Have you followed the tennis match back and forth that has resulted since Card. Sarah’s suggestion in La Nef that the Extraordinary and the Ordinary Forms of Mass should have a coordinated Lectionary?
Some were cool about that suggestion and others were more enthusiastic. Those who were enthusiastic tend to argue that more pericopes (selections) of Scripture for Mass, as in the Novus Ordo v. the TLM, is better, mostly because there’s more. Those who are cool tend to argue that the introduction of more to the TLM isn’t automatically better and would, in fact, be disruptive in a harmful way.
You can follow this debate HERE.
Now I see that at NLM, Matthew Hazell has started a 3 part series about the creation of the Novus Ordo Lectionary. He has posted Part 1 and it is not to be missed.
Hazell holds that the integration of the Novus Ordo Lectionary into the older, traditional form of Mass would do irreparable damage to the traditional form. He is qualified to have a position about this question, inter alia he assembled the useful and instructive:
Every priest, at least, should have this useful book. It compares, side by side, the use of Scripture selections in the Novus Ordo and the TLM, going through the Bible in order. So, if you want to find out on what days a specific verse of Scripture is used in the Novus Ordo and the TLM, this is your book.
[T]he integration of one lectionary into the other form is simply impossiblewithout irreparable damage is, in my opinion, quite correct. So, if some sort of “convergence” of the two lectionaries is to happen, it cannot be on done on this basis. [1Furthermore, in this author’s opinion, it is an open question as to whether or not the specific, practical reforms mentioned in Sacrosanctum Concilium, such as the readings being intra praestitutum annorum spatium in SC 51 or the abolition of Prime in SC 89, should still be part of any potential future liturgical reform.] A comprehensive examination of their strengths and shortcomings is required—and, for the Ordinary Form lectionary in particular, this will involve a detailed critique of the rationale and work of Group 11 of the Consilium. [There’s the infamous Consilium! I am reminded of my post on BUGNINICARE!]
However, another important part of this study is the following question: what sort of reform did the Council Fathers and the periti envisage? Looking at the liturgy constitution in itself, it would seem difficult to answer this question. On the one hand, “there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing” (SC 23); on the other hand, the stated desire for some sort of multi-year cycle of readings in SC 51 is an innovation without precedent in the liturgical tradition. [Incoherent, no?]
So, in this short series, I hope to provide some of the background material necessary for a deeper examination of this question—not just from the Second Vatican Council itself, but also from the preparatory work done before the Council.
“But Father! But Father!”, some libs sputter, “How dare you post about this?!? It is clear to everyone who agrees with us that more Scripture is better, especially when all the bits we don’t like are edited out. All that stuff about sin is such a downer… a pre-Conciliar downer! You just want to disturb people with these texts from the Council and … and… facts. Why? Because YOU HATE VATICAN II!”
Is that so? Let’s learn what the Council really said, learn with the Council Fathers really initiated, before we come to conclusions.