beneficences humbly and to share them graciously. Riches are a blessing if they serve to liberate, not enslave, oneself and others. In the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, there is no mention that the rich man obtained his wealth immorally. Jesus faults him, however, for not having used his riches for the benefit of others, epitomized in the story by Lazarus pining at the rich man’s gate. So also with the rich fool who proposed to build bigger barns to house his plentiful harvest as a security for his future – that very night his soul was required of him. On the other hand, Zacchaeus, graced by Jesus’ visit, responds by giving half of his goods to the poor. Social status and authority are all too oen obstacles to salvation and wholeness. “Sit in the lowest place” at the marriage feast rather than seek the places of honor, Jesus teaches.  Honor is bestowed as a grace, not grasped as a right.  e good Samaritan, without status or authority, comes to the aid of the man beaten by robbers, freely giving of his not inconsiderable means – beast of burden, oil, wine, money, and especially his time. e unjust judge, having little regard for God or fellow human beings, nevertheless is importuned into vindicating the widow demanding righteousness.  Authority is a blessing to be exercised not for one’s self-aggrandizement but for the benefit of the lowly and the powerless.  e seemingly undeserving are also the object of God’s graciousness, as the Parable of the Prodigal Son illustrates.  e father’s open-armed welcome of his wayward son is the very graciousness Jesus extends to the sinful woman who crashes the dinner party at Simon the Pharisee’s house.  Her extravagant gestures – wetting Jesus’ feet with her tears, anointing them with fragrant oil, and wiping them with her hair – shames Simon’s failure at offering even the minimal hospitality and elicits from Jesus forgiveness of her sins.  ose who have been graced are to be gracious in return. Failure to do so risks incurring the curses Luke adds to his version of the Beatitudes: “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep. Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets” (NRSV). 6. Conclusion Admittedly, the “L” material found in the Sunday Lectionary, since it represents but half of the 60% of Luke distributed over the three-year cycle of readings, offers a sketch of only the “distinctive” facet of Luke’s

170

 

Sunday Lectionary profile. Even Luke’s full Sunday profile, drawn from all the Lukan excerpts in the Lectionary, would still present but a piecemeal picture of the ird Gospel, for the Lectionary, by nature pericopic and kerygmatic, selects and assigns passages for the purposes of worship.  e Lectionary does not intend to be a course in Scripture; it rather presupposes familiarity with the Scriptures. Perhaps Luke’s “distinctive” Sunday Lectionary profile will provide the incentive for exploring Luke’s Gospel in its entirety.  Be that as it may, the Lectionary has done a great service in apportioning such a gracious selection of Luke’s most memorable and cherished stories.  If the purpose of the Sunday eucharistic liturgy is to shape and mold believers into the paschal mystery of Christ’s death and resurrection, urging them to live out this transformation in the daily fidelity of discipleship, then Luke’s “L” stories cannot but be a source of blessing for all who hear them proclaimed.

PART III

PASTORAL STUDIES

C 

REFLECTIONS ON THE MYSTERY OF GOD AND THE AIDS CRISIS1 1. Introduction On November 30, 1972, Pope Paul VI approved and promulgated the Apostolic Constitution Sacrum Unctionem Infirmorum, the new rite for the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick.2 e many revisions introduced to the old rite witness to a shi in the understanding of the sacrament. Unlike the previous ritual, which tended more and more to emphasize the sick person’s dying moments,3 the new rite, as the name itself suggests, focuses on the sick person’s experience of grave illness, whether the illness leads to death or to recovery.4 is change in focus is not merely cosmetic; it has far-reaching consequences. In light of the history of the Christian tradition of the anointing of the sick, and with the added insights provided by the contemporary

1. is chapter is the only outlier in the present collection, for it deals with the Lectionary for the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick rather than, as all the other studies, with the Sunday eucharistic Lectionary. It was written upon the invitation by my then colleague Richard Hardy to contribute a biblically-oriented study to a thematic issue on  in the Saint Paul University Faculty of eology journal Église et théologie [23 (1992) 305-324] where it appeared in a French translation. e article was subsequently published in its original English in AIDS and Faith, Ottawa, Novalis, 1993, 9-38. Finally, a digest version was published with the title “El mensaje del SIDA a la luz del nuevo ritual de la unción de los enfermos,” in Selecciones de theología 43 (1994) 321-326. While the medical and social contexts regarding  have evolved significantly since the late 80s and 90s of the last century, it seemed to me that much of what I wrote then transcends that specific time of crisis and can, mutatis mutandis, still be pertinent today. 2. Ambroos V, “Le caractère pascal du sacrement des malades. L’exégèse de Jacques 5, 14-15 et le nouveau rituel du sacrement des malades,” in Achille M. T – Alessandro P (eds.), La maladie et la mort du chrétien dans la liturgie. Conférences Saint-Serge, XXIe Semaine d’études liturgiques, Roma, Edizioni Liturgiche, 1975, 361-379, p. 361; Lambert L, “L’interpétation du sacrement de l’onction des malades dans le contexte d’une société sécularisée. La position de Gisbert Greshake,” in QL  77 (1996) 191-201. 3. Walter H. C, “History of Anointing and Healing in the Church,” in Peter E. F (ed.), Anointing of the Sick (AFW, 7), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1987, 65-81, p. 70. 4. V, “Le caractère pascal” (n. 2), p. 362-364.

174

 

phenomenology of illness, David Power describes the implications of the revised rite’s new orientation in this way: All of this suggests to me that in the sacrament of the sick what is at stake is the sacramentality of sickness itself, or perhaps it would be better to say, the mystery which is revealed in the sick person who lives through this experience. In other words, the accent is not on healing, nor on forgiving, nor on preparing for death. It is on the sick person, who through the experience discovers God in a particular way and reveals this to the community. All the other factors enter in, but they are related to this as organizing center.5

is interpretation rests on a particular notion of sacramentality, which takes seriously the corporeality of being human. According to this view, sacraments draw their sacramental meaning from human being-in-the-world rather than impose meaning from outside as “something added to human nature”.6 In the specific case of the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick, the liminal experience of illness, particularly in its capacity to raise questions about the ultimate meaning of life and death, is the human reality that is interpreted through the ritual. Moreover, the sacrament extends beyond the sick person. Social sciences have shown that the experience of illness includes not only the sick person or persons but also all the people – family, friends, caregivers – whose lives are affected by the sickness.7 ey, too, are part of the human 5. David N. P, “Let the Sick Man Call,” in HeyJ 19 (1978) 256-270, p. 262. See also omas T, “Healing: Sacrament or Charism?” in Wor  46 (1972) 518-527, p. 526, who writes: “e sacrament is more than a struggle against illness. It is a sign of the conquest of death. It seeks not to palliate, to lull, to console, but to reveal, in the light of the gospel, the meaning of sickness, and to consecrate it as sign.” M. Jennifer G underlines the same function of the ritual in “Sickness and Symbol: e Promise of the Future,” in Wor 54 (1980) 397-411, p. 406-407. Paragraph 3 of the “Introduction” to the “Rite of Anointing and Pastoral Care of the Sick,” in The Rites of the Catholic Church, Vol. 1, English translation by ICEL, New York, NY, Pueblo, 1976, p. 582, suggests a similar interpretation of illness: “Moreover, the role of the sick in the Church is to remind others not to lose sight of the essential or higher things and so to show that our mortal life is restored through the mystery of Christ’s death and resurrection.” 6. P, “Let the Sick Man Call” (n. 5), p. 262. See Edward K, “eology of the Sacraments: Toward a New Understanding of the Chief Rites of the Church of Jesus Christ,” in Bernard J. L (ed.), Alternative Futures for Worship (AFW 1), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1987, 123-175. Also, see Michael A. C, “Sacramental Moments: Appreciative Awareness in the Iron Cage,” in Idem, 36-61, p. 43: “[…] sacraments [are to be] understood as the self-expression of the Church in the world. From this perspective the sacramentalizing of various moments of human life does not reside in ritual forms but rather in a liturgical community’s symbolic expression of sacred presence in the world.” 7. “To extend an idea developed by David Power, the sick person and all those whose worlds are tangibly disrupted by that person’s sickness are themselves summoned to

          175 reality of sickness. Hence, since the sacrament targets the experience of illness and all that it entails, it also necessarily embraces family, friends, caregivers, and so forth. But why turn to the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick for reflections on Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome () e rite is one of the seven sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church, celebrated by, for, and among its members, and would at first appear to be of only incidental help in the  crisis, except in the specific instance of a Catholic having the disease. However, the sacrament’s way of looking at illness as a revelatory moment shows that it takes seriously any and all grave illness, including . If illness is an aspect of human being-in-theworld from which the sacrament draws its sacramental meaning,  provides an unprecedented contemporary instance of the human experience of illness; hence the disease is very much within the purview of the sacrament. As well, the fact that the sacrament includes not only the sick but also all the people whose lives are affected by those who are ill renders it particularly apt to address the reality of  which, in its epidemic proportions, now affects the entire social body, indeed, the worldwide human community.8 Finally, this universal reach of the sacrament is not foreign to Christian liturgy, for when they celebrate the sacraments Christians celebrate not only in their own behalf but also in the name of all creation.9 For these reasons, then, the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick offers a basis for reflection on . If, according to the sacrament, illness is a locus of revelation about the mystery of God, what particular aspects of this mystery does , contemplated through the eyes of the sacrament, reveal? In what follows, we will explore this question by proceeding in two stages. A first step will trace the salient characteristics of , for the distinctive profile of human being-in-the-world that  highlights will in great part determine the configuration of the revelation about God, much the same as the formulation of a question in great part determines the configuration of the answer. Next we will turn to the scripture readings suggested for serve as sacrament,” M. Jennifer G, “Rites of Healing: A Reflection in Pastoral eology,” in Anointing of the Sick (n. 3), 33-63, p. 48. 8. Although using the concept of suffering instead of illness, Abbyann L makes the same point in “-Related Suffering: erapy, Healing, or?” in David G. H (ed.), aids Issues: Confronting the Challenge, New York, NY, Pilgrim, 1989, 121-141. 9. See T, “Healing: Sacrament or Charism?” (n. 5), p. 526: “But a paschal valorization of the liminal condition need not and dare not limit the options. As symbolic structure, the liturgy of sickness has a broader scope than a mere ancillary therapeusis addressed to just this illness in just this patient. Sacramental and liturgical structures are more universal in their orientations.”

176

 

the celebration of the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick. From the readings we will discern which images of God these passages reveal in “response” to the human reality of , for the Scriptures serve to flesh out the prime orientation of the sacrament. 2. A Profile of aids: Disease, Illness, Epidemic  is a complex phenomenon. One interpretative model alone cannot capture all the important characteristics of , which make it such an overwhelming presence in the world today. For the sake of clarity, a growing number of authors distinguish between disease and illness. According to Mirko D. Grmek, illness means “the experience of being sick as lived by the patient and perceived by his or her entourage.” Disease, on the other hand, denotes “the pathological condition as a concept constructed within the framework of a nosological system.”10 Moreover, because it is transmissible and has already spread so extensively,  is also classified as an epidemic.11 Together these three perspectives help delineate the particular configuration, .

10. Mirko D. G, History of aids: Emergence and Origin of a Modern Pandemic, trans. by Russell C. M – Jacalyn D, Princeton, NJ, University Press, 1990, p. 99. See also Phyllis C. L, “Accepting Life Totally,” in Robert H. I (ed.), The Gospel Imperative in the Midst of aids: Towards a Prophetic Pastoral Theology, Wilton, CT, Morehouse, 1989, 57-170, p. 161; E. Lovell B et al., International Dictionary of Medicine and Biology, in Three Volumes, Sidney I. L, editor-in-chief, New York, NY, J. Wiley, 1986, articles on “disease” (Vol. 1, 810-835, p. 810) and on “illness” (Vol. 2, 1401-1402, p. 1402). However, “simply to characterize  as a disease without further qualification is […] misleading.” In some important respects, “ is sui generis: in its initial invisibility to its victims, in its prolonged latency, in its protean symptomatology, in its apparently invariant virulence, in the cruelty of the processes by which it destroys,” Kenneth K, “Introduction to the Issue,” in Stephen R. G (ed.), Living with aids: Part II, Daed 118/3 (1989), ix-xxxiii, p. xxv. 11. An epidemic is defined as “an unusual increase, not necessarily within a short time, in the number of cases of a transmissible disease previously existing only at an endemic level in a region or population, or the appearance of an unusual number of cases of a disease which was not recognized as being endemic in a region or population,” B, International Dictionary of Medicine and Biology (n. 10), Vol. 1, p. 963. To qualify a disease as a plague, on the other hand, requires two characteristics of that disease: that it be contagious (transmissible from one person to another in casual settings) and deadly. Since only the second of these two is applicable to , it is therefore inaccurate to call  a plague. See Anthony P, “AIDS: Clinical and Scientific Background,” in Brenda A (ed.), aids – A Moral Issue: The Ethical, Legal and Moral Aspects, London, UK, Macmillan, 1990, 25-33, p. 26. However, see Charles E. R, “What Is an Epidemic?  in Historical Perspective,” in Daed 118 (1989) 1-17, p. 1-3, for a discussion of how  transcends the usual historical pattern of epidemics.

          177 2.1. aids as a Disease Viewed from the biomedical aspect as disease,  results from a retrovirus that progressively weakens an infected person’s immune system. People who contract the human immunodeficiency virus () do not die of  as such, but of what are called opportunistic infections to which a body whose immune system is severely compromised becomes progressively more susceptible.12 Medicine never treats viral infections directly; rather it treats the symptoms in order to allow the body’s natural immune system to overcome the infection. In the case of , the  attacks the immune system itself, thus undermining the body’s ability to fight infection. Besides making people vulnerable to infections,  also can cause progressive damage to the nervous system, “leading to dementia or loss of motor or sensory function”.13  is infectious. e retrovirus is transmitted through the semen, vaginal secretions, or blood of an -infected person to a non-infected person.14  has a long latency period, with the result that, unless they are tested, most people are unaware of carrying the infection and can therefore unwittingly spread the disease. Moreover, once infected, a person remains so for life. Sooner or later the infection will develop into full-blown , characterized by a period, in some instances a protracted period, of usually great suffering. In light of the evidence available thus far – it is still too early for epidemiologists to sketch the full picture of the natural history of the infection15 –  seems to lead to death, although there are cases of what are called long-term survivors of the disease.16 From the point of view of the history of diseases and epidemics,  is surprisingly understandable. To the questions “Why ” and “Why now?” there are plausible answers that add crucial dimensions to the overall assessment of the disease. According to Grmek, for example,  12. In their book The Guide to Living with hiv Infection, Baltimore, MD – London, UK, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991, John G. B and Ann K. K, 295-325, p. 295, provide an excellent glossary of many of the key medical terms relating to . 13. P, “: Clinical and Scientific Background” (n. 11), p. 28. 14. is is one of the major traits that separates  from other lethal diseases such as cancer and heart disease. e following list of the characteristics of  is drawn from K, “Introduction to the Issue” (n. 10), p. xi-xiv; Brenda A, “Introduction: War of the World,” in aids – A Moral Issue (n. 11), 3-7; P, “: Clinical and Scientific Background” (n. 11), 25-33. 15. K, “Introduction to the Issue” (n. 10), p. xxi-xiii; G, History of aids (n. 10), p. 93-95. 16. See Michael C, Surviving aids, New York, NY, Harper-Collins, 1990.

178

 

results from a combination of biological, social, and cultural factors that establish the conditions necessary for the virus to develop.17 On the one hand, medical technology has contributed significantly to its emergence through the near elimination of smallpox, thus changing the age-old equilibrium of diseases and creating room for a (most probably ancient) virus to grow uninhibitedly. Moreover, the introduction of blood transfusion and intravenous injections has helped promote the spread of . On the other hand, the unparalleled intermingling of peoples, especially since World War II, and the modern liberalization of sexual mores are social-cultural factors that also play a large role in the worldwide dissemination of the disease. is biomedical profile of  as a disease highlights an o-forgotten facet of human being-in-the-world, that is, how fully we human beings are part of and belong to biological life on this planet. As Robert Gallo writes about the relationship of human beings to nature, “Nature is never truly conquered. e human retroviruses and their intricate relationship with the human cell are but one example of that fact. Indeed, perhaps conquest is the wrong metaphor to describe our relationship to nature, which not only surrounds but in the deepest sense also constitutes our being.”18 , then, reminds us that we can never escape from or stand above nature, for we are nature, and nature always precedes us.19 Whether through biomedical technology or through sexual behavior, we human beings are totally implicated in the biological life of this planet. Given the biological basis of this disease as well as that of all infectious diseases, had  not emerged now, chances are, biologically speaking, that something like it would have emerged sooner or later. Because of this renewed realization, the nearly absolute faith modern societies have come to place in biomedical technology is undergoing a sobering reappraisal.20 As a biological phenomenon,  also makes us more aware than ever of our mortality, for if biological life on this planet necessarily includes death, then human beings, too, inevitably experience death.21 17. G, History of aids (n. 10), p. xi, 109, 196. 18. Quoted in Ibid., p. 47. 19. See R, “What Is an Epidemic?” (n. 11), p. 9: “We have not, it seems, freed ourselves from the constraints and indeterminacy of living in a web of biological relationships – not all of which we can control or predict. Viruses, like bacteria, have for countless millennia shared our planet and our bodies.” 20. Ibid., p. 2; A. Oliver V, “Eros and Thanatos,” in The Gospel Imperative in the Midst of aids (n. 10), p. 107; L, “Accepting Life Totally” (n. 10), p. 163. 21. “Mortality is built into our bodies, into our modes of behavior, and into our place in the planet’s ecology. Like other epidemics,  has served well to remind us, finally, of these ultimate realities,” R, “What Is an Epidemic?” (n. 11), p. 14.

          179 2.2. aids as an Illness Although the biomedical view of  is an essential tool in the on-going quest for a way to control the disease, it is nevertheless an incomplete view, for it leaves out of account the personal experience of . e necessarily detached and abstract approach of science must be complemented with the stories of people with , of their families and friends, and of the various caregivers.22 Descriptions of the physical suffering caused by the opportunistic infections and tumors to which the person with  is vulnerable cannot leave one unmoved. Added to this is the psychological and moral anguish resulting from rejection, social stigma, and discrimination.23 If it is common for people afflicted with illness to experience alienation and loss of the future, how much more are these characteristics intensified in the case of , which nearly always means a “premature” death.24 On the spiritual plane, the “why me” questions express bewilderment and disorientation, while one’s relationship to ultimate values becomes urgent as never before. Moreover, families and friends of loved ones with  also share deeply in the psychological, moral and spiritual suffering and pain.25 Paul Farmer and Arthur Kleinman’s words summarize the overall effect of : “Viewed from the perspective of suffering,  must rank with smallpox, plague, and leprosy in its capacity to menace and hurt, to burden and spoil human experience, and to elicit questions about the nature of life and its significance.”26 If  as a disease raises questions about the meaning of humankind as a biological species,  as an illness confronts people with questions about the meaning of their own suffering and, more oen than not, premature death. 2.3. aids as an Epidemic Finally, the disease and illness profiles of  remain incomplete without a discussion of  as an epidemic. By virtue of its transmissibility and its long latency period, the disease has become an epidemic, and is 22. For example, see K, “Introduction to the Issue” (n. 10), p. xxvi; G, History of aids (n. 10), p. 189. 23. Paul F – Arthur K, “ as Human Suffering,” in Daed 118 (1989) 135-160, esp. p. 152-158. 24. See G, “Sickness and Symbol” (n.  5), p.  398-403, where she describes the various aspects of alienation experienced by the sick person. 25. G, “Rites of Healing” (n. 7), p. 43, calls them “co-sufferers”. For descriptions of the experiences of family members and friends who have cared for a loved one with , see Nicholas N (photographs) – Bebe N (text), People with aids, Boston, David R. Godine, 1991. 26. F – K, “ as Human Suffering” (n. 23), p. 139.

180

 

now spread worldwide such that some authors tag it with the term pandemic.27 ere is as yet no known cure for , nor a vaccine to mitigate its virulence. Prospects for eliminating  are for all practical purposes nil, both from biomedical and from social-behavioral perspectives. Because it is transmissible,  has already spread through most of the world, and in some instances entire societies can be said to be ill with the disease. Social scientists discuss the impact of  on all of the major social institutions – medical, economic, legal, penal, cultural, religious – as the growing body of literature attests.28 It would not be out of place to speak in terms of a time before  and a time since , for what was once considered normal and routine has undergone such dramatic changes that a return to the pre- state of affairs is no longer conceivable. As Rosenberg notes in reviewing the typical stages in the history of past epidemics, “the stakes have always been high, for to admit the presence of an epidemic was to risk social dissolution.”29 e epidemic proportion of  has drawn suffering and illness out of the confines of private lives and thrust them into public consciousness. e questions about life, suffering, and death raised by  as a disease and as an illness are now the questions faced by the social body as well. As a result,  as a worldwide epidemic underscores the fundamental oneness of humankind: on the one hand, prescinding from other specific information to the contrary, any person must be considered a potential transmitter of the disease; on the other hand, there is a growing awareness of “mutual responsibility – responsibility for ourselves and for one another”.30

27. In 1985 scientists became aware of  seropositivity and of the worldwide spread of the virus. “In addition, the African focus began to reveal other epidemiological facets of  that were even more disturbing than those of the American focus. All over the world, the most dismal prognoses were being confirmed; the exponential rise in numbers of seropositives and the geographical expansion of the infection took on the proportions of an international catastrophe. From this time on,  was a true pandemic,” G, History of aids (n. 10), p. 83. 28. As a sample, see the essays collected in A, aids – A Moral Issue (n.  11); Inge B. C – Mary P-L (eds.), aids: Principles, Practices, & Politics, New York, NY, Hemisphere, 1988; Stephen Richard G (ed.), Living with aids: Part II. Daed 118/3 (1989); Dorothy N – David P. W – Scott V. P (eds.), A Disease of Society: Cultural and Institutional Responses to aids, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 1991; Christine O – William P. Z (eds.), Perspectives on aids: Ethical and Social Issues, Toronto – Oxford – New York, Oxford University Press, 1991. 29. R, “What Is an Epidemic?” (n. 11), p. 4. 30. O – Z, “Introduction,” in Perspectives on aids (n. 28), p. xi. See also Arthur S, “: e Social Dimension,” in Ibid., 1-12, p. 4.

          181 is three-faceted profile delineates the particular consciousness of human being-in-the-world that the  crisis has fostered. In a sense, the fundamental questions about the meaning of life, suffering and death raised by  are not new. ey do, however, take on unique features and an intensity unprecedented in modern times. As a disease,  makes us aware of how completely we are implicated in the biological life on earth on the one hand, and reminds us of the limits of biomedical science on the other. As an illness,  raises questions about the meaning of suffering and death and, because it leads to such a devasting number of premature deaths, it has brought these realities to the forefront of public consciousness. As an epidemic,  shows the fragile nature of the security provided by social institutions, while at the same time underscoring the interdependence and relatedness of all human beings. Finally, the realization that, at least thus far, there is no cure adds an oppressive feeling of claustrophobia to the bewilderment and malaise surrounding . What, then, can this particularly painful experience of the human condition reveal about God? In order to sketch the contours of an answer to this question, we turn to the biblical readings proposed for the celebration of the sacrament. 3. Revelation about God Among the revisions of the rite for the anointing of the sick is the provision for a biblical selection to be read as part of the celebration.31 e reformed rite offers fiy-five passages, excerpted from both Testaments, from which one is to be selected according to the circumstances.32 is extensive field of texts presents a rather daunting embarras de richesses. It is impossible, in the short space of these reflections, to consider every one of the scriptural excerpts. However, choosing readings only as they might speak more or less directly to  might unduly bias the selection process and not allow the Scriptures to speak in their own right. For the purposes of this exploratory study, it seems best to divide the proposed biblical selections into several groupings according to the reality they address.33 31. “Rite of Anointing and Pastoral Care of the Sick,” The Rites of the Catholic Church, Vol. 1 (n. 5), §76, p. 601; chap. 7, 629-634. 32. is tabulation does not include the psalms. It is interesting to note that the ritual organizes the list of scriptural readings in the categories used for the Sunday and Feast Day Lectionary: Old Testament selections, selections from the New Testament Apostolic writings, responsorial psalms, alleluia verses, and gospel passages. is kind of distribution is aimed at facilitating the planning of more elaborate celebrations of the sacrament, such as those at a eucharistic liturgy, which necessitate more than one reading. 33. ese “groupings” are not meant to be either exhaustive or exclusive. Since most passages contain several themes, the groupings in fact overlap.

182

 

Broadly speaking, there are three types of texts: texts that express the experience of the human condition;34 kerygmatic texts in which God, Jesus, or an apostle announces in word or deed the compassion of God;35 and “theological” texts from the New Testament Apostolic writings, which seek to interpret and actualize the paschal mystery in the lives of Christians.36 Five further gospel passages, added somewhat as codicil, do not quite fall into the three groupings mentioned above. Unlike the kerygmatic passages, which proclaim in word and deed the compassion and healing power of God, and unlike the passages from the Apostolic writings, which focus primarily on interpreting Christian life in light of the paschal mystery, these texts focus on Jesus himself experiencing the human condition to its fullest extent: Jesus suffered and died before being raised.37 3.1. Transcending traditional “orthodoxies” Of the six passages in the first grouping, texts from the Old Testament that address the human condition, the selections from Job are especially pertinent in the case of . In the excerpts from chapter 3 and from the first section of chapter 7, Job bemoans his personal misfortune, as well as the human condition generally, in words that people with  might quite understandably make their own: Let the day perish in which I was born […] Why is light given to one in misery, and life to the bitter of soul, who longs for death, but it does not come […] (3:3a, 20-21a). Do not human beings have a hard service on earth, and are not their days like the days of a laborer? […] I am allotted months of emptiness, and nights of misery are apportioned to me […] (7:1, 3).38

34. In this grouping fall the following Old Testament readings: 1 Kings 19:1-8; Job 3:1-3, 11-17, 20-23; 7:1-4, 6-11; 19:23-27a; Wisdom 9:9-11, 13-18. 35. e grouping of what can loosely be called kerygmatic passages includes the readings from Isaiah 35:1-10; 61:1-3a; the accounts of healing from Acts (healings are effected in the name of Jesus) 3:1-10; 3:11-16; 4:8-12; 13:32-39; descriptions of the eschatological age of the Son of Man in Rev 21:107; 22:17, 20-21; the healing passages from the Gospels, Matt 8:1-4; 8:5-17; 15:29-31; Mk 2:12; 10:46-52; 16:15-20; Lk 10:5-6, 8-9; Jn 9:1-7; and the other gospel passages in which Jesus proclaims God’s compassion, Matt 5:1-12a; 11:25-30; 25:3140; Lk 7:19-23; 10:25-37; 11:5-13; 12:35-44; 18:9-14; Jn 6:35-40; 6:54-59; 10:11-18. 36. Rom 8:14-17; 8:18-27; 8:31b-35, 37-39; 1 Cor 1:18-25; 12:12-22, 24b-27; 15:12-20; 2 Cor  4:16-18; 5:1, 6-10; Gal  4:12-19; Phil  2:25-30; Col 1:22-29; Heb  4:14-16, 5:7-9; Ja 5:13-16; 1 Pet 1:3-9; 1 Jn 3:1-2. 37. Matt 26:36-46; Mk 15:33-39; 16:1-6; Lk 23:44-49; 24:1-6a; 24:13-35; Jn 20:1-10. 38. All biblical passages from quoted from the NRSV.

          183 However, beyond this immediate relevance of the Jobian selections to people with , of particular note is the context of these excerpts in light of the book as whole. e selected excerpts are, in fact, part of a series of speeches by Job in which the descriptions of the dark side of the human condition constitute the basis for accusations against God.39 e book’s main thrust lies in the debate between Job and his interlocutors about the correct understanding of God in light of this bewilderingly painful human situation. What kind of God would allow (or, more accurately and scandalously, cause) such suffering to a blameless man?40 In seeking to justify God’s ways with humankind, Job’s friends represent the orthodoxy of the day. eir basic tenets are that God is just and that all suffering is due to sin; hence, Job suffers because he must have sinned.41 But Job’s passionate objections to this simplistic view demonstrate that, if the conception of God defended by his “right-thinking” friends is correct, then God is “an insecure, immoral, unjust, and suspicious tyrant”.42 For this God, duped by the Satan into hurting Job, inflicts suffering on the innocent and on the guilty alike, imposes suffering that is not commensurate to one’s sinfulness, and constantly watches human beings such that they cannot freely enjoy life.43 rough his experience of suffering and on the strength of his observations of the plight of humankind, Job maintains his integrity and refuses to bow to these false conceptions of God. At long last God speaks to Job out of the whirlwind (38:1–42:6), but gives no answer to the riddle of human suffering. Instead, God overwhelms Job and, in an unexpected reversal of Job’s challenge that God answer him face to face, God demands an answer from Job (38:3).44 In the end, however, God commends Job for having “spoken what was right” (42:7), and reproves Job’s 39. Dermot C, Man’s Anger and God’s Silence: The Book of Job, Slough, UK, St. Paul Publications, 1990, p. 29. 40. Ibid., p. 23-27. 41. For an extensive and carefully argued discussion of the “orthodox” position and of Job’s position, see John T. W, The Bitterness of Job: A Philosophical Reading, Ann Arbor, MI, University of Michigan Press, 1989, p.  9-38; C, Man’s Anger and God’s Silence (n. 39), p. 47-78. 42. Harry P, “Rebel against the Light: Job or God?” in ExpTim 103 (1992) 198201, p. 198. 43. In the same sense, see Norman C. H, The Book of Job: A Commentary (OTL), London, UK: SCM, 1985, p. 60-69. 44. “Job a réclamé un procès: Yahweh lui offre une joute sapientielle; et ce déplacement de l’axe du dialogue atteste à la fois l’intention éducative de Dieu et sa volonté de ne pas entrer dans le système d’images où Job s’est enfermé. Dieu-Juge, Dieu hostile, Dieu cruel: autant de représentations que Job s’est forgées pour objectiver son angoisse,” Jean L, Job et son Dieu. Essai d’exégèse et de théologie biblique. Tome II, Paris, Gabalda, 1970, p. 513.

184

 

friends who had expended such effort to defend God’s ways.45 us is Job’s challenge to orthodoxy vindicated. Dermot Cox aptly sums up the debate: “e fact is that the traditional theological categories have proved inadequate to cope with the ‘god’ of human experience.”46 Indeed, […] who can learn the counsel of God? Or who can discern what the Lord wills? For the reasoning of mortals is worthless, and our designs are likely to fail […] (Wisdom 9:13-14)

e debate about God in the Book of Job – the pitting of orthodox views about God against Job’s experience of God as unfathomable mystery – has a remarkable parallel in the current  crisis. Here, too, a number of “orthodoxies” about God’s way with humankind ring hollow and, in the end, prove to be inadequate. For example,  as a punishment from God founders on the realization that God would appear to be punishing indiscriminately, for all kinds of people are infected: hemophiliacs, drug users, infants, homosexuals, heterosexuals, etc. Moreover, if  is a punishment, it is a punishment commensurate with what sin or sins?47 In light of the biological basis of , can all the blame for  be placed on human (sexual) behavior? Is it punishment perhaps for the hubris of human beings tampering with biological realities? If so, is the development of the technologies of blood transfusion and intravenous injection, which have saved countless millions of lives but which can now also transmit , the fault meriting punishment?48 45. See Walter V, “Job a parlé correctement. Une approche structurale du livre de Job,” in NRTh 102 (1980) 835-852, for an insightful analysis of the import of Job’s language about God. 46. C, Man’s Anger and God’s Silence (n. 39), p. 25-26. 47. “ere is a sense in which  is indeed related to sin – not to the sins of this group or of that group, but to the sin of the world, the sin that belongs to all of us together,” L. William C, “e Aids [sic] Crisis: eological and Ethical Reflections,” in AThR 69 (1987) 125-134, p. 131. 48. Among the authors who reject and/or refute such views are the following: Earl E. S – Ronald H. S, aids and the Church, Philadelphia, PA, Westminster, 1987, p.  67; Leslie H, “In a Biblical Perspective,” in James W (ed.), Embracing the Chaos: Theological Responses to aids, London, UK, SPCK, 1990, 103-108, p. 103; Anthony L, “: Some eological Reflections,” in aids – A Moral Issue (n. 11), p. 153-160, p. 153; Dennis M. D points out that in their 1987 statement “e Many Faces of ,” the American Catholic bishops take a stance that “virtually rules out any punishing intervention of God whatsoever,” “ and the Bishops’ eology,” in RfR 48 (1989) 569-574, p. 571. e words of Paul Moore, Episcopal Bishop of New York, ironically underscores the illogic of seeing  as God’s punishment: “If God is really punishing people with sickness for their sins, don’t you think that the perpetrators of war, terrorism, and nuclear destruction would at least get herpes?”, cited by William A. D, “Sin and Sickness/Faith and Health,” The Gospel Imperative (n. 10), 131149, p. 136.

          185 As a corollary to the inadequacy of seeing  as a punishment, the related statement that there are “innocent victims” of  is misleading, for it implies that other people are “guilty” and thus have brought the disease on themselves. Given the interplay of biological and human factors in the development of the virus, whose fault is it that  emerged in the first place? e hidden nature of the virus, as well as its long latency period, makes assessments of individual culpability appear petty. Moreover, in light of the epidemic proportions of , what is the usefulness of the terms “innocent” and “guilty”? One deleterious effect of such thinking is the tendency to orient resources toward the “innocent victims”, a strategy that can seriously hamper a society’s ability to attempt to control the epidemic.49 Can  simply be reduced to a means of conversion? Although conversion might be, and oen is, a consequence of , the extraordinary complexity of the disease, as well as the tremendous suffering it causes, seems to be out of proportion with the conclusion that a change of heart is its primary purpose. Moreover, such a view fails to take into consideration infants born with the  virus, or those who, through dementia caused by the disease, are beyond self-conscious activity. In these cases conversion has no relevance.50 Attempts to find a “redeeming value” for , inspiring as they are, remain inadequate before the magnitude of the disease. For example, the view based on the history of epidemics – that through natural selection human beings will sooner or later build a biological resistance to the  virus and thus, although at the cost of thousands upon thousands of lives, assure the survival of the human species – is of little comfort to those who have and will have perished.51 In an attenuated sense they will not have “died in vain”, but does this not make the value of an individual life subservient to the good of the species? Can the value of a human life ever be reduced to a cause?52 49. For various aspects of the inadequacy of this view, see R, “What Is an Epidemic?” (n. 11), p. 9-10; S, “: e Social Dimension” (n. 30), p. 4; Peter B, “What Sort of World? What Sort of God?” in Embracing the Chaos (n. 48), 109115, p. 110; F – K, “ as Human Suffering” (n. 23), p. 156. 50. See S – S, aids and the Church (n. 48), p. 67-70; Sara M, “Is Health a Gospel Imperative?” in Embracing the Chaos (n. 48), 92-100, p. 96-97. 51. e attempt to find meaning (at least from the biomedical point of view) in  appears in G, History of aids (n. 10), p. 196-197. 52. Unlike soldiers for whom it can at least be said that they gave their lives for their country, people who die of  can claim to benefit no “cause” except the abstract and general one of helping the human species ultimately adapt to the virus. For an acerbic critique of the media’s tendency to glorify people with  as martyrs to a cause, see James M, “Acquired Immanent Divinity Syndrome,” in Perspectives on aids (n. 28),

186

 

Once the orthodox ways of understanding why God permits suffering are found wanting, only Job’s response before the mystery of God carries integrity: “I lay my hand on my mouth […] I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know” (40:4b, 42:3b). As Harry Potter wisely remarks, “Better to be silent in the face of suffering than to speak falsehood. Better this than the sort of trite comments we are so prone to make in the face of suffering: ‘God is cruel to be kind,’ or, ‘there is some reason for it.’”53 e intensity and immediacy of the questions of ultimacy elicited on all levels by  make the contemporary experience of God one of raw mystery, unmediated by traditional images of how God works among us. As Job discovered through his suffering, God is beyond our understanding, a realization expressed in the scriptural selections from 1 Kings and from Wisdom as well – God’s ways, in the end, remain mysterious. , then, challenges our orthodoxies about the meaning of suffering. In turn, the Old Testament passages proposed for the sacrament challenge us to respond to  with a chastened faith in God who is mystery beyond our imagining, a God who refuses to be captured and tamed by traditional orthodoxies, yet one who vindicates integrity. 3.2. Announcing a future e next grouping of texts encompasses a wide range of genres: oracular pronouncements, beatitudes, healing stories, parables, dominical sayings. However, the passages all have as a common denominator either God or Jesus speaking and/or acting. Unlike the readings in the preceding group on the human condition, the selections here do not appear at first sight to be immediately relevant to the  crisis. Is it advisable to proclaim a healing story in the face of an incurable disease like , which results in the premature death of tens of thousands of people? How do oracles of the eschatological restoration of Zion address the biological randomness of an epidemic like , which defies the most advanced medical technology? What do the dominical sayings and the parables have to propose to the urgent questions about the meaning of life and death for the individual, about the turmoil in social institutions, about the purpose of human life on this planet?

p. -; M, “Is Health a Gospel Imperative?” (n. 50), p. 99, cautions about the tendency to make gurus or a special priesthood of people with . 53. P, “Rebel against the Light: Job or God?” (n. 42), p. 200.

          187 As in the case of Job, who did not receive a direct answer to the question of suffering, so also the passages in this grouping “answer” the present urgent questions posed by  in what appears to be an indirect and disconcerting way: God’s response to the present crisis of illness is to announce a future. Not only do the oracles from Isaiah, the beatitudes from Matthew,54 and the visions from Revelation speak of a future age to come, but the healing stories do so as well. For the people Jesus heals in the Gospels, and those cured in the name of Jesus in episodes selected from the Acts of the Apostles, are restored only to life in this age and will, therefore, one day become ill and die. us, these healings function as signs of an eschatological healing, of a future age when earthly conditions will be transformed, of a time when illness and death will be eliminated.55 e two excerpts from John 6 on the bread of life, with their promise of eternal life to those who eat the heavenly food Jesus offers, also speak of the future. e divine strategy of announcing a promised future in the face of the present human condition – this jarring juxtaposition, for example, of idyllic images of the age to come alongside the suffering and death resulting from  – has important consequences. First of all, the very positing of a future relativizes the present, for the present must now be reconfigured as part of a larger reality. If  intensified the sense of the present as opaque, oppressive, claustrophobic, the promise of a future breaks open the prison of the present onto a horizon of hope. In addition, a promised future challenges the reductionist tendency of seeking to understand the human condition on the basis alone of biology, sociology, psychology, etc. us God is the mystery of the future who transforms mere human history into salvation history, a history in which individual persons, as well as the entire creation, find their true value and meaning. To the “question” of , seen through the eyes of the sacrament, God “responds” as the call in hope of a future that beckons. In this series of readings, then, God appears as the mystery of a future beyond our imagining.56

54. On the eschatological orientation of the Beatitudes in Matthew, see, for example, Pierre B, L’évangile selon Saint Matthieu (CNT, 1), Paris, Delachaux & Nestlé, 1970, p. 55; Jan L, The Sermon on the Mount: Proclamation and Exhortation (GNS, 14), Wilmington, DE, Michael Glazier, 1985, p.  64; John P. M, Matthew (NTM, 3), Wilmington, DE, Michael Glazier, 1908, p. 39. 55. See G, “Rites of Healing” (n. 7), p. 44, 46, 55; P, “Let the Sick Man Call” (n. 5), p. 265, n. 25; Anthony Ernest H, Jesus and the Constraints of History, Philadelphia, PA, Westminster, 1982, p. 115-119; S – S, aids and the Church (n. 48), p. 59. 56. For a careful and sensitive discussion of the sacrament’s function in countering the “loss of the future” caused by illness, see G, “Sickness and Symbol” (n. 5), p. 405406; Idem, “Rites of Healing” (n. 7), p. 38-39.

188

 

A promised future has yet another consequence. e horizon of hope it opens creates the possibility of purposeful and meaningful action in the present. In this light, the function of the remaining passages in this grouping becomes clear. e parables suggest how disciples are to behave while waiting for the future kingdom: they are to serve one another and pray in patient waiting (“Just as you did it to the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me” [Matt 25:31-40]; “Who is my neighbor?” [Lk 10:25-37]; “Ask, and it will be given to you” [Lk 11:5-13]; “Happy are those slaves whom the master finds alert when he comes” [Lk 12:35-41]). us God’s promise of a future can comfort and bring hope to the families, friends, and caregivers who attend to those with . 3.3. Embracing the present us far, the profile of  when interpreted through the first two groupings of Scripture readings proposed for the sacrament of the sick has called to mind oen-forgotten aspects of the mystery of God. e result is the portrait of a God who will not be limited by the usual understandings of traditional orthodoxies on the purpose of suffering and who, as the mysterious call of a transformed future, challenges our restricted notions of present reality. But is this God of mystery a God aloof and distant, beyond suffering and beyond the present? e experience of  is here and now, and the questions about human being-inthe-world it asks are searingly urgent, pressing, and real. Is the suffering and premature death of so many people due to  simply to be endured fatalistically, especially since there is no cure? Is all this suffering and death empty and useless, without value and meaning? What is the significance of this fragile human existence, so implicated as it is in, and thus vulnerable to, the vagaries of biological life on this earth? In short, is the present experience of human being-in-the-world, the precariousness of which is all the more exacerbated by , an experience of the absence of God? With these questions in mind, we turn to the remaining scriptural selections proposed by the sacrament in order to complete the profile of the mystery of God called forth by the experience of . e first of these remaining selections to consider are the excerpts drawn from the gospel stories of the passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus, passages that recount how Jesus himself experienced the human condition, even to the point of suffering and death.57 In the Book of Job, God does not 57. For reflections on the significance of Jesus’ passion and crucifixion, see Donald S, The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew (PS, 1), Wilmington, DE, Michael

          189 answer the riddle of suffering and death; God’s ways cannot be grasped by human calculations of justice or by rational assessments of reality. e New Testament, however, does provide God’s answer to the riddle, but as usual with God the answer is in the form of a mystery. God’s response to the human condition is to embrace it fully in Jesus.58 Human suffering and death take on the face of Jesus, who is the image of God for us. It is this bold and unfathomable action of God in Christ, in all its surprise and scandal, that Paul has in mind when he writes: “For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles […]. For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength” (1 Cor 1:2223, 25). Among the many facets of this paschal mystery, the following speak more directly to . God’s intimate identification with humankind in Christ is the fundamental event that allows the sacraments to draw their sacramental meaning from human being-in-the-world.59 Jesus’ own suffering and death, then, underlie the many reflections about the Christian understanding and appropriation of the meaning of suffering scattered throughout the Apostolic letters from which the last grouping of excerpts for the sacrament of the sick is drawn. ese include such passages as: “if […] we suffer with him […] we may also be glorified with him” (Rom 8:17); “we ourselves […] groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies” (Rom 8:23b); “[…] in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church” (Col 1:24b); “[…] we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weakness, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are […]” (Heb 4:15). According to these texts, the Christian meaning of suffering lies in being taken up into and participating in the mystery of Christ who, even in his suffering and death, reveals the mystery of God’s love.60 Because of Jesus, then, God is as intimate to

Glazier, 1985, p. 163-184; Idem, The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (PS, 2), Wilmington, DE, Michael Glazier, 1984, p.  139-156. is grouping is the most likely one in which to place the Suffering Servant Song from Isaiah 52:13–53:12. 58. “Christ is the only answer that God can make to Job, the only apology,” P, “Rebel against the Light” (n. 42), p. 200. Similarly, one could say that Christ is the only answer that God can make to . See John S, Mortal Fear: Meditations on Death and aids, Cambridge, MA, Cowley Publications, 1987, p. 31; V, “Eros without Thanatos,” in I (ed.), The Gospel Imperative (n. 10), p. 110-111. 59. K, “eology of the Sacraments” (n. 6), p. 141-143. 60. See David N. P, “e Sacrament of Anointing: Open Questions,” in Mary C – David N. P (eds.), The Pastoral Care of the Sick. Conc 1991/2, London, UK, SCM – Philadelphia, PA, Trinity Press International, 1991, p. 103.

190

 

us as the experience of suffering and death, in whatever form they take, including the form of . By raising the crucified Jesus from the dead, God reversed the human perception of Jesus as one “despised and rejected by others […] as one from whom others hide their faces […] [one] of no account” (Is 53:3). e strength of this manifestation of mysterious love is based in the unerring Christian intuition that even the poor and the marginalized, even those whom society today despises and rejects because of , are precious in the eyes of God. Paul expresses this truth in the following passage from Romans: “Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will hardship, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, of sword? […] I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation [– including  –] will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 8:35, 38-39). God, therefore, is not only mystery beyond our orthodoxies and mystery of our future, but also one who is mysteriously present, even in the most unlikely places – in the suffering of those with , including the despised and rejected with . 4. Conclusion As John Snow has written, “ has a way of not letting itself be trivialized.”61 In its different profiles as disease, illness, and epidemic,  brings to center stage profound truths about the human condition that modern societies tend to marginalize and repress. e urgent and insistent questions about the meaning and purpose of human being-inthe-world that  raises inevitably involve, for believing people at least, the question of God. e dialogue between  and the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick reveals that, just as  does not admit of triviality, so also is God a mystery not be trivialized. God is mystery beyond our imagining. In turn, the God of mystery refuses to allow  to be absolutized, for it is this God who calls us to faith beyond our usual orthodoxies, who challenges us to hope beyond our understanding of the present, who embraces us fully in our human condition, even in suffering and death. Since the sacraments are actions of the believing community, the way the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick looks at  prompts several reflections about Christian behavior. First, the Church both bears ancient 61. S, Mortal Fear (n. 58), p. 15.

          191 tradition and lives in the modern world. It is important for the Church to maintain a dialogue between the two poles, for without tradition lived experience has no home, while without lived experience tradition risks becoming irrelevant. Second, the dialogue between  and the sacrament serves as a reminder that the Church is a steward of the mystery of God and of the mystery of human being-in-the-world. As steward it must be ever watchful that these mysteries not be obscured by reductionist thinking, whether from within or from without. Finally, “images” of God are never indifferent, for they inevitably inform and influence behavior. e revelation of God resulting from the dialogue between  and the sacrament suggests that, once freed in faith from the inadequate orthodoxies about the meaning of suffering, Christians might be less likely to add to the anguish of  by imposing needless anxiety and false guilt. Open to God’s mysterious future, Christians might be a sign of hope, bringing clarity of vision to a dark, selfenclosed present. Convinced of God’s mysterious love of humankind as witnessed in the passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus, Christians might embrace human being-in-the-world in all its aspects – including  – as sacramental, that is, as an experience of the mystery of God.

C 

PREACHING THE PASCHAL MYSTERY1 1. Introduction e homily is the only part of the liturgical celebration for which the ritual books provide no prepared texts. Unscripted by nature, it is the source of both freedom and anxiety: because I have such latitude of choice, what should I say? e homily, however, does not exist in a vacuum. Knowing its setting can perhaps help mitigate the discomfort. 2. At Home in the Ritual e homily’s home is the highly ritualized setting of the liturgy; its purpose is to interpret and actualize the good news for the gathered assembly. Since all Christian liturgy celebrates the paschal mystery of Christ, the homily always has it as its main focus. How and why is this so? What are the implications for preaching? To answer these questions, we will first sketch a definition of the paschal mystery and point out its relationship to liturgy. en, focusing on the Sunday Eucharist, we will describe how the Liturgy of the Word seeks to articulate various facets of the paschal mystery. ese two steps will provide the context in which to situate the homily, and thus allow us to explore its role in proclaiming the paschal mystery. 3. The Paschal Mystery e paschal mystery is simply another, perhaps more evocative, name for the mystery of salvation: in the fullness of time, God, moved with divine passion to save humankind, inaugurated the end-time victory over the powers of sin and death through the obedient life, sacrificial death, and glorious resurrection and ascension of Jesus. As a result, all people have access to grace leading to fullness of life. is saving act of God on humanity’s behalf is called paschal because the death and resurrection of Jesus occurred during the annual 1. is article first appeared in Celebrate! 36/4 (July-August 1997) 21-24.

194

 

springtime Jewish festival of Pesach (in English, “Passover”), from which, via Latin, is derived the adjective paschal. Early Christians came to realize that Jesus’ death and resurrection occurring at Passover time was not fortuitous. e ancient Jewish festival, centered around the sacrifice of a lamb in commemoration of God’s destroying angel passing over the houses of the Israelites on the eve of their crossing the Red Sea from slavery to freedom, provided Christians the right key and the essential motifs in which to articulate their understanding of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Just as the sacrifice of lambs spoke of God’s saving act toward Israel, the sacrificial death of Jesus, his passing from this world to the Father, has become the new Passover. In his paschal mystery, he overcomes the powers of sin and death, thus opening the way for all people of faith to pass through the waters of death to new life, that is, to pass from this world to the Father. Over the years, as they continued to deepen their appreciation of the saving event of Christ’s Passover, Christians began to perceive that the paschal pattern, so deeply inscribed in Jesus’ story, in fact permeates all reality. God’s way of dealing with the world and with humankind always takes on the configuration of the paschal mystery of Jesus. It takes flesh in the giving of self for others, through which is brought about the passing over from sin to grace, from darkness to light, from death to new life. us the paschal mystery is at work transforming the world wherever people behave toward themselves, toward others, and toward the world according to what we could call “the Jesus pattern”. e paschal mystery, therefore, is not just for Christians, as the words from our liturgy so clearly insist: Jesus is the “lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” All people of good will are embraced by God’s passion to save, a desire that comes to us in the form of Jesus, crucified and risen. 4. The Paschal Mystery at the Heart of Liturgy e evidence in the New Testament shows that the early Christians considered their assembling for Baptism and Eucharist to be the occasions par excellence for celebrating the paschal mystery. Paul, for example, provides us with one of the clearest expressions of the “paschalization” of the rite of baptism when he writes in his Letter to the Romans: “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? erefore, we have been buried with him by baptism into death so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life” (6:3-4, NRSV; this passage is read at the Easter Vigil, the church’s prime occasion

   

195

for celebrating Baptism). In addition, the Sunday Eucharist, celebrated on the first day of the week in commemoration of Jesus’ resurrection, by its very nature proclaims the paschal mystery. Christ’s body broken for us and his blood poured out for us is the sacrifice that broke the power of sin and death, opening the way to the fullness of life. By the end of the first century, Christians had introduced the reading of Scripture in the Sunday celebrations, as the Emmaus story in Luke 24 suggests. In this episode, the risen Lord chides the two disciples on the way to their home where he will break bread with them: “Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory? en beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures” (Luke 24:27). us, the risen Christ himself points out that the paschal mystery, his suffering and his entering into glory, is contained in the Scriptures. Read within the context of the Sunday assembly, the Scriptures take on a paschal shape and therefore necessarily lead to the Eucharist. 5. The Sunday Lectionary Christian liturgy, therefore, flows out of and points to the paschal mystery. e church celebrates the paschal mystery through ritual so that what is proclaimed in the word and enacted in the sacrament might also be realized in us. It stands to reason that the Scriptures selected to be proclaimed in such a Christ-charged setting should also, like iron filings near a magnet, take on the delineation of the paschal mystery. at is why the Sunday Lectionary, which contains the repertoire of biblical passages selected to be proclaimed at the Sunday Eucharist, is entirely oriented to the paschal mystery. It is not primarily for catechesis, or for moral exhortation, or for teaching Scripture; rather, the texts are chosen, as William Skudlarek writes, “to proclaim the passion, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, fully realized in him and being realized in us who, through faith and baptism, have been joined to him.”2 Two aspects of this Lectionary’s structure show how this is so. First, the three readings of each eucharistic celebration, no matter what their specific content, always play the same fundamental roles. e first reading from the Old Testament evokes the history of salvation, of which Jesus, proclaimed in the gospel passage, is the center and fulfillment. e second reading from the New Testament Apostolic writings shows how 2. William S, The Word in Worship: Preaching in a Liturgical Context, Nashville, TN, Abingdon, 1981, p. 34.

196

 

the early Christians interpreted Christ’s paschal mystery and how they appropriated it in their lives, providing us with a model to do the same. Secondly, the Sunday Lectionary puts flesh on the bones of the annual cycle of the liturgical calendar. It selects and distributes biblical passages to articulate those aspects of the paschal mystery that each liturgical season emphasizes. For example, the season of Lent underscores Jesus’ passage through suffering and death, which we appropriate through Baptism and deepen through repentance. e season of Advent prepares for the commemoration of Jesus’ coming among us in his incarnation to accomplish God’s desire to redeem humankind under the thrall of sin and death, and looks forward to Jesus’ second coming to bring to fullness the redemption already begun. Each liturgical season refracts a particular facets of the paschal mystery. 6. The Homily All that we have said so far, moving from the more general to the more specific, sets the context or the framework within which is situated the homily. Working in reverse order, from specific to general, we would say that the homily is a constitutive element of the Liturgy of the Word, whose purpose is to proclaim the paschal mystery; the Liturgy of the Word in turn is a constitutive part of the Sunday eucharistic celebration; the Sunday Eucharist is always a celebration of the paschal mystery. at is why the 1981 edition of the Introduction to the Lectionary for Mass explains the role of the homily in this way: “e purpose of the homily at Mass is that the spoken word of God and the liturgy of the Eucharist may together become ‘a proclamation of God’s wonderful works in the history of salvation, the mystery of Christ’ [here citing the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, §35.2]. rough the readings and homily Christ’s paschal mystery is proclaimed; through the sacrifice of the Mass it becomes present.”3 us, the homily, because it is part and parcel of the liturgy of the word, is proclamation. Given the location of the homily within the liturgy, the homilist adequately prepares by attending to such questions as: • What is the paschal mystery? How does the liturgy celebrate it? • What aspects of the paschal mystery does a particular liturgical season emphasize? Here, the descriptions of the liturgical seasons found in

3. “Lectionary for Mass: Introduction,” in The Liturgy Documents: Essential Documents for Parish Worship. Vol 1. 5th edition, Chicago, IL, LTP, 2012, 325-363, §24.

   

197

the document entitle Universal Norms on the Liturgical Year and the General Roman Calendar can be of help. • How do the three readings proposed for a particular Sunday or solemnity, with its stories and images, refract the paschal mystery? • How can these readings, as part of the liturgical season, help us better recognize, perceive, and understand the paschal mystery at work in our lives and in the world? Where do we notice the fundamental Christ pattern of self-giving, of healing transformation from sin to grace, of faith-filled passage through death to new life? Where and how is God transforming us and the world into the image and likeness of Christ, crucified and risen? • How can the homily help shape our paschal vision of life? How can it lead us to li our hearts and join in the great prayer of thanksgiving which is the Eucharist? 7. No Secret Recipe When all is said and done, there is no recipe or formula for preaching the paschal mystery. Instead, preaching the paschal mystery presupposes a way of seeing, the cultivation of a habit of being. It requires attentiveness to the Scriptures, which suggest multifarious aspects of the Jesus pattern, and a vigilant eye on life around us, where God is constantly at work shaping and molding all things into the image and likeness of the crucified and risen One. en, indeed, will homilies fulfill their role of proclaiming the paschal mystery.

C 

EMBODYING THE WORD Reflections on the Theology of Proclamation1 1. Introduction Anyone who has proclaimed the Scriptures, as well as everyone in the assembly who listens to the readings Sunday aer Sunday, is aware that the lector’s role requires special abilities, knowledge and skills.  Since there are numerous resources that adequately deal with the more technical aspects of this liturgical ministry – correct breathing, voice control, eye contact, etc. – there is no need to discuss them here. Helpful as they are, such articles and books tend to leave unaddressed the theological dimension of lectoring.  What, theologically speaking, is this liturgical function that demands special abilities, knowledge, and skills? An appreciation of the theological significance of the role will perhaps incite those who have been designated to proclaim the word further to hone the skills and to develop the expertise necessary in fulfilling the task. To this end, the following reflections explore aspects of what can be called a theology of proclamation. 2. A Theology of Proclamation e revision of the Lectionary, perhaps the most important and farreaching aspect of the Vatican II liturgical renewal, was immensely instrumental in reinstating the Scriptures to the prominence they had enjoyed in the early church. In addition to the Lectionary itself, the ritual reading of the Bible, now done in the vernacular and facing the assembly, lends a high profile to the liturgical act of proclamation. 

1. is article first appeared in Celebrate! 32/6 (November-December 1993) 20-23 as the sixth and last of a series of short pieces in response to the journal editor’s invitation to present some of the key features of the revised Lectionary for Sundays and Solemnities. A more extensive presentation of many of these features appears above in Chapter 3 of this volume: “e Sunday Lectionary: Principles and Patterns” as well as in my book, The Sunday Lectionary: Ritual Word, Paschal Shape, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1998.

200

 

Because these reforms are relatively new, a theology of proclamation is only recently beginning to emerge.2  e basis for such reflection appears in the Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. Wishing to show how the liturgy is intimately linked with God’s activity of saving the world through Christ, paragraph 7 of the document states: To accomplish so great a work [i.e., the salvation of humankind], Christ is always present in His Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the sacrifice of the Mass, not only in the person of His minister, [...] but especially under the Eucharistic species. [...]  He is present in His word, since it is He Himself who speaks when the holy Scriptures are read in the church. He is present, finally, when the Church prays and sings, for He promised: “Where two or three are gathered together for my sake, there I am in the midst of them” (Mt. 18:20).

According to this statement, the expression of God’s redemption of humankind is most fully realized through Christ’s presence in the liturgy. is presence comes about in four distinct yet interrelated ways: in the assembly, in the presider, in the Liturgy of the Word, and in the Eucharist. In each instance this presence of Christ is a real presence, for his presence in the Eucharist is not presence by exclusion but par excellence. at is to say, his real presence in the Eucharist does not preclude his real presence in other aspects of the celebration. us the document states that when the Scriptures are read in the liturgy, it is Christ himself who speaks. It is important to note that this avails not only for the gospel, but for the entire Liturgy of the Word. Implied here is nothing less than that the lector, in fulfilling the task of reading the Scriptures in the liturgical assembly, is a mode of the real presence of Christ. Why and how is this so? Succinctly put, the lector embodies the Word. e Word of God cannot be reduced to or identified with the alphabetic signs printed on the page – these are lifeless signs, letters devoid of spirit. e printed letters and words and sentences imprison a “voice” that, to be released, must once again take body in sound. No word, whether human or divine, can exist without a body. To allow the Word of God to become present once again, the one who proclaims lends his or her bodied self to the voice of the text; he or she speaks the voice of the text in his or her own voice.

2. See, for example, Alla B-C,  The Word’s Body:  An Incarnational Aesthetic of Interpretation, University, AL,  University of Alabama Press, 1979;  Adrien N, “La Parole de Dieu et Vatican II,” in Pierre J – Reiner K – Gottardo P (eds.), Liturgia, opera divina e umana: studi sulla riforma liturgica offerti a S. E. Mons. Annibale Bugnini in occasione del sue 70e compleanno (BELS, 26), Roma, Edizioni Liturgiche, 1982, 133-149;  Isabelle R-C, “La lettre et la voix,” in MD 190 (1992) 25-49.

  

201

e role of lector requires self-emptying. e lector gives the gi of his or her person so that the voice of the text might come to life. e text cannot speak itself; thus, the Word of God in Scripture is vulnerable, for God needs a human voice through which and in which to become present. e word that becomes flesh is not the lector’s word; it is, according to the ritual formula said at the end of the reading, “the Word of the Lord”. e proclaimer embodies the word in order to bear witness to it, for in the proclamation the lector makes present to the worshipping assembly a Godsuffused vision of the world offered via the scriptural text. rough the lector the voice of the text becomes a living presence; the written words are transformed into an event in the assembly’s here and now. Above all, this is made possible through sound, the home of language. Sound indicates presence. Speaking forth a text orally before an assembly makes the text alive and present, filling acoustic space in the flow of irreversible time. us, the lector is an incarnation of the Word; through and in the lector the Word becomes flesh. e very act of reading aloud not only embodies the Word and testifies to it;  the oral performance of the Word also constitutes the listening assembly. Oral performance demands an audience which is called to listen, for there is no need to read aloud if no one is there to attend. Oral proclamation creates a presence in the midst of the assembly, a presence that the assembly receives by listening.  By listening, by letting the sounds of the words penetrate into their mind and heart as meaning, the assembly itself becomes an essential dimension of the Word’s liturgical incarnation.  at is why in liturgy the Scriptures are read aloud. Although today, with the proliferation of missalettes and with widespread literacy, it would be possible to have the members of the assembly each read the selected passages individually and silently in their pews, the result would not be liturgy. Without oral proclamation there would be no embodying of the Word.  Without embodying there can be no real presence of the Word, and, as the document cited above attests, liturgy by definition means the presence of the Lord. e here and now of the embodied word of Scripture addresses the here and now of the assembly, the assembly is called to respond so that through it this world might be transformed.  3. Hear, then, the Word of the Lord Gail Ramshaw-Schmidt describes the task of the lector in this way: “Your goal as readers is to read the lessons so well, to proclaim the word with such authority, that all the people lay down their folders [or missalettes] and listen to the reading of Scripture, and, listening,

202

 

understand.  is experience is a corporate one, and one which you as readers have the power to create or to destroy.”3 How, then, does the lector go about the task of embodying the word in the liturgy?  e most important quality the lector must possess is imagination. rough imagination the reader enters into the text. Imagination allows the reader to transform the written words into sense experience, that is, the lector must see, hear, smell, taste, feel what the text is describing.  Only when the reader is transported into the text can the text be freed to find its voice again.  e task demands great familiarity with the Bible as a whole, with its various books, with the different literary genres they contain, with the historical context of the events recounted. Bible study, therefore, is essential. e lector also must be attentive not only to the voice in the text, but also to the voices of the different characters, to the rhythm and cadence of the sentences, to the sound and weight of each word. It is important not to read too rapidly. e words, phrases, and sentences must be clear the first time, and although the transmission of sound is practically instantaneous, it still takes a moment for the listeners to transform the sounds into images and tastes and smells and textures, to transform words into meaning.  e voice of the text must be given all the sounding and resounding time it needs to be adequately embodied, both in the lector and in the assembly. Biblical passages usually contain much feeling and emotion. It is especially this aspect of the voice in the text that needs to be embodied.  e lector’s task is not to emote or to make the assembly emote, but to make present the passion in the text.  Finally, lectors are to proclaim with authority, in a strong, self-assured voice. e Scriptures, aer all, are good news, the word of the Lord which brings salvation to the world. Faith, says Paul, comes through hearing (Rom  10:14).  It is the lector’s  privilege and responsibility to assure that the Word’s words are heard.

3. Gail R-S, “Dimensions of a Parish Program,” in Horace T. A, Jr. (ed.), The Reader as Minister, Washington, DC, e Liturgical Conference, 1990, 57-65, p. 57; Richard F. W, “A New Look at the Lector’s Art,” in Lit 8/3 (1990) 33-38; Jack C. R, How to Read the Bible Aloud: Oral Interpretation of Scripture, New York, NY – Mahweh, NJ, Paulist Press, 1994; Alice C, I Like Being in Parish Ministry: Lector, Mystic, CT, Twenty-ird Publications, 2001; Normand B, Preparing the Table of the Word (PLS), Ottawa, Novalis – Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1997; James A. W, The Ministry of Lectors, 2nd edition (CMS), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2004.

BIBLIOGRAPHY A, Adolf, The Liturgical Year: Its History and Its Meaning after the Reform of the Liturgy, trans. by Matthew O’C, New York, NY, Pueblo, 1981. A, Kurt, Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelstiftung Stuttgart, 1976. A, Horace T., J., “Common Lectionary: Origins, Assumptions, and Issues,” in Studia Liturgica 21 (1991) 14-31. —, “e Ecumenical Import of Lectionary Reform,” in Peter C. F – James M. S (eds.), Shaping English Liturgy: Studies in Honor of Archbishop Denis Hurley, Washington, DC, Pastoral Press, 1990, 361-384. —, “Lectionaries – Principles and Problems: A Comparative Analysis,” in Studia Liturgica 22 (1992) 68-83. —, “Preaching and Lectionary,” in Martin D (ed.), Like a Two-Edged Sword: The Word of God in Liturgy and History. Essays in Honour of Canon Donald Gray, Norwich, UK, Canterbury, 1995, 195-212. —, (ed.), The Reader as Minister, Washington, DC, e Liturgical Conference, 1980. —, “Using the Consensus Lectionary: A Response,” in Dieter T. H (ed.), Social Themes of the Christian Year: A Commentary on the Lectionary, Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 1983, 264-268. A, Brenda, “Introduction: War of the World,” in Brenda A (ed.), aids – A Moral Issue: The Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects, London, Macmillan, 1990, 1-21. A, Harold W., “Hebrews,” in Harold W. A (ed.), HarperCollins Study Bible: Fully Revised and Updated, New York, NY, HarperCollins, 2006, 2035-2036. A, Matias, “e Liturgical Year in the Roman Rite,” in Anscar J. C (ed.), Handbook of Liturgical Studies 5: Liturgical Time and Space (A Pueblo Book), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2000, 177-210. —. “A eology of the Liturgical Year,” in Anscar J. C (ed.), Handbook of Liturgical Studies 5: Liturgical Time and Space (A Pueblo Book), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2000, 317-330. B, Peter, “What Sort of World? What Sort of God?” in James W (ed.), Embracing the Chaos, London, SPCK, 1990, 109-115. B, Lloyd R., “e Lectionary in Critical Perspective,” in Interpretation 31 (1977) 139-153. B, Egbert J., “Mimesis as Performance: Rereading Auerbach’s First Chapter,” in Poetics Today 20 (1999) 11-26. B, John F., “e Bible and the Liturgy, Part 1: e Status of the Bible Today,” in Catechumenate 11/5 (1989) 12-19. —, “e Bible and the Liturgy, Part 2: eir Interaction,” in Catechumenate 11/6 (1989) 2-10. —, “Biblical Preaching in the Liturgy,” in Studia Liturgica 22 (1992) 100-118.

204



—, Reforming the Liturgy: A Response to Critics (A Pueblo Book), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2008. B, Alan, A Diagram of Synoptic Relationships, Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1976 [1938]. B, David L., “Preaching as Interpretation,” in Princeton Seminary Bulletin 17 (1996) 154-163. B, John G. – Ann K. K, The Guide to Living with hiv Infection, Baltimore, MD – London, UK, e Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991. B, Richard J., “e Lord’s Day,” in Donald Arthur C (ed.), From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation, Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 1982, 222-250. B, Richard, “Commentary: Foundations in Performance,” in Journal of Sociolinguistics 15 (2011) 707-720. —, “Performance,” in David H – Manfred J – Marie-Laure R (eds.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory, London, UK – New York, NY, Routledge, 2005, 419-420. B, Paul, “Exégèse typologique, d’aujourd’hui?” in Connaissance des Pères de l’Égilse 51 (septembre 1993) 19-20. B, François, “Le lectionnaire actuel du Missel. Histoire de sa formation. Principes de la réforme envisagée,” in Liturgie et vie chrétienne 35 (1963) 9-17. B, Ernest Lovell et al., International Dictionary of Medicine and Biology, in Three Volumes, Sidney I. L (editor-in-chief), New York, NY, J. Wiley, 1986, articles on “disease” (Vol. 1, 810-835) and on “illness” (Vol. 2, 1401-1408). B, Hansjakob, “Wortgottesdienst als Dialog der beiden Testamente: Der Stellenwert des Alten Testamentes bei einer Weiterführung der Reform des Ordo Lectionum Missae,” in Ansgar F (ed.), Streit am Tisch des Wortes? Deutung und Bedeutung des Alten Testaments und seiner Verwendung in der Liturgie (PL), St. Ottilen, EOS, 1997, 659-689. B, Philippe, “La Bible née de la liturgie,” in La Maison-Dieu 126 (1976) 108-116. B, Jan Christiaan, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought, Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1982 [1980]. B, Pierre – Marie-Émile B, Synopse des quatre Évangiles en français, 2 vols., Paris, Cerf, 1972. (T) B’ C  P L  M. National Conference of Catholic Bishops, Fulfilled in Your Hearing: The Homily in the Sunday Assembly, Washington, DC, United States Catholic Conference, 1982. B, Yves-Marie, “Ancient et Nouveau Testament dans le cycle liturgique,” in Achille M. T – Alessandro P (eds.), La liturgie, interprète de l’Écriture I. Les lectures bibliques pour les dimanches et fêtes. Conférences Saint-Serge, XLVIIe semaine d’études liturgiques, Paris, 2528 juin 2001 (BELS, 119), Roma, CLV-Edizioni Liturgiche, 2002, 221-233. —, “Bible et liturgie,” in Carlo B – Alessandro P (eds.), La liturgie, interprète de l’Écriture. II. Dans les compositions liturgiques, prières et chants. Conférences Saint-Serge, XLIXe semaine d’études liturgiques, Paris, 24-27 juin 2002 (BELS, 126), Roma, CLV-Edizioni Liturgiche, 2003, 259-276.



205

B, Regina A., The Word of the Lord at Mass: Understanding the Lectionary, Chicago, IL, Liturgy Training Publications, 2015. B, Pierre, L’évangile selon Saint Matthieu (CNT, 1), Paris, Delachaux & Nestlé, 1970. B, Normand, “e Illusion of Immediacy: A Narrative-Critical Exploration of the Bible’s Predilection for Direct Discourse,” in Theoforum 31 (2000) 131-151. —, “e Logic of Paul’s Argument on the Curse of the Law in Galatians 3:10-14,” in Novum Testamentum 39 (1997) 1-21. —, “Luke’s Distinctive Lectionary Profile,” in The Bible Today 38 (2000) 337-342. —, Preparing the Table of the Word, Ottawa, Novalis – Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1997. —, The Sunday Lectionary: Ritual Word, Paschal Shape, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1998. —, “e Sunday Lectionary: Underlying Principles and Patterns,” in Liturgical Ministry 5 (1996) 49-58. —, “e Synoptic Gospels in the Sunday Lectionary: Ordinary Time,” in Questions liturgiques/Studies in Liturgy 75 (1994) 154-169. B, Rudolf, “Bringing the Old Testament to its Legitimate Place and Function in the Church’s Liturgical Reading of the Scriptures,” in Studia Liturgica 17 (1987) 19-25. B, Daniel J., The Discoverers, New York, NY, Vintage Books, 1983. B, Bernard et al., Le Dimanche. 9e Semaine liturgique, Institut Saint-Serge, Paris, 1963 (LO, 39), Paris, Cerf, 1965. B, Louis, “La Parole de Dieu vit dans la liturgie,” in Le Congrès de Strasbourg. Parole de Dieu et Liturgie (LO, 25), Paris, Cerf, 1958, 105-126. B, Peter C., “Introduction,” in Handbook for the Common Lectionary, Philadelphia, Geneva Press, 1987, 15-38. B-C, Alla, The Word’s Body: An Incarnational Aesthetic of Interpretation, University, AL, University of Alabama Press, 1979. B, Paul, “e Use of the Bible in the Liturgy: Some Historical Perspectives,” in Studia Liturgica 22 (1992) 35-52. B, Jo-Ann A., Dialogue and Drama: Elements of Greek Tragedy in the Fourth Gospel, Peabody, MA, Hendrickson, 2004. B, Hélène, “L’année liturgique, un autre regard sur le temps,” in Questions liturgiques 97 (2016) 3-19. B, Raymond E., in Ronald D. W (ed.), Christ in the Gospels of the Liturgical Year, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2008. —, An Introduction to the New Testament (ABRL), New York – London – Toronto – Sydney – Auckland, Doubleday, 1997. B, Annibale, The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975, trans. by Matthew J. O’C, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1990. C, Robert, “Quand on commençait à parler du mystère pascal,” in La Maison-Dieu 240 (2004/4) 7-19. C, Fernand, “Fêtes chrétiennes,” in Fernand C – Henri L (eds.), Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie 5/1, Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1922, cols. 1403-1452. C, Michael, Surviving aids, New York, NY, Harper-Collins, 1990. C, Alice, I Like Being in Parish Ministry: Lector, Mystic, CT, Twentyird Publications, 2001.

206



C C  C B, Lectionary: Sundays and Solemnities, Ottawa, ON, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1992. C, Raniero, Le mystère pascal dans l’histoire, dans la liturgie, dans la vie, trans. by Florence L, Paris, Salvador, 2000. C, Louis-Marie, “L’archi-oralité des textes liturgiques. L’exemple de la prière eucharistique,” in La Maison-Dieu 226 (2001) 123-138. —, “La Bible dans son site liturgique,” in Jean-Louis S – Henri-Jérôme G (eds.), La Bible, Parole adressée (LD, 183), Paris, Cerf, 2001, 49-68. —, The Sacraments: The Word of God at the Mercy of the Body (A Pueblo Book), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2001. —, “La liturgie dans son espace symbolique,” in Concilium 259 (1995) 49-61. —, Symbole et sacrement. Une relecture sacramentelle de l’existence chrétienne (CF, 144), Paris, Cerf, 1987. —, “What Makes the Liturgy Biblical? – Texts,” Studia Liturgica 22 (1992) 121-133. C, Rémi, “L’homélie, action liturgique de la communauté eucharistique,” in La Maison-Dieu 227 (2001/3) 9-34. C, Andrew D., “Scripture in the Liturgy,” in Peter E. F (ed.), The New Dictionary of Sacramental Worship, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1990, 1144-1149. —, “Typology/Harmony in the New Lectionary,” in The Bible Today 28 (1990) 90-94. C, Matthieu, “La Bible dans la liturgie chrétienne des premiers siècles,” in Martin K – Bruno B – Arnaud J-L (eds.), Présence et rôle de la Bible dans la liturgie, Fribourg, Academic Press, 2006, 43-67. C, Mary – David N. P (eds.), The Pastoral Care of the Sick, Concilium (1991/2), London, UK, SCM – Philadelphia, PA, Trinity Press International, 1991. C, Raymond F., Letters That Paul Did Not Write: The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pauline Pseudepigrapha (GNS, 28), Wilmington, DE, Michael Glazier, 1988. “Commentaire complet de la Constitution sur la liturgie,” in La Maison-Dieu 77 (1964) 3-224. C, Antoine, La seconde main, ou le travail de la citation, Paris, Seuil, 1979. C  D W   D   S, Homiletic Directory, Ottawa, CCCB, 2015. C, Martin, Guide to the Revised Lectionary, Chicago, IL, LTP, 1998. C  C T, The Revised Common Lectionary, Nashville, TN, Abingdon, 1992. —, Common Lectionary: The Lectionary Proposed by the Consultation on Common Texts, New York, NY, e Church Hymnal Corporation, 1983. —, The Revised Common Lectionary: 20th Anniversary Annotated Edition, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 2012. C, Inge B. – Mary P-L (eds.), aids: Principles, Practices, & Politics, New York, NY, Hemisphere, 1988. C, Florian, “Reported Speech: Some General Issues,” in Florian C (ed.), Direct and Indirect Speech (TL SM 31), Berlin – New York, NY – Amsterdam, Mouton de Gruyter, 1986, 1-28. C, Louis William, “e Aids [sic] Crisis: eological and Ethical Reflections,” in Anglican Theological Review 69 (1987) 125-134.



207

C, Michael A., “Sacramental Moments: Appreciative Awareness in the Iron Cage,” in Bernard J. L (ed.), Alternative Futures for Worship (AFW, 1), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1987, 36-61. C, Dermot, Man’s Anger and God’s Silence: The Book of Job, Slough, UK, St. Paul Publications, 1990. C, Walter H., “History of Anointing and Healing in the Church,” in Peter E. F (ed.), Anointing of the Sick (AFW, 7), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1987, 65-81. D, Irénée Henri, “La Bible vivant dans l’Église. Proclamation liturgique, prédication et imaginaire biblique,” in La Maison-Dieu 126 (1976) 7-23. —, “eology of the Liturgical Celebration,” in Irénée Henri D et al. (eds.), The Church at Prayer: An Introduction to the Liturgy, Vol 1: Principles of the Liturgy, trans. by Matthew O’C, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Pres, 1986-1987, 227-280. —, “Time in the Liturgy,” in Aimé Georges M (ed.), The Church at Prayer: An Introduction to the Liturgy, Vol. IV, trans. by Matthew J. O’C, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1986, 1-29. D, Jean, Bible et liturgie (LO, 11), Paris: Cerf, 1958. “Day,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day, accessed January 26, 2020. D B, Guido, “À propos du lectionnaire dominical,” in Questions liturgiques 92 (2011) 221-235. D C, Paul, “Au commencement était le Verbe,” in La Maision-Dieu 189 (1992) 19-40. D, Lucien, Celebration of the Word, trans. by Jane M.-A. B, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1993. D, Alan, “e Second Edition of the Lectionary for Mass,” in Liturgy 90 24/4 (May/June 1993) 4-7. D, Joanna, “e Gospel of John in Its Oral-Written Media World,” in The Oral Ethos of the Early Church: Speaking, Writing, and the Gospel of Mark (BPCS, 8), Eugene, OR, Cascade Books, 2013, 31-49. D Z, Renato, “Bible and Liturgy,” in Anscar J. C (ed.), Handbook for Liturgical Studies Vol. 1: Introduction to the Liturgy (A Pueblo Book), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1997, 33-51. D, William G., Contemporary New Testament Interpretation, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1972. D, William A., “Sin and Sickness/Faith and Health,” in Robert I (ed.), The Gospel Imperative in the Midst of aids: Towards a Prophetic Pastoral Theology, Wilton, CT, Morehouse, 1989, 131-149. D, Dennis M., “ and the Bishops’ eology,” in Review for Religious 48 (1989) 569-574. D, Jeremy, “e Homiletic Directory: A Brief Comment,” in Notitiae 50 (2014) 97-110. D, Kristina, “Transmissions from Scripturality to Orality: Hearing the Voice of Jesus in Mark 4:1-34,” in Annette W – Robert B. C (eds.), The Interface of Orality and Writing: Speaking, Seeing, Writing in the Shaping of New Genres, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2010, 119-129. D, Robert D., “Coming to Know Jesus Christ: e First Scrutiny,” in Catechumenate 10/2 (1988) 2-10. —, “God Towers Over Evil: e Second Scrutiny,” in Catechumenate 11/1 (1989) 2-8.

208



D, Henri, “Dimanche,” in Fernand C – Henri L (eds.), Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie 4/1, Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1920, cols. 858-994. —, Le dimanche chrétien: Ses origines, ses principaux caractères (Études religieuses), Bruxelles, Société d’études religieuses, 1922. F, Paul – Arthur K, “ as Human Suffering,” in Daedalus 118 (1989) 135-160. F, William R. (ed.), The International Bible Commentary: A Catholic and Ecumenical Commentary for the Twenty-First Century, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1998. F, Tommaso, “La Bibbia diventa lezionario. Storia e criteri attuali,” in Romano C (ed.), Dall’esegesi all’ermeneutica attraverso la celebrazione. Bibbia e liturgia, I, Padova, Edizioni Messaggero, 1991, 192-222. F, Gordon D., The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1987. —, “Towards a eology of 1 Corinthians,” in David L (ed.), SBL 1989 Seminar Papers, Vol. 28, Chico, CA, Scholars Press, 1989, 265-281. F, Joseph A., “Historical Criticism: Its Role in Biblical Interpretation and Church Life,” in Theological Studies 50 (1989) 244-259. —. “Preaching in the Apostolic and Subapostolic Age,” in David G. H (ed.), Preaching in the Patristic Age: Studies in Honor of Walter J. Burghardt, New York, NY – Mahwah, NJ, Paulist, 1989, 19-35. F, John H., Guide to the Lectionary, Essex, UK, Mayhew-McCrimmon, 1981. —, “e Revised Lectionary: Achievements and Prospects,” in Music and Liturgy 8 (1982) 95-100. F, Austin (ed.), Vatican Council II: The Basic Sixteen Documents: Constitutions, Decrees, Declarations, Northport, NY, Costello Publishing Company – Dublin, Dominican Publications, 1996. F, Gaston, “Commentarium ad Ordinem Lectionum Missae,” in Notitiae 5 (1969) 256-282. F, Ansgar, “Die Rolle des Alten Testamentes in Perikopenreformen des 20. Jahrhunderts,” in Ansgar F (ed.), Streit am Tisch des Wortes? Deutung und Bedeutung des Alten Testaments und seiner Verwendung in der Liturgie (PL), St. Ottilen, EOS, 1997, 619-648. —, (ed.), Streit am Tisch des Wortes? Deutung und Bedeutung des Alten Testaments und seiner Verwendung in der Liturgie (PL), St. Ottilen, EOS, 1997. F, Simone, “Les lectures d’Évangile ou les textes disjoints,” in Foi et Vie 82 (1983) 59-75. F, Robert W., New Gospel Parallels: Volume One, The Synoptic Gospels, Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1985. G, Hans-Georg, Truth and Method, 2nd rev. edition, trans. and rev. by Joel W – Donald G. M, London, UK – New York, NY, Continuum, 2004 [1975]. G, Jean, “Le mystère pascal dans le renouveau liturgique,” in La MaisonDieu 67 (1961) 32-87. —, “Où en est la théologie du dimanche?” in La Maison-Dieu 83 (1965) 7-32. G, Bernadette (ed.), Shaping a Priestly People: A Collection in Honour of Archbishop James Hayes, Montreal, Novalis, 1994.



209

“General Instruction for the Roman Missal,” in Liturgy Documents, Vol. 1: Essentials for Parish Worship, Chicago, IL, Liturgy Training Publications, 2012, 95-177. G, Albert, “Dem Wort Gottes Gestalt Geben: Heutige Anfragen an tradierte Formen des Wortgottesdienstes,” in Peter H – omas S (eds.), Wie das Wort Gottes Feiern? Der Wortgottesdienst als theologische Herausforderung (QD, 194), Freiburg – Basel – Wien, Herder, 2002, 47-165. G, M. Jennifer, “Rites of Healing: A Reflection in Pastoral eology,” in Peter E. F (ed.), Anointing of the Sick (AFW, 7), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1987, 33-63. —, “Sickness and Symbol: e Promise of the Future,” in Worship 54 (1980) 397-411. G, Gaston, “Épîtres,” in Fernand C – Henri L (eds.), Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie 5/1, Paris, Létouzey et Ané, 1922, cols. 246-343. G, Fred Kimball, “Introduction” to Consultation on Common Texts, The Revised Common Lectionary: 20th Anniversary Annotated Edition, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 2012, ix-xxv. G, William A., Beyond the Written Word: Oral Aspects of Scripture in the History of Religion, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 1987. —, “Scripture as Spoken Word,” in Miriam L (ed.), Rethinking Scripture: Essays from a Comparative Perspective, Albany, NY, State University of New York Press, 1989, 129-169. G, Stephen Richard (ed.), Living with aids: Part II, in Daedalus 118/3 (1989). G, Donald (ed.), The Word in Season: Essays by Members of the Joint Liturgical Group on the Use of the Bible in Liturgy, Norwich, UK, e Canterbury Press, 1988. G, Mirko D., History of aids: Emergence and Origin of a Modern Pandemic, trans. by Russell C. M – Jacalyn D, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1990. G, Francis, “Le jeu de l’Ancien et du Nouveau Testament… ou la Bible apprivoisée,” in FoiVie 82 (1983) 77-82. G, Paul-Marie, “Pourquoi une lecture de l’Ancien Testament?” in Assemblées du Seigneur 3 (2e série), Paris, Cerf, 1964, 31-47. —, “Problèmes pastoraux du nouveau lectionnaire,” in La Maison-Dieu 99 (1969) 77-87. —, “e Reason for an Old Testament Lesson,” in Lancelot S (ed.), The New Liturgy: A Comprehensive Introduction, London, Longman & Todd, 1970, 59-72. G, Pierre-Marie, “Le mystère pascal dans le renouveau liturgique: esquisse d’un bilan historique,” in La Maison Dieu 67 (1961) 23-32. H, Norman C., The Book of Job: A Commentary (OTL), London, UK, SCM, 1985. H, André, “Le rite, ‘lieu-dit’ de la parole,” in La Maison-Dieu 280 (2014/4) 143-153. H, Anthony Ernest, Jesus and the Constraints of History, Philadelphia, PA, Westminster, 1982. H, Ivan, Q: The Sayings of Jesus (GNS, 19), Wilmington, DE, Michael Glazier, 1987.

210



H, René-Jean, “Les séries d’évangiles des dimanches après la Pentecôte,” in La Maison-Dieu (1956) 35-59. H, Dieter T. (ed.), Social Themes of the Christian Year: A Commentary on the Lectionary, Philadelphia, Geneva Press, 1983. H, Jean, “Les dimanches verts et Mystère Pascal,” in La Maison-Dieu 46 (1956) 7-34. H, Mary Catherine, “Naming Grace: A eology of Proclamation,” in Worship 60/5 (1986) 434-449. H, Elizabeth (ed.), The Liturgy Documents: A Parish Resource, 3rd Edition, Chicago, Liturgy Training Publications, 1991. H, David R., “Vers un lectionnaire œcuménique,” in La Maison-Dieu 166 (1986) 131-138. H, Helmut, “Die Nähe des auferweckten Gekreuzigten in unserem Leben,” in Bibel und Liturgie 75/3 (2002) 162-167. H, Leslie, “In a Biblical Perspective,” in James W (ed.), Embracing the Chaos: Theological Responses to aids, London, SPCK, 1990, 103-108. H, Albert, “e Rediscovery of the Liturgy by Sacramental eology (1950-1980),” in Studia Liturgica 15 (1982-1983) 158-177. H, Kathleen, “e Homily and Its Context,” Liturgical Ministry 1 (1992) 17-20. H, Clark, “e Bible in the Church: e Lectionary as Paradigm,” in Worship 61 (1987) 323-336. I, Robert H. (ed.), The Gospel Imperative in the Midst of aids: Towards a Prophetic Pastoral Theology, Wilton, CT, Morehouse, 1989. “Introduction [to the]: Lectionary for Mass,” in Elizabeth H (ed.), The Liturgy Documents: Essential Documents for Parish Worship, Vol. 1, Chicago, IL, Liturgy Training Publications, 2012, 325-363. “Introduction” to the “Rite of Anointing and Pastoral Care of the Sick,” in The Rites of the Catholic Church, Vol. 1 (English translation by ICEL), New York, NY, Pueblo, 1976, 582-592. I, Kevin W., Context and Text: Method in Liturgical Theology, Collegeville, Liturgical Press, 1994. —, Models of the Eucharist, Chicago, IL – New York, NY – Mahwah, NJ, Paulist Press, 2005. I, Wolfgang, The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response, Baltimore, MD – London, UK, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978. J, Manfred, “Quotation eory,” in David H – Manfred J – Marie-Laure R (eds.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory, London, UK – New York, NY, Routledge, 2005, 479-480. J, Paul, The Holy Preaching: The Sacramentality of the Word in the Liturgical Assembly (A Pueblo Book), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2000. J, Joseph, “e Old Testament in the New Testament and in the Liturgy,” in The Bible Today 28 (1990) 207-212. —, “Prediction-Fulfillment in Bible and Liturgy,” in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 50 (1988) 646-662. J P II, The Lord’s Day: Apostolic Letter Dies Domini of the Holy Father John Paul II to the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Catholic Church on Keeping the Lord’s Day Holy, Sherbrooke, QC, Médiaspaul, 1998.



211

—, Redemptoris Missio §52. J, Maxwell E., “From ree Weeks to Forty Days: Baptismal Preparation and the Origins of Lent,” in Studia Liturgica 26 (1990) 185-200. J, Klaus-Peter, “Liturgy: Cradle of Scripture?” in Studia Liturgica 22 (1992) 17-34. J, Pierre, “La Bible dans la liturgie,” in Parole de Dieu et Liturgie (LO, 25), Paris, Cerf, 1958, 17-49. —, Le Dimanche (Horizon du croyant), Paris, Desclée – Ottawa, Novalis, 1990. —, “Le dimanche et le temps de Pâques: la tradition de l’Église,” in La MaisonDieu 67 (1961) 163-182. —, “L’élaboration du calendrier romain général,” in Pierre J – Reiner K – Gottardo P (eds.), Liturgia, opera divina e umana: studi sulla riforma liturgica offerti a S. E. Annibale Bugnini in occasione del suo 70e compleano, Roma, Edizioni Liturgiche, 1982, 671-691. —, Sunday: The History of the Day of Rest and Worship in the Earliest Centuries of the Christian Church, trans. by Andrew Alexander Kenny G, London, SCM, 1968. —, “Sunday and the Week,” in Irénée Henri D – Pierre J – Aimé Georges M (eds.), The Church at Prayer: An Introduction to the Liturgy. Vol. IV: The Liturgy and Time (New Edition), trans. by Matthew J. O’C, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1986, 11-29. Jours du Seigneur. Robert G – Romain S (eds.), Année liturgique, Vol. 4, Turnhout, Brepols, 1990. J, Joseph A., La liturgie des premiers siècles jusqu’à l’époque de Grégoire le Grand (LO, 33), trans. by Francis A. B, Paris, Cerf, 1962. —, The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development, Vol. 1, trans. by Francis A. B, New York, NY, Benziger, 1951-1955. J M, First Apology. The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1, ed. by William A. J, Collegeville, MN, e Liturgical Press, 1970. K, Emma, “Not (Yet) Knowing: Epistemological Effects of Deferred and Suppressed Information in Narrative,” in David H (ed.), Narratologies: New Perspectives on Narrative Analysis, Columbus, OH, Ohio State University, 1999, 33-65 K, Aidan, Elements of Rite: Handbook of Liturgical Style, New York, NY, Pueblo Publishing Company, 1982. —, On Liturgical Theology: The Hale Memorial Lectures of Seabury-Western Theological Seminary 1981, New York, NY, Pueblo Publishing Company, 1984. K, Ralph A., To Hear and Proclaim: Introduction to the Lectionary for Mass, Washington, DC, National Association of Pastoral Musicians, 1983. K, Kenneth, “Introduction to the Issue,” in Stephen Richard G (ed.), Living with aids: Part II, in Daedalus 118/3 (1989), ix-xxxiii. K, George A., New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism, Chapel Hill, NC, University of North Carolina Press, 1984. K, Edward, “eology of the Sacraments: Toward a New Understanding of the Chief Rites of the Church of Jesus Christ,” in Bernard J. L (ed.), Alternative Futures for Worship (AFW, 1), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1987, 123-175.

212



K, Martin, “Bibel und Liturgie: Anmerkungen zu ihrer inneren Beziehung nach dem postsynodalen Schreiben ‘Verbum Domini’,” in Liturgisches Jahrbuch 62 (2012) 157-180. —, “Présence et rôle de la Bible dans la liturgie: Résultats et perspectives,” in Martin K – Bruno B – Arnaud J-L (eds.), Présence et rôle de la Bible dans la liturgie, Fribourg, Academic Press, 2006, 387-409. K, Benedikt, “Wort Gottes in der Liturgie,” in Liturgisches Jahrbuch 63 (2013) 167-183. Ki, omas A., “By Way of Comment: e 2014 Homiletic Directory,” in Worship 91/1 (2017) 65-76. K, Werner Georg, Introduction to the New Testament, rev. ed., trans. by Howard Clark K, Nashville, TN, Abingdon, 1975. K, Simon Peter, The Catholic Lectionary and the Revised Common Lectionary in Ecumenical Perspective: A Comparative Study of the Two Lectionaries with Particular Reference to the Periods of Advent and Lent, Roma, Edizioni Sant’Anselmo, 1998. L, John A., “e Place of the Bible in the Liturgy,” in Peter R. A – Christopher F. E (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. 1: From the Beginnings to Jerome, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 1970, 563-587. L, Jan, The Sermon on the Mount: Proclamation and Exhortation (GNS, 14), Wilmington, DE, Michael Glazier, 1985. L, Gordon W., Holy Things: A Liturgical Theology, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1993. —, “A Rebirth of Images: On the Use of the Bible in Liturgy,” in Worship 58 (1984) 291-304. —, “Scripture in the Assembly: e Ancient and Lively Tension,” in Liturgy 2/3 (1982) 21-23. L, John D., The Sacrament of the Eucharist (LO), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2012. L, Dominique, “L’homélie, redevenue acte liturgique?” in La Maison-Dieu 177 (1989) 121-147. L, Henri, “Lectionnaire,” in Fernand C – Henri L (eds.), Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie 8/2, Paris, Létouzey et Ané, 1927, col. 2270-2306. L, Lambert, “L’interprétation du sacrement de l’onction des malades dans le contexte d’une société sécularisée. La position de Gisbert Greshake,” in Questions liturgiques 77 (1996) 191-201. L, Eugene, The Past of Jesus in the Gospels (SNTS MS, 68), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991. L, Emil J., “Pericopes,” in William J. MD (ed.), New Catholic Encylopedia, Vol. 11, New York, NY, McGraw-Hill, 1967, 129-138. —. “Pericopes,” New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd edition, Vol. 11, Detroit – New York – San Diego – San Francisco – New Haven, CT – Waterville, ME – London – Munich, omson-Gale, 2003, 123-138. L, Phyllis C., “Accepting Life Totally,” in Robert H. I (ed.), The Gospel Imperative in the Midst of aids: Towards a Prophetic Pastoral Theology, Wilton, CT, Morehouse, 1989, 157-170.



213

L, Jean, Job et son Dieu. Essai d’exégèse et de théologie biblique. Tome II, Paris, Gabalda, 1970. L, J. A. (Bobby), Oral and Manuscript Culture in the Bible: Studies on the Media Texture of the New Testament – Explorative Hermeneutics, 2nd edition (BPCS, 7), Eugene, OR, Cascade Books, 2013. L, Anthony, “: Some eological Reflections,” in Brenda A (ed.), aids – A Moral Issue: The Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects, London, Macmillan, 1990, 153-160. L, Abbyann, “-Related Suffering: erapy, Healing, or?” in David G. H (ed.), aids Issues: Confronting the Challenge, New York, NY, Pilgrim Press, 1989, 121-141. M, ierry, “History and Function of the ree Great Pericopes: e Samaritan Woman, the Man Born Blind, and the Raising of Lazarus,” in Concilium 22 (1967) 51-56. —, “Le thème biblique: L’assemblée festive du dimanche,” in Introduction [aux Assemblées du Seigneur (1ère série)], Bruges, Biblica, 1962, 28-42. La Maison-Dieu 232 (2002). M, Sara, “Is Health a Gospel Imperative?” in James W (ed.), Embracing the Chaos: Theological Responses to aids, London, SPCK, 1990, 92-100. M, Tullio, “e Force of Reportive Narratives,” in Papers in Linguistics 17 (1984) 235-265. M, Salvatore, “Liturgie,” in Domenico S – Achille M. T (eds.), Dictionnaire encyclopédique de la liturgie, Vol. 1 (A-L), French adaptation under the direction of Henri D, Turnhout, Brepols – Montréal, Sciences et culture, 1992, 629-640. M, Aimé Georges, “e Dialogue Between God and His People,” in Aimé Georges Mt (ed.), The Church at Prayer: An Introduction to the Liturgy, Vol. 1: Principles of the Liturgy, trans. by Matthew J. O’C, Collegeville, Liturgical Press, 1986-1987, 131-171. —, “À propos du nombre des lectures à la messe,” in Mirabile laudis canticum: mélanges liturgiques. Études historiques, la réforme conciliaire, portraits de liturgistes (BELS, 60), Roma, Edizioni Liturgiche, 1991, 125-136. M, Francis, Sacred Scripture: The Disclosure of the Word, Naples, FL, Sapientia, 2006. M, Wallace, Recent Theories of Narrative, Ithaca, NY – London, UK, Cornell University Press, 1986. M, Frank J., New Testament Theology: Exploring Diversity and Unity, Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 2007. M, Hansjörg auf der et al. (eds.), Feiern im Rhythmus der Zeit (Gottesdienst der Kirche: Handbuch der Liturgiewissenscha Teil 5-6), Regensburg, F. Pustet, 1983. M, Wayne A., The Origins of Christian Morality: The First Two Centuries, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1993. M, John P., Matthew (NTM, 3), Wilmington, DE, Michael Glazier, 1980. M, Reinhard, “La liturgie de la Parole pendant la messe: L’anamnèse du Christ mise en scène,” in La Maison-Dieu 243 (2005) 43-60. M, Cynthia L., “Discourse Functions of Quotative Frames in Biblical Narrative,” in Walter R. B (ed.), Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature:

214



What It Is and What It Offers (SBL SS, 27), Atlanta, GA, Scholars Press, 1995, 155-182. M, James, “Acquired Immanent Divinity Syndrome,” in Christine O – William P. Z (eds.), Perspectives on aids: Ethical and Social Issues, Toronto – Oxford – New York, Oxford University Press, 1991, 55-74. M, James, “Unfolding the Mystery of Christ: e Liturgy of the Word,” in Catechumenate 13/5 (Sept. 1991) 2-12. M, Oskar, “e Paschal Mystery and Its Celebration during the Liturgical Year and in the Sunday Mass,” in William B (ed.), The Liturgy of Vatican II: A Symposium in Two Volumes, Vol. 2, English edition Jovian L, Chicago, IL, Franciscan Herald Press, 1966, 209-230. M-O’C, Jerome, Paul the Letter-Writer: His World, His Options, His Skills, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1995. N, Frans, “Synoptic Problem,” in Raymond E. B – Joseph A. F – Roland E. M (eds.), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, London, Geoffrey Chapman, 1989, 587-595. N, Dorothy – David P. W – Scott V. P (eds.), A Disease of Society: Cultural and Institutional Responses to aids, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 1991. N, Nicholas (photographs) – Bebe N (text), People with aids, Boston, David R. Godine, 1991. N, Adrien, “Les deuxièmes lectures des dimanches ordinaires,” in Ecclesia Orans 8 (1991), 125-136. —, “Eine ‘kleine Geschichte am Rande’: Zum Lektionar für die Messfeier der ‘gewöhnlichen’ Sonntage,” in Ansgar F (ed.), Streit am Tisch des Wortes: Deutung und Bedeutung des Alten Testaments und seiner Verwendung in der Liturgie (PL), St. Ottilen: EOS, 1997, 649-657. —, “La parole de Dieu et Vatican II,” in Pierre J – Reiner K – Gottardo P (eds.), Liturgia, opera divina e umana: Studi sulla riforma liturgica offerti a S. E. Annibale Bugnini in occasione del suo 70e compleano, Roma, Edizioni Liturgiche, 1982, 133-149. —, A Reading of the Renewed Liturgy, trans. by Mary M. M, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1994. Norms Governing Liturgical Calendars (LDS, 6), Washington, DC, Office of Publishing and Promotion Services, United States Catholic Conference, 1984. N, Elmar, “Das alte Testament in der gegenwärtigen Perikopenordnung,” in Liturgisches Jahrbuch 47 (1992) 174-189. —, Entstehung und Bewertung der neuen Perikopenordnung des Römischen Ritus für die Messfeier an Sonn- und Festtagen, Paderborn, Bonifatius, 1986. O, Bernhard, Performanzkritik der Paulusbriefe (WUNT, 296), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2012. O, Hughes Oliphant, The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church, Vol. 3, The Medieval Church, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1999. O’L, omas, “Language, Music, Liturgy: Communicating the Word,” in Music and Liturgy 41/3 (Feb. 2016) 27-38. —, Making the Most of the Lectionary: A User’s Guide, London, SPCK – Harrisburg, PA, Morehouse, 2012.



215

—, “e Old Testament Readings: Should We Bother?” in New Diaconal Review 11 (November 2013) 6-9. O’N, Patrick, The Fictions of Discourse: Reading Narrative Theory, Toronto – Buffalo, NY – London, UK, University of Toronto Press, 1996. O, Walter J., Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word, London – New York, NY, Methuen, 1982. —, The Presence of the Word: Some Prolegomena for Cultural and Religious History, Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota Press, 1981 [1967]. Ordo Lectionum Missae, editio typica altera, Roma, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1981. O, Christine – William P. Z (eds.), Perspectives on aids: Ethical and Social Issues, Toronto – Oxford – New York, Oxford University Press, 1991. P, Irmgard, “e Paschal Mystery in Its Central Meaning for the Shape of Christian Liturgy,” in Studia Liturgica 26 (1996) 16-38. P, Eric, A History of Liturgical Books: From the Beginning to the Thirteenth Century, trans. by Madeleine B, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1998. P, Keith F., The Unread Vision: The Liturgical Movement in the United States 1926-1955, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1998. P, Jean, “Les évangiles du dimanche,” in La Maison-Dieu 166 (1986) 107117. P, Charles, “‘Le début des temps derniers…’ Le dimanche et le huitième jour dans le Nouveau Testament,” in La Maison-Dieu 220 (1999) 73-87. —, “e Reading of the Bible in the Ancient Synagogue,” in Martin Jan M – Harry S (eds.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading, and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Assen, Van Gorcum – Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1988, 137-159. P, Anthony, “: Clinical and Scientific Background,” in Brenda A (ed.), aids – A Moral Issue: The Ethical, Legal and Moral Aspects, London, UK, Macmillan, 1990, 25-33. P, Michel, “Verbe, voix, corps et langage,” in La Maison-Dieu 226 (2001) 33-50. P, Joris, “Les lectures bibliques liturgiques pour les dimanches et les fêtes dans l’usage romain actuel,” in Achille M. T – Alessandro P (eds.), La liturgie, interprète de l’Écriture I. Les lectures bibliques pour les dimanches et fêtes. Conférences Saint-Serge, XLVIIIe semaine d’études liturgiques, Paris, 25-28 juin 2001, Roma, Edizioni Liturgiche, 2001, 57-73. P B C, “e Interpretation of the Bible in the Church,” in Origins 23/29 (Jan. 6, 1994) 497-524. P, Harry, “Rebel against the Light: Job or God?” in Expository Times 103 (1992) 198-201. P, Charles S., “e Word: Liturgical Act, Liturgical Art,” in Liturgical Ministry 5 (Summer 1996) 121-127. P, David N., “Let the Sick Man Call,” in The Heythrop Journal 19 (1978) 256-270. —,  “Sacrament: Event Eventing,” in Michael D – Richard F (eds.), A Promise of Presence: Studies in Honor of David N. Power, Washington, DC, Pastoral Press, 1992, 271-299. —, Sacrament: The Language of God’s Giving, New York, NY, Crossroad, 1999.

216



—. “The Word of the Lord”: Liturgy’s Use of Scripture, Maryknoll, NY, Orbis Books, 2001. P, Patrick, “Vatican II – nouvelle appréciation de la Parole de Dieu,” in Martin K – Bruno B – Arnaud J-L (eds.), Présence et rôle de la Bible dans la liturgie, Fribourg, Academic Press, 2006, 205-225. P-S, Marjorie, “Lectionaries – Principles and Problems: Alternative Perspectives,” in Studia Liturgica 22 (1992) 84-99. R, Ephraim, Time and the Word: Figural Reading of the Christian Scripture, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2016. R, Karl, “e New Image of the Church,” in Theological Investigations, Vol. 10, trans. by David B, New York, NY, Herder and Herder, 1973, 3-29. —, “On the eology of Worship,” in Theological Investigations, Vol. 19, trans. by E. Q, London, Darton, Longman & Todd, 1984, 141-149. R, Gail, “e First Testament in Christian Lectionaries,” in Worship 64 (1990) 484-510. —, “e Gi of ree Readings,” in Worship 73 (1999) 2-11. —, “Typology and Christian Preaching,” in Liturgy 8/2 (1989) 29-34. R-S, Gail, “Dimensions of a Parish Program,” in  Horace T. A, Jr. (ed.), The Reader as Minister, Washington, DC, e Liturgical Conference, 1990, 57-65. R, Jack C., How to Read the Bible Aloud: Oral Interpretation of Scripture, New York, NY – Mahwah, NJ, Paulist Press, 1994. “e Reims Statement: Praying with One Voice of August 16, 2001,” https:// www.anglican.ca/faith/worship/resources/reims-statement, accessed June 11, 2020. R-C, Isabelle, “Les citations bibliques dans la liturgie chrétienne,” in Carlo B – Alessandro P (eds.), La liturgie, interprète de l’Écriture II. Dans les compositions liturgiques, prières et chants. Conférences Saint-Serge, XLIXe semaine d’études liturgiques, Paris, 24-27 juin 2002 (BELS, 126), Roma, Edizioni Liturgiche, 2003, 17-35. —, “La lettre et la voix,” in La Maison-Dieu 190 (1992) 25-49. —, “La liturgie comme citation,” in Concilium 259 (1995) 119-126. R, John, “A History of Lectionaries: From the Synagogue at Nazareth to Post-Vatican II,” in Interpretation 31 (1977) 116-130. —, “Redaktionsgeschichte and the Roman Ordo: Some Principles and Problems in Pericope Reform,” in Erich R. W. S (ed.), Vita Laudanda: Essays in Memory of Ulrich S. Leupold, Waterloo, ON, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1976, 25-58. R, Paul, Temps et récit II, Paris, Seuil, 1984. “Rite of Anointing and Pastoral Care of the Sick,” in The Rites of the Catholic Church, Vol. 1, New York, NY, Pueblo, 1976. R, Vernon K., “Form Criticism (NT),” in David Noel F (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 2, New York, NY, Doubleday, 1992, 841-844. R, Aymon Marie, “Lectures bibliques et mystère du salut,” in MD  99 (1969) 7-27. —, “Qu’est-ce que le mystère pascal?” La Maison-Dieu 67 (1961) 5-22. —, “Toute la messe proclame la parole de Dieu,” in Parole de Dieu et liturgie (LO, 25), Paris, Cerf, 1958, 127-158.



217

R, Marie-Josèphe, “Les évangiles dans le lectionnaire du dimanche,” in Quatre Fleuves 21-22 (1985) 95-107. R, Willy, “Origine et signification de la célébration de dimanche dans le christianisme primitif,” in La Maison-Dieu 148 (1981) 103-122. —, “Remarques sur le mystère pascal. Réponse à l’exposé de Mme I. Pahl,” in La Maison-Dieu 204 (1995/4) 71-82. —, Sunday: The History of the Day of Rest and Worship in the Earliest Centuries of the Christian Church, trans. by Andrew Alexander Kenny G, London, SCM, 1968. R, Charles E., “What Is an Epidemic?  in Historical Perspective,” in Living with aids: Part II, in Daedalus 118 (1989) 1-17. R, Philippe, “Les Pères. Signification du dimanche,” in Introduction, Assemblées du Seigneur (1ère série), Bruges, Biblica, 1962, 43-54. R, Olivier, “Lecture et présence de l’Apôtre à la liturgie de la messe,” in La Maison-Dieu 62 (1960) 69-78. R, Gerard A. M., “La célébration de l’Eucharistie dans l’Église primitive,” in Questions liturgiques 74 (1993) 89-112. —, “e Quartodeciman Passover and the Jewish Pesach,” in Questions liturgiques 77 (1996) 152-173. R, Marie-Laure, “‘Je’ Is ‘Un Autre’: Fiction, Quotation, and the Performative Analysis,” in Poetics Today 2 (1981) 127-155. S, James A., “Canon and Calendar: An Alternative Lectionary Proposal,” in Dieter T. H (ed.), Social Themes of the Christian Year: A Commentary on the Lectionary, Philadelphia, Geneva Press, 1983, 258-260. S, Mary, “Preaching: Word of God, Word of Ecclesial Faith,” in Celebrate! 32/4 (July-August 1993) 23-26. S, Arthur, “: e Social Dimension,” in Christine O – William P. Z (eds.), Perspectives on aids: Ethical and Social Issues, Toronto – Oxford – New York, Oxford University Press, 1991, 1-12. S, Edward, Christ the Sacrament of Encounter with God, London, Sheed & Ward, 1963. S, Eileen, “Some Criteria for the Choice of Scripture Texts in the Roman Lectionary,” in Peter C. F – James H. S (eds.), Shaping English Liturgy: Studies in Honor of Archbishop Denis Hurley, Washington, DC, Pastoral Press, 385-404. S, Mark, in Barbara S – Anne Y. K (eds.), Called to Participate: Theological, Ritual, and Social Perspectives, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2006. —, “For the Glory of God: e Scrutiny for the Fih Sunday of Lent,” in Catechumenate 10/1 (1988) 40-48. —, “e Narrative Quality of Christian Liturgy,” in Chicago Studies 21 (1982) 73-84. S, Donald, The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew (PS, 1), Wilmington, DE, Michael Glazier, 1985. —, The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (PS, 2), Wilmington, DE, Michael Glazier, 1984. S, Earl E. – Ronald H. S (eds.), aids and the Church, Philadelphia, PA, Westminster, 1987. S, William, The Word in Worship: Preaching in a Liturgical Context, Nashville, TN, Abingdon, 1981.

218



S, Gerard S., “e Bible as the Book of the Church,” in Worship 60 (1986) 9-21. —, “e Hebrew Scriptures Apart from eir Fulfilment in Christ,” in Liturgy 90 21/7 (October 1990) 9-11. —, “e Independent Second Readings and the Psalter,” in Liturgy 90 22/1 (January 1991) 8-10, 13. —, “Is Church Teaching Neglected When the Lectionary is Preached?” in Worship 61 (1987) 126-140. —, “e Lectionary as a Context for Interpretation,” in Interpretation 31 (1977) 131-138. —, “e Plan of the Lectionary,” in Horace T. A, Jr. (ed.), The Reader as Minister, Washington, DC, e Liturgical Conference, 1980, 37-43. —, “Richer Fare for God’s People,” in Liturgy 90 21/5 (July 1990) 8-10. —, “Some Suggestions for a Biblical ree-Year Lectionary,” in Worship 63 (1989) 525-528. —, “A Treasure-House of Images,” in Liturgy 90 21/6 (August-September 1990) 7-9, 15. S, John, Mortal Fear: Meditations on Death and aids, Cambridge, MA, Cowley Publications, 1987. S, Manlio, “Célébration,” in Domenico S – Achille M. T (eds.), Dictionnaire encyclopédique de la liturgie, Vol. 1, adaptation française sous la direction d’Henri D, Turnhout, Brepols – Montréal, Sciences et culture, 2002, 157-169. S, Pietro, “Mystère pascal,” in Domenico S – Achille M. T (eds.), Dictionnaire encyclopédique de la liturgie, Vol. 2, adaptation française sous la direction d’Henri D, Turnhout, Brepols – Montréal, Sciences et culture, 2002, 69-84. S, Jean-Louis, “Destin du mystère pascal dans la christologie,” in La Maison-Dieu 240 (2004) 59-87. S, Robert H., “Redaction Criticism, New Testament,” in David Noel F (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 5, New York, Doubleday, 1992, 647-650. —, The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction, Grand Rapids, MI, Baker, 1987. S, Meir, “Epilogue: How (Not) to Advance toward the Narrative Mind,” in Geert B – Jeroen V (eds.), Cognitive Poetics: Goals, Gaps and Gains, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2009, 455-532. —, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press, 1985. —, “Point of View and the Indirections of Direct Speech,” in Language and Style 15 (1982) 67-117. —, “Proteus in Quotation-Land,” in Poetics Today 3 (1982) 107-156. S, David A., “Narrative Signification and the Paschal Mystery: Liturgy, Participation, and Hermeneutics,” in Questions liturgiques 96 (2015) 41-63. S, Stanley K., “Letters. Greek and Latin Letters,” in David Noel F (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictonary, Vol. 4, New York – London – Toronto – Sydney – Auckland, Doubleday, 1992, 290-293. S, Richard W., “Taking Place/Taking Up Space,” in Holly E. H – Philip R-J (eds.), The Bible in Ancient and Modern Media: Story and Performance (BPCS, 1), Eugene, OR, Cascade Books, 2009, 129-141.



219

T, Robert, “e Liturgical Year: Studies, Prospects, Reflections,” in Worship 55 (1981) 2-23. —, “What Does Liturgy Do? Toward a Soteriology of Liturgical Celebration: Some eses,” in Worship 66 (1992) 129-144. T, omas, “Healing: Sacrament or Charism?” in Worship 46 (1972) 518527. T, Josaphat C., Apprehension of Jesus in the Gospel of John (WUNT, 2. Reihe, 399), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2015. T, Norman P. (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. Vol. 2: Trent to Vatican II, London, Sheed & Ward – Washington, DC, Georgetown University Press, 1990. T, Evangelos, “La phénoménologie des relations entre l’Église et la liturgie,” in Achille M. T – Alessandro P (eds.), L’Église dans la liturgie: Conférences Saint-Serge, XXVIe semaine d’études liturgiques, Paris, 26-29 juin, 1979, Roma, Edizioni Liturgiche, 1980, 275-293. T, Jr., Burton H. (ed.), Gospel Parallels: A Synopsis of the First Three Gospels, New York, NY, Nelson, 1979. T, Jean-Marie-Roger, “Le lectionnaire dominical: Proclamation de la Parole et événement sacramentel,” in Lectionnaire dominical. Assemblées de Seigneur 3 (2e série), Paris, Cerf, 1969, 83-115. T, Achille M., “Bible et Liturgie,” in Domenico S – Achille M. T (eds.), Dictionnaire encyclopédique de la liturgie, Vol. 1 (A-L), French adaptation under the direction of Henri D, Turnhout, Brepols – Montréal, Sciences et culture, 1992, 129-144. —, “‘Célébrer’ la Parole de Dieu: Lignes théologico-liturgiques,” in Achille M. T – Alessandro P (eds.), La prédication liturgique et les commentaires de la liturgie. Conférences Saint-Serge, XXXVIIIe semaine d’études liturgiques, Paris, 25-28 juin 1990 (BELS, 65), Roma, Edizioni Liturgiche, 1992, 221-246. —, “In margine alla seconda edizione dell’‘Ordo Lectionum Missae’,” in Notitiae 18 (1982) 243-280. T, Michel, “Les livres du Nouveau Testament: Deuxièmes lectures,” in La Maison-Dieu 166 (1986) 83-105. T, Vincent, “Les évangiles du lectionnaire de la Messe,” in Questions liturgique et Paroissiales 65 (1984) 213-232. —, “La lecture de l’Ancien Testament dans la liturgie rénovée,” in Questions liturgiques et paroissiales 68 (1987) 135-156. —, “Les lectures du Nouveau Testament dans la liturgie rénovée,” in Questions liturgiques/Studies in Liturgy 67 (1986) 235-251. T, Christopher M., Reading the New Testament: Methods of Interpretation, Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1987. —, “Synoptic Problem,” in David Noel F (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. VI, New York – London – Toronto – Sydney – Auckland, Doubleday, 1992, 263-270. T, Cécile, “Au cœur de la liturgie, lire les Écritures,” in La Maison-Dieu 190 (1992) 75-90. U, Christoph, “Du ‘fleuve à cent voix’ à la ‘Parole de Dieu’,” in Martin K – Bruno B – Arnaud J-L (eds.), Présence et rôle de la Bible dans la liturgie, Fribourg, Academic Press, 2006, 295-315.

220



“Universal Norms on the Liturgical Year and the General Roman Calendar,” Liturgy Documents, Vol. 1: Essentials for Parish Worship, Chicago, IL, Liturgy Training Publications, 2012, 208-220. V O, Evert H., The Bible and Liturgy, trans. John V, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1991. V, A. Oliver, “Eros and Thanatos,” in Robert H. I (ed.), The Gospel Imperative in the Midst of aids: Towards a Prophetic Pastoral Theology, Wilton, CT, Morehouse, 1989, 107-116. V, Michael, Reading the Bible at the Eucharist (GWS, 94), Bramcote, Nottingham, UK, Grove Books Ltd., 1986. Vatican II: The Basic Sixteen Documents, Austin F (ed.), Northport, NY, Costello – Dublin, Dominican Publications, 1996. V, Ambroos, “L’année liturgique: de l’histoire à la théologie,” in Questions liturgiques/Studies in Liturgy 74/1 (1993) 5-16. —, “Le caractère pascal du sacrement des malades. L’exégèse de Jacques 5, 14-15 et le nouveau rituel du sacrement des malades,” in Achille M. T – Alessandro P (eds.), La maladie et la mort du chrétien dans la liturgie. Conférences Saint-Serge, XXIe Semaine d’études liturgiques, Roma, Edizioni Liturgiche, 1975, 361-379. —, “Le pourquoi et le comment du Service de la Parole,” in Questions liturgiques 66 (1985) 203-217. —, “Le service de la Parole,” in Questions liturgiques 56 (1975) 225-256. V, Cyrille, Introduction aux sources de l’histoire du culte chrétien au Moyen Âge, Spoleto, Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 1964. V, Walter, “Job a parlé correctement. Une approche structurale du livre de Job,” in Nouvelle Revue Théologique 102 (1980) 835-852. V, Herbert, “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy,” in Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, Vol. 1, trans. by Lalit A – Kevin S – Richard S, New York, NY, Herder and Herder, 1967, 7-87. W, James A., The Ministry of Lectors, 2nd edition (MS), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2004. W, Richard F., “A New Look at the Lector’s Art,” in Liturgy 8/3 (1990) 33-38. W, Robert, “e Homily Fulfilled in Our Hearing,” in Worship 65 (1991) 27-37. “Week,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week. Accessed October 27, 2020. W, Herman A. J., “Étude liturgique: L’histoire de l’octave the Pâques,” in Assemblées du Seigneur 43 (1ère série), Bruges, Biblica, 1964, 7-15. W, Gordon, “e eology of Unclean Food,” in Evangelical Quarterly 53 (1981) 6-15. W, Fritz, “An Annotated Bibliography on the ree-year Lectionaries. Part I: e Roman Catholic Lectionary,” in Studia Liturgica 23 (1993) 223-244. —, Scripture and Memory: The Ecumenical Hermeneutic of the Three-Year Lectionaries, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1997. W, John L., “Saint Paul and the Apostolic Letter Tradition,” in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 45 (1983) 433-444. W, Claude, “L’Ancien Testament dans le lectionnaire dominical,” in La Maison-Dieu 166 (1986) 47-60. —, “L’Élaboration du Lectionnaire Dominical et la Consultation de 1967,” in La Maison-Dieu 166 (1986) 37-46.



221

—, “Genèse et évaluation du lectionnaire dominical,” in La Maison-Dieu 171 (1987) 111-118. —, “Présentation du nouveau lectionnaire,” in La Maison-Deiu 99 (1969) 28-49 —, “e Roman Catholic Eucharistic Lectionary,” in Studia Liturgica 21 (1991) 2-13. W, John T., The Bitterness of Job: A Philosophical Reading, Ann Arbor, MI, University of Michigan Press, 1989. W, Rowan, “e Bible Today: Reading & Hearing,” in Holy Living: The Christian Tradition for Today, London – Oxford – New York – New Delhi – Sydney, BloomsburyContinuum, 2017, 29-49. —, “e Discipline of Scripture,” in On Christian Theology (CCT), Oxford, UK – Malden, MA, Blackwell, 2000, 44-59. W, Ben, III, Paul’s Narrative Thought World: The Tapestry of Tragedy and Triumph, Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 1994. W, James (ed.), Embracing the Chaos: Theological Responses to aids, London, SPCK, 1990. W, N. omas, The New Testament and the People of God, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1992, 405-407. Ż, Andrzej, “Le prime e le seconde letture del Lezionario riveduto alla luce del Concilio Vaticano II,” in Damásio M (ed.), Sacrificium et Canticum Laudis: Parola, Eucaristia, Liturgia delle Ore, Vita della Chiesa. Miscellanea liturgica offerta al prof. Manlio Sodi in occasione del suo 70e genetaliaco, Citta del Vaticano, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2015, 47-68 Z, Eviatar, The Seven Day Circle: The History and Meaning of the Week, Chicago, IL – London, UK, University of Chicago Press, 1985. Z, Joyce Ann, “e Homily as Proclamation,” in Liturgical Ministry 1 (1992) 10-16.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A collection of soundings on the Lectionary produced over the span of some four decades does not materialize in a vacuum. Rather, many people were influential over the years represented in this volume, some more immediately, others more remotely. I take this opportunity to list here the more notable and noteworthy. I am grateful to my former colleague William Marrevee for his unflagging encouragement throughout, and in particular for introducing me in the late 1980s to the then newly-published book by Elmar Nübold, Entstehung und Bewertung der neuen Perikopenordnung des Römischen Ritus für die Meßfeier an Sonnund Festtagen, Paderborn: Bonifatius-Druckerei, 1986 [Development and Assessment of the New Order of Readings of the Roman Rite for the Celebration of Sundays and Feast Days], an item that proved seminal in fostering my interest in the Sunday Lectionary. I next extend my thanks to the many students in the Faculty of eology at Saint Paul University who participated in my courses on the Sunday Lectionary. In a yet wider compass, I am reminded as well of the many parishes and dioceses that solicited me to present various aspects of my research. e editors and/ or colleagues mentioned in the initial footnotes of chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 who invited me to produce the studies found therein provided valued stimulus toward the discipline of committing a good amount of my research to writing. Finally, and this in the clichéd lastbut-not-least category – reserved for last because especially heartfelt – I  am deeply grateful to the people of Saint Basil Church in Ottawa, Canada, where I have been graced with the opportunity to preach from the Sunday Lectionary. May they accept my dedicating this book to them as a modest expression of my appreciation.

INDICES

SUBJECT INDEX , see Chap. 12 as illness, 179 as epidemic, 179-181 as disease, 177-178 and hope, 186-188 and the human condition, 175, 178 Anointing of the Sick, see under Sacraments Bible and Liturgy, see esp. Chap. 1 Calendar, 20, 30, 38, 39, 40, 77, 92, 93, 95, 97, 135, 136, 142, 196, 197 Christ, Christocentric, 5, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 54, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 83, 85, 93, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 127, 128, 130, 131, 132, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 166, 170, 189, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 200 Church(es), 1, 34, 38, 87, 116, 117, 133, 143 as (worshipping) assembly, 5, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 31, 33, 38, 46, 78, 79, 80, 83, 84, 94, 103, 105, 112, 115, 117, 123, 129, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 157, 162, 193, 194, 195, 199, 200, 201, 202 as (worshipping) community, 13, 24, 84, 105 Church Documents (see also Vatican II) Introduction to Lectionary for Mass (ILM), 53, 71, 75, 79, 92, 99, 102, 106, 107, 108, 109, 116 Fulfilled in Your Hearing (FIYH), 112 Homiletic Directory, 113, 117 Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (Pontifical Biblical Commission), 84

Universal Norms on the Liturgical Year and the General Roman Calendar (UNLY), 20, 77, 92, 97, 135, 197 Sacrum Unctionem Infirmorum, 173 Context (contextualizing) in liturgy, 2, 13, 15, 16, 18, 23, 31, 34, 38, 39, 42, 45, 46, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 99, 101, 104, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 128, 129, 133, 145, 147 n. 21, 183, 193, 195, 196 decontextualization, 76, 79, 81, 84, 128, 143 recontextualization, 23, 81, 83, 84, 128, 134, 143 in narrative, 146, 147, 148, 152, 159, 162, 202 Dei Verbum (Constitution of Divine Revelation), see under Vatican II Direct Reported Speech (quotation) and liturgy, see Chap. 9; 141, 143, 153-157 formal features, 144-146 functional features, 147-149 and John’s Gospel, 149-153 Eucharist, see under Sacraments Eucharistic prayer(s), 14, 114, 143 Celebration(s), 16, 17, 33, 38, 45, 88, 99, 119, 128, 133, 137, 138, 144, 155, 195, 196 Feasts (see also Liturgical Seasons) Ascension, 19, 24, 33, 39, 76, 96, 99, 100, 107, 114, 125, 128, 138, 193, 195 Christmas, 24, 33, 54, 90, 100, 104, 107, 124, 136, 167 Easter (Sunday), 20, 23, 24, 54, 77, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 97, 100, 101, 107, 126, 135, 165 Pentecost, 41, 54, 88, 90, 91, 100, 105, 107, 126 Christ the King, 104

228

 

Fulfilled in Your Hearing (FIYH), see under Church Documents Gospel(s), see Scripture Index John, 18, 21, 34, 47, 78, 141, 144, 146, 148, 149, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157 Last Supper Discourse, 14, 25, 95, 141, 146, 149, 153, 155 Synoptic Gospels, 18, 34, 41, 42, 77, 79, 90, 165 Infancy Narrative, 58, 156 Jesus’ Public Ministry, 25, 41, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 71, 72, 73 “L” Source, 57, 58, 59, 72, see Chap. 11 “M” Source, 57, 58, 59, 72 “Q” Source, 57, 58, 59, 72 Triple Tradition, 57, 58, 62, 73, 165 Gospel (see also under readings) Formation, 56, 72, 76, 81, 83, 84 Form Criticism (Sitz im Leben) 24, 81, 82 Redaction Criticism, 24, 81, 82, 83 Homiletic Directory, see under Church Documents Homily, Preaching, 14, 31, 41, 43, 53, 79, 80, 88, 103, 112, 113, 117; see Chap. 13 Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, see under Church Documents Introduction to Lectionary for Mass (ILM), see under Church Documents Jesus, see under Christ Lectionary, see Chap. 2 anamnetic, 31, 99, 114, 116, 117, 133 Christocentric, 17, 20, 22, 35, 36 definition, 16, 29; see Chap. 2 eucharistic, 1, 16, 17, 30, 31, 33, 38, 45, 88, 99, 114, 127, 128, 133, 137, 138, 144, 170, 195, 196 kerygmatic, 99, 114, 170, 182 Ordo Lectionum Missae (OLM), 1, 2, 31, 33, 42, 43, 87, 100, 101

one-Year, 101, 104, 121 and Paschal Mystery, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 38-40, 45-49, 76-78. 90, 102, 108, 111-116, 182, 189; Chaps. 8 and 13 pericopic, 123-170 Revised Common Lectionary (RCL), 1, 2, 3, 29, 31, 87 Sunday Lectionary, 1, 2, 3, 13, 16, 18, 87, 90, 159, 195, 196; Chaps. 3, 4, 8, 11 three-year cycle, 18, 31, 34, 40, 42, 53, 55, 57, 58, 73, 75, 77, 104, 119, 120, 121, 159, 165, 166, 168, 169 Year A (Matthew), 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 31, 34, 47, 48, 49, 53, 54, 59, 60-64, 71, 72, 77, 78, 79-80, 90, 91, 108, 124, 126, 127, 134, 135, 136, 165 Year B (Mark), 19, 21, 23, 24, 31, 47, 53, 54, 64-67, 71, 72, 77, 90, 91, 108, 124, 126, 127, 136, 165 Year C (Luke), 18, 21, 23, 24, 51, 34, 47, 53, 54, 59, 67-71, 72, 77, 90, 91, 108, 124, 126, 127, 134, 136, 159, 165 Lector, 139, 142, 154, 155, 157, 163; see Chap. 14 Letters, Apostolic, New Testament, 17, 24, 25, 42, 45; see Chaps. 7 and 8 Liturgical Seasons, 19, 21, 40, 45, 48, 90, 98, 134, 196 Festal Seasons, 20-24, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 54, 76-79, 81, 84, 90-92, 96, 97, 98, 100, 107, 123, 124, 135, 136, 166, 167 Advent, 20, 24, 33, 35, 40, 41, 45, 48, 54, 60, 61, 64, 67, 71, 78, 88, 90, 91, 97, 100, 107, 123, 124, 125, 165, 166, 167, 196 Christmas, 20, 24, 35, 40, 41, 45, 54, 77, 78, 88, 90, 91, 97, 107, 123, 124, 166, 167 Lent, 18, 19, 20-24, 34, 35, 40, 41, 44, 45, 47, 48, 54, 77-79, 88, 90, 97, 100, 106, 108, 123, 124, 135, 136, 137, 166, 167, 196 Easter, 18, 20, 24, 34, 35, 40, 42, 45, 47, 54, 77, 78, 90, 91, 97, 100, 108, 123, 125, 166, 167

  Easter Triduum, 21, 78, 124, 125 Ordinary Time, 20, 24, 25, 35, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 106, 108, 123, 125-127, 134, 159, 167; see Chaps. 4 and 6 Liturgical Year, 18-19, 20, 31, 37, 39, 54, 77, 92, 93, 97, 123, 128, 135, 165, 166, 197 Liturgy, see also Sacraments as action, 15 and Bible, see Chap. 1 as Christocentric, 15-16 creates new meaning, 25-27 Lord’s Day, see Sunday of the Word, 48, 99, 102, 104, 106, 112-115, 117, 119, 129, 133, 138, 142, 193, 200 and pastoral orientation, 19-20 as performance, see Chap. 9 as quotation and speech event, see Chap. 9 and Sunday Eucharist, 17-18 Narrator, 109, 129, 145, 147, 153, 154, 155, 157 Nehemiah, see Chap. 8 Ordo Lectionum Missae (OLM), see under Lectionary Paschal candle, 18, 46 (paschal mystery/mystery of Christ) and liturgy, passim, see esp. Chap. 13 Triduum, see under Seasons, Easter Triduum Vigil, see under Vigil, Easter Pauline Letters genre, 109-111, 116, 120, 129-130, 132, 137 as second readings, see Chaps. 7 and 8 in the Sunday Lectionary, see Chap. 8 People of God, 22, 110, 112, 116, 163 Principles and Patterns in the Lectionary, see Chap. 3 horizontal (thematic groupings), 20, 21, 22, 24, 44, 88-92, 107, 108, 109

229

lectio continua, 24, 30, 31, 39, 43, 44, 54, 77, 100, 123, 167 lectio selecta, 30, 38, 43, 107, 123, 166 reading selection, 2, 3, 16, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 29, 30, 33, 34, 39, 41, 42, 43, 47, 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 71, 73, 75, 76, 77, 88, 89, 90, 92, 98, 100, 103, 105, 107, 120, 123, 124, 127, 128, 159 166, 167, 181, 182, 183, 186, 188 reading distribution, 2, 3, 16, 19, 20, 24, 29, 30, 33, 39, 43, 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 88, 89, 90, 92, 98, 100, 107, 123, 127 semicontinuous, 20, 22, 24, 35, 44, 53, 54, 55, 77, 79, 88, 89, 91, 98, 100, 106, 107, 108, 109, 123, 125, 127, 143, 167 vertical (thematic correspondence), 23-23, 24, 45, 88, 89, 90-92, 101, 103, 106-108, 134, 136 Proclamation, 5, 13, 16, 35, 45, 46, 50, 53, 75, 85, 104, 112, 115, 117, 120 135, 159, 161, 162, 163, 196; see Chaps. 9 and 14 Readings functions of the three readings, 18, 42, 102, 111 and n. 16, 133, 195196 omission of first or second readings, 88, 196-197 three readings per Sunday and Solemnity, 18, 22, 24, 31, 34, 35, 42-46, 54, 75, 88, 89, 90, 91, 101, 102, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 113, 119, 123, 133, 195, 197 Revised Common Lectionary (RCL), see under Lectionary Sacraments Anointing of the Sick, see Chap. 12 Baptism, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 39, 40, 41, 46, 47, 54, 59, 77, 78, 90, 108, 110, 114, 128, 136, 138, 165, 195, 196 Church as sacrament, 115 Christ as sacrament, 115

230

 

Eucharist (Lord’s Supper), 11, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 26, 34, 35, 38, 42, 45, 78, 93, 94, 99, 100, 113, 114, 115, 117, 138, 139, 162, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 200 Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC), see under Vatican II Sacrum Unctionem Infirmorum, see under Church Documents Salvation History, 14, 18, 19, 22, 25, 26, 36, 44, 49, 84, 187 Scrutinies, 21, 47, 78 Speech-event, liturgy as, see Chap. 9 Sunday, passim; see esp. Chaps. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 Synagogue, 29, 30, 31, 34, 123, 138, 143 Traditional “Orthodoxies” (about God), 182-186 Universal Norms on the Liturgical Year and the General Roman Calendar

(UNLY), see under Church Documents. Vatican II Dei Verbum (DV), 5, 43, 116 Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC), 5, 14, 15, 17, 40, 76, 92, 97, 98, 113, 114, 120 Presbyterorum Ordinis (PO), 99 Consilium, 19, 103, 105 Coetus XI, 19, 34, 36, 40, 41, 42, 49, 57, 73 Vigil, Easter, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 40, 46, 48, 78, 111, 136, 138, 194 Voice for lector, see Chap. 14 in liturgical proclamation, 153-156 Week, as foundational, see Chap. 6 Worship, 16, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 38, 75, 80, 87, 94, 95, 99, 100, 102, 114, 115, 119, 127, 161, 170

INDEX OF NAMES A A, Peter R., 212 A, Lalit, 220 A, Kurt, 56 A, Jr., Horace T., 34, 39, 116, 128, 202, 203, 216, 218 A, Brenda, 176, 177, 180, 203, 213, 215 A, Harold W., 119, 203 A, Matias, 93, 94, 203 B B, Peter, 185, 203 B, Lloyd R, 203 B, Egbert J., 154, 203 B, John F., 13, 113, 203 B, Guilherme (William), 39, 93, 214 B, Alan, 57, 204 B, David L., 204 B, John G., 177 B, Richard J., 93, 94, 204 B, Richard, 141, 142, 143, 144, 147, 157, 204 B, Paul, 13, 204 B, François, 204 B, E. Lovell, 176, 204 B, Hansjakob, 89, 204 B, Philippe, 204 B, Jan Christiaan, 130, 132, 204 B, Pierre, 56, 204 B’ C  P L  M, 112, 204 B, Yves-Marie, 117, 136, 143, 144, 204 B, Regina A., 1, 87, 102, 116, 205 B, Marie-Émile, 56, 204 B, Pierre, 187, 205 B, Normand, 4, 5, 20, 29, 90, 102, 111, 116, 154, 202, 205 B, Rudolf, 43, 105, 205 B, Daniel J., 95, 205 B, Bernard, 93, 205

B, David, 115, 216 B, Louis, 205 B, Peter C., 38, 39, 205 B-C, Alla, 154, 156, 200, 205 B, Paul, 31, 99, 114, 205 B, Carlo, 117, 136, 143, 204, 216 B, Jo-Ann A., 150, 205 B, Hélène, 205 B, Geert, 147, 218 B, Raymond E., 57, 81, 82, 119, 120, 205, 214 B, Annibale, 1, 23, 36, 45, 53, 55, 75, 87, 103, 105, 200, 205, 211, 214 B, Bruno, 88, 111, 206, 212, 216, 220 C C, Robert, 205 C, Fernand, 93, 101, 105, 139, 205, 208, 209, 212 C, Michael, 177, 205 C, Alice, 202, 206 C C  C B, 30, 119, 142, 206 C, Raniero, 127, 206 C, Romano, 208 C, Louis-Marie, 14, 27, 46, 84, 115, 116, 139, 156, 206 C, Rémi, 113, 206 C, Anscar J., 93, 203, 207 C, Andrew D., 13, 206 C, Matthieu, 206 C, Mary, 189, 206 C, Raymond F., 119, 206 C, Antoine, 145, 147, 206 C  D W   D   S, 102, 113, 206 C, Martin, 116, 206 C  C T, 1, 7, 30, 38, 39, 87, 100, 102, 103, 206, 209

232

  

C, Robert B., 155, 207 C, Inge B., 180, 206 C, Florian, 154, 206 C, Louis William, 184, 206 C, Michael A., 174, 207 C, Dermot, 183, 184, 207 C, Walter H., 173, 207 D D, Irénée Henri, 14, 15, 40, 54, 76, 89, 97, 142, 207, 211 D, Jean, 93, 96, 207 D B, Guido, 207 D C, Paul, 128, 207 D Z, Renato, 207 D, Lucien, 36, 103, 207 D, Henri, 40, 46, 76, 133, 213, 218, 219 D, Alan, 37, 207 D, Joanna, 156, 207 D, William G., 81, 207 D, William A., 184, 207 D, Michael, 115, 216 D, Dennis M., 184, 207 D, Jeremy, 113, 207 D, Kristina, 155, 207 D, Martin, 116, 203 D, Jacalyn, 176, 209 D, Robert D., 47, 208 D, Henri, 93, 94, 96, 208 E E, Christopher F., 212 F F, Paul, 179, 185, 208 F, William R., 3, 13, 136, 208 F, Tommaso, 208 F, Gordon D., 132, 208 F, Peter E., 173, 206, 207, 209 F, Peter C., 128, 203, 217 F, Joseph A., 57, 81, 208, 214 F, John H., 208 F, Austin, 43, 116, 120, 208, 220 F, Gaston, 13, 34, 36, 208 F, Richard, 115, 216 F, Ansgar, 87, 100, 105, 204, 208, 214

F, David Noel, 56, 81, 82, 110, 216, 218, 219 F, Simone, 55, 208 F, Robert W., 56, 208 G G, Hans-Georg, 153, 208 G, Jean, 36, 93, 208 G, Robert, 103, 211 G, Bernadette, 4, 75, 209 G, Albert, 114, 209 G, M. Jennifer, 174, 179, 187, 209 G, Gaston, 101, 105, 139, 209 G, Andrew Alexander Kenny, 93, 211, 217 G, Fred Kimball, 88, 209 G, William A., 143, 156, 209 G, Stephen Richard, 176, 180, 209, 211 G, Donald, 209 G, M D., 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 185, 209 G, Francis, 209 G, Paul-Marie, 43, 105, 209 G, Pierre-Marie, 13, 127, 209 H H, Norman C., 183, 209 H, David G., 175, 213 H, André, 209 H, Anthony Ernest, 187, 210 H, Ivan, 59, 210 H, H E., 156, 219 H, David, 142, 144, 151, 204, 210, 211 H, René-Jean, 210 H, Dieter T., 39, 203, 210, 217 H, Jean, 96, 210 H, Mary Catherine, 113, 115, 210 H, Elizabeth, 45, 88, 123, 136, 210 H, David R., 210 H, Helmut, 99, 113, 210 H, Leslie, 184, 210 H, Albert, 142, 210 H, Kathleen, 210 H, Peter, 114, 209 H, Clark, 210

   I I, Robert H., 176, 189, 207, 210, 213, 220 I, Kevin W., 34, 46, 49, 84, 85, 116, 137, 210 I, Wolfgang, 153, 210 J J, Manfred, 142, 144, 204, 210 J, Paul, 113, 115, 210 J, Joseph, 13, 105, 210 J P II, 93, 96, 101, 113, 211 J, Maxwell E., 211 J-L, Arnaud, 88, 111, 206, 212, 216, 220 J, Klaus-Peter, 211 J, Pierre, 1, 23, 36, 44, 45, 53, 54, 75, 87, 89, 93, 94, 96, 103, 200, 211, 214 J, Joseph A., 96, 123, 138, 211 J M, 17, 42, 138, 211 K K, Reiner, 1, 23, 45, 53, 75, 87, 103, 200, 211, 214 K, Emma, 151, 211 K, Aidan, 50, 142, 211 K, Howard Clark, 56, 212 K, Ralph A., 13, 112, 211 K, Kenneth, 176, 177, 179, 211 K, George A., 129, 211 K, Edward, 174, 189, 212 K, Ann K., 177, 204 K, Arthur, 179, 185, 208 K, Martin, 88, 111, 206, 212, 216, 220 K, Benedikt, 114, 212 K, omas A., 113, 212 K, Werner Georg, 56, 212 K, Simon Peter, 212 L L, John A., 212 L, Jan, 187, 212 L, Gordon W., 13, 212 L, John D., 212 L, Dominique, 212 L, Henri, 93, 101, 105, 139, 205, 208, 209, 212

233

L, Bernard J., 174, 207, 212 L, Lambert, 173, 212 L, Eugene E., 131, 212 L, Emil J., 212 L, Phyllis C., 176, 178, 213 L, Jean, 183, 213 L, Miriam, 156, 209 L, J. A. (Bobby), 155, 213 L, Anthony, 184, 213 L, David, 132, 208 L, Abbyann, 175, 213 M M, ierry, 47, 213 M, Sara, 185, 213 M, Tullio, 154, 213 M, Donald G., 153, 208 M, Salvatore, 15, 40, 213 M, Aimé-Georges, 14, 40, 50, 54, 89, 104, 207, 211, 213 M, Francis, 116, 213 M, Wallace, 145, 146, 213 M, Frank J., 119, 213 M, Hansjörg auf der, 93, 213 M, Russell C., 176 M, Russell C., 209 MD, William J., 212 M, Damásio, 105, 221 M, Wayne A., 132, 213 M, John P., 187, 213 M, Reinhard, 99, 110, 128, 131, 133, 138, 214 M, Cynthia L., 145, 214 M, James, 185, 214 M, Mary M., 88, 103, 214 M, James, 101, 114, 214 M, Oskar, 39, 93, 98, 214 M, Martin Jan, 30, 123, 215 M-O’C, Jerome, 129, 214 N N, Frans, 57, 214 N, Dorothy, 180, 214 N, Bebe, 179, 214 N, Nicholas, 179 N, Adrien, 1, 23, 36, 45, 49, 50, 53, 75, 87, 88, 89, 103, 200, 214 Norms Governing Liturgical Calendars, 214

234

  

Notitiae, 8, 207, 208, 219 N, Elmar, 1, 13, 36, 41, 55, 104, 105, 120, 123, 214 O O’C, Matthew J., 36, 40, 54, 55, 76, 89, 96, 105, 142, 203, 205, 207, 211, 213 O’L, omas, 101, 102, 105, 111, 116, 215 O’N, Patrick, 153, 215 O, Bernhard, 143, 214 O, Hughes Oliphant, 214 O, Walter J., 153, 155 Ordo Lectionum Missae, 1, 8, 29, 30, 31, 33, 42, 87, 89, 99, 103, 204, 215, 219 O, Christine, 180, 214, 215, 217 P P, Irmgard, 93, 94, 113, 215, 217 P, Eric, 105, 215 P, Scott V., 180, 214 P, Gottardo, 1, 23, 45, 53, 75, 87, 103, 200, 211, 214 P, Keith F., 215 P, Jean, 55, 215 P, Charles, 30, 96, 123, 215 P, Anthony, 176, 177, 215 P, Alessandro, 76, 113, 117, 128, 133, 136, 142, 143, 173, 204, 215, 216, 219, 220 P-L, Mary, 180, 206 P, Michel, 143, 215 P, Joris, 128, 215 P B C, 83, 84, 215 P, Harry, 183, 186, 189, 215 P, Charles S., 142, 215 P, David N., 110, 113, 115, 174, 187, 189, 206, 215, 216 P, Patrick, 117, 216 P-S, Marjorie, 216 Q Q, E., 216 R R, Ephraim, 216 R, Karl, 115, 216 R, Gail, 127, 201, 202, 216

R, Jack C., 202, 216 R-C, Isabelle, 135, 141, 143, 144, 147, 156, 200, 216 R, John, 16, 29, 34, 41, 82, 138, 216 R, Paul, 110, 216 R, Vernon K., 81, 216 R, Aymon-Marie, 13, 36, 39, 114, 117, 127, 217 R, Marie-Josèphe, 55, 75, 217 R, Willy, 93, 94, 95, 96, 217 R, Charles E., 176, 178, 180, 185, 217 R, Philippe, 93, 94, 217 R, Olivier, 43, 105, 139, 217 R, Gerard A. M., 93, 217 R-J, Philip, 156, 219 R, Marie-Laure, 142, 144, 145, 204, 210, 217 S S, James A., 39 S, Domenico, 15, 40, 46, 76, 133, 213, 218, 219 S, Mary, 45, 217 S, Arthur, 180, 185, 217 S, James H., 217 S, James M., 128, 203 S, Edward, 115, 217 S, Erich R. W., 41, 82, 216 S, Barbara, 114, 217 S, Mark, 47, 114, 217 S, Donald, 188, 217 S, Earl E., 184, 185, 187, 218 S, Lancelot, 43, 105, 209 S, William, 19, 39, 76, 88, 99, 114, 127, 128, 138, 195, 218 S, Gerard S., 13, 26, 34, 37, 43, 44, 46, 49, 218 S, Kevin, 220 S, John, 189, 190, 218 S, Manlio, 13, 105, 218, 221 S, omas, 114, 209 S, Pietro, 218 S, Jean-Louis, 116, 128, 138, 206, 218 S, Robert H., 82, 218 S, Meir, 144, 145, 147, 148, 151, 218 S, David A., 112, 218

  

235

S, Stanley K., 110, 219 S, Richard, 220 S, Ronald H., 184, 185, 187, 218 S, Romain, 103, 211 S, Richard W., 156, 219 S, Harry, 30, 123, 215

V, Michael, 13, 220 V, Ambroos, 13, 114, 116, 128, 133, 135, 138, 139, 173, 220 V, Cyrille, 94, 95, 105, 220 V, Walter, 184, 220 V, Herbert, 220 V, John, 14, 220

T T, Robert, 13, 83, 84, 113, 219 T, omas, 174, 175, 219 T, Josaphat C., 150, 219 T, Norman P., 219 T, Evangelos, 76, 219 T, Jr., Burton H., 58, 219 T, Jean-Marie-Roger, 219 T, Achille M., 13, 15, 40, 46, 50, 76, 99, 113, 116, 128, 133, 135, 137, 142, 173, 204, 213, 215, 218, 219, 220 T, Michel, 114, 120, 219 T, Vincent, 55, 73, 87, 103, 104, 109, 110, 127, 219 T, Christopher M., 56, 57, 219 T, Cécile, 220

W W, James A., 202, 220 W, Richard F., 220 W, Robert, 112, 220 W, Herman A. J., 96, 220 W, Joel, 153, 208 W, Annette, 155, 207 W, Gordon, 131, 220 W, Fritz, 13, 33, 75, 220 W, John L., 130, 221 W, Claude, 13, 34, 36, 37, 55, 221 W, John T., 183, 221 W, Rowan, 142, 156, 221 W, David P., 180, 214 W, III, Ben, 130, 221 W, Ronald D., 205 W, James, 184, 203, 210, 213, 221 W, N. omas, 130, 131, 132, 221

U U, Christoph, 111, 113, 220 V V O, Evert H., 14, 220 V, Jeroen, 147, 218 V, A. Oliver, 178, 189, 220

Z Ż, Andrzej, 105, 221 Z, Eviatar, 95, 96, 97, 221 Z, Joyce Ann, 112, 221 Z, William P., 180, 214, 215, 217

SCRIPTURE INDEX        Matt 3–25 60-64 Mark 1–13 64-67 Luke 3–21 67-71 Lucan “L” Material in the Sunday Lectionary 167-168 Pauline Letters in the Sunday Lectionary 122 124, 125, 126, 127

Second Readings in the Sunday Lectionary 124-125, 126, 127 Lists of Readings for the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick, 82, nn. 34-37

     Genesis Gen 9:8-15

22, 23, 96, 136 23

Exodus Exod 12 Exod 12:1–13:6 Exod 12:1-8, 11-14 Exod 19–24

37 26 14 25 14

Deuteronomy Deut 26:4-10 Deut 31:9-11

14 23 31

Joshua

14, 32

1 Kings 1

82, 186

2 Kings 2 Kgs 23:1-3

32 31

Ezra, see Chap. 10 Ezra 1–6 60 Nehemiah, see Chap. 10 Job Job 3:3a, 20-21a Job 7:1, 3 Job 38:1–42:6 Job 38:3

182-186 182 182 183 183

Job 40:4b Job 42:3b Job 42:7

186 86 83

Wisdom 9:13-14

184

Isaiah Isaiah 53:3 Isaiah 55:11

34, 85, 159, 187 190 85

Matthew

8, 22, 23, 31, 34, 41, 47, 48, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 71, 72 56, 58, 72 59 86 59 59 43 59 14 35 77 9-80 188

Matt 3–25 Matt 3:13-17 Matt 4:1-11 Matt 5:1-2 Matt 5:3-12 Matt 5:17 Matt 6:9-15 Matt 8:8 Matt 13:52 Matt 17:1-9 Matt 18:15–22:40 Matt 25:31-40 Mark Mark 1–13

18, 31, 34, 41, 47, 53, 56, 57, 58, 59, 77, 108, 135, 165 54, 56, 71, 72

238

 

Luke, see Chap. 11 Luke 18, 21, 31, 34, 47, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59, 71, 72, 77, 85, 90, 108 Luke 1–2 58 Luke 3–21 54, 56, 57, 58, 73 Luke 4 112, 163 Luke 4:12-21 159 Luke 4:15-21 32 Luke 4:21 85 Luke 7:6-7 14 Luke 9:51–19:27 166 Luke 11:5-13 188 Luke 12:35-41 188 Luke 22:20 43 Luke 24:13-35 17 Luke 24:13-53 166 Luke 24:27 43. 195 John

John 4 John 9 John 10 John 11 John 13:1-15 John 13–17 John 14–17 John 15:1-11

41, 57, 73,

Rom 1–4 Rom 3 Rom 4 Rom 5–8 Rom 5:12-21

189 133 190 130 133 43

1 Corinthians 1 Cor 1:22-23, 25 1 Cor 4:23-26 1 Cor 8–10 1 Cor 8:10-11 1 Cor 10:19-21 1 Cor 10:21 1 Cor 10:25 1 Cor 11 1 Cor 11:23-26 1 Cor 11:25 1 Cor 12:27 1 Cor 15:1-3a 1 Cor 15:20-28, 44-49 1 Cor 16:9 1 Cor 16:15 1 Cor 16:19

120, 122, 125, 126, 127 189 25 110, 132 111 111 132 132 26 25 43 132 135 130 133 133 133

2 Corinthians 2 Cor 3:14-16 2 Cor 5:17

120, 122 43 132

Galatians Gal 2:11-21 Gal 3 Gal 3:10-14 Gal 3:26-29 Gal 3:29 Gal 4:2 Gal 6:15 Gal 6:16

120, 122, 130 131 130 131 134 131 133 131 131

Ephesians

119, 121, 122, 131 130 131

71,

18, 21, 34, 47, 78, 141, 144, 146, 148, 149, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157 21, 22, 47, 77 21, 22, 77 91, 108 21, 22, 77 25 91 108 149-150, 152

Acts of the Apostles 18, 35, 42, 91, 105, 108, 109, 129, 130, 133, 189 Acts 13:1-3 133 Acts 13:15 32 Acts 13:27 32 Acts 15:21 32 Romans

Rom 8:17 Rom 8:19-21 Rom 8:35, 38-39 Rom 9–11 Rom 16:3 Rom 16:25-26

18, 120, 122, 124, 126, 127, 136 130 130 130 130 23, 130, 136

Eph 2 Eph 2:14-16 Philippians Phil 2:1-4 Phil 2:6-11

120, 122, 135, 137 139 130

  Phil 2:14-16 Phil 3:8-14

133 137

Colossians Col 1:15-20 Col 1:24b Col 4:16

119 130 189 129

1 essalonians 1 ess 1:7-8 1 ess 5:27

120, 122 133 129

2 essalonians

120, 122

1 Timothy 1 Tim 2:1-4

119, 122 134

2 Timothy 2 Tim 3:14-15

119, 122 135

Titus Titus 2:11-14

119, 122, 133 135

239

Philemon

120, 122

Hebrews Heb 4:15

119, 120, 125 189

James

135, 136

1 Peter 1 Peter 1:3 1 Peter 3:18-22

91, 108, 120, 125 17, 93 23

2 Peter

120

1 John

91, 108, 120

2 John

120

3 John

120

Jude

120

Revelation

14, 108, 125, 187