CHART: Correspondence of lectionaries, Ordinary and Extraordinary Form

A while back I asked for help, for a way to line up the readings on Sundays between the Novus Ordo and the Usus Antiquior.

For example, I want to see whether or on which Sundays the readings for the, say, 13th Sunday after Pentecost show up in the Novus Ordo on a Sunday.

I was sent a link to something described by my correspondent as a “remarkable piece of work”.  HERE

You simply must have a look.  SAMPLE:


About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. mhazell says:

    As the compiler of the table, may I thank your correspondent for their kind words, Father!

    Please bear in mind that this table is only good for the upcoming liturgical year. As time goes on, I hope to provide tables for future years (which will be easier after the first few tables!). Ideally, I’d love to put together a website where one can look up a date and have all this information (and more) just pop up, but I lack the required coding skills at the moment.

    If anyone has any problems accessing or downloading the table, please let me know at my blog (!


  2. tgarcia2 says:

    @mhazell-NICELY DONE SIR! Thank you for putting it together!

  3. TawdryPenitent says:

    This is so great!
    For someone, as myself, who by necessity has a foot in both camps, this will be invaluable.
    Well done Sir.

  4. acardnal says:

    Thanks for your work, mhazell. I downloaded it and look forward to cycles A and C and Year 2. I was particularly interested in comparing Holy Week readings.

  5. Tony from Oz says:

    Well done, Matthew!
    Your opus does certainly demonstrate the thorough filleting that Bugnini and his boys did in reassigning the readings hither and thither! There are but a couple of points consonant between EF and OF in the example from the Sundays of Advent provided above .

    This reminds me of the comment made by Fr Cekada in his short book: The problem of the Prayers of the Modern Mass [or somesuch title] – in which Fr C, as I recall, made the comment that, only a few years prior to writing his book (in the 1990s), it would have been impossible for him to compare the translations of the orations twixt OF & EF because the computer technology did not exist to find the days to which each of the collects had been reassigned in the NOM by Bugnini’s Consilium.

    So your table sure does highlight the discontinuities!

  6. benedetta says:

    That is very cool to check out, Father!

  7. wolfeken says:

    While interesting to look at, it really does emphasize the absurd change-for-the-sake-of-change pattern of novelty used for the novus ordo.

  8. BillG says:

    Nice work, Matthew. I recently read a short book by Lauren Pristas entitled “The Collects of the Roman Missals” which compares only the Sunday collects between the 1962 and 1970/2008 Missale Romanum. It reveals contrasting views of Catholicism between the Gregorian period (and its culmination in the Missal of St. Pius V) and the post-VCII lectionary. Fr. Cekada, who was mentioned in a previous reply, also has addressed this in his “Work of Human Hands” book. Yours is a compilation (when complete with the other cycles) that should be useful in determining the contrasting view, if any, in the choice of readings (and the editing of texts chosen).

  9. RAve says:

    A friend normally says the NO, but has taken it upon himself to learn the EF so that those wishing it may have access to it (I attend NO, but am fascinated by and extremely grateful for the EF). In doing so he has grown to know and love the Mass and his priesthood more (just as Pope Benedict XVI intended). He is a preacher par excellence, so he really takes his time to prepare excellent homilies.

    I downloaded the pdfs and then sent them to him with a link to the website. I told him he would see it that the email was pure gold.

    Thank you so much, from Ave Maria, FL.

  10. mhazell says:

    Thank you all for your encouraging words – I am glad that people are finding this a useful and interesting resource!

    @Tony from Oz: Fr Cekada’s book is one I hope to pick up soon, though it seems a little difficult to track down for a good price in the UK. His point about finding the collects from the 1962 Missal in the 1970/2002 Missal is a good one, but it wasn’t quite impossible before computers. Lists of the sources of the prayers in the OF Missal were published in Notitiae in the mid-1980s. It would have been possible to use these articles alongside a work such as P. Bruylants’s Les oraisons du Missel Romain (an index of the Missal’s sources before the 1955 reforms) to see what prayers were carried over from the EF to the OF. An awful lot of work, though – work now not necessary thanks to the Corpus Orationum series published by Brepols, and computers!

    @BillG: I will second your recommendation for Lauren Pristas’s Collects of the Roman Missal – it is an excellent book, very informative, illuminating and interesting. I actually have links to a couple of her other articles in the sidebar of my blog.

  11. Gus Barbarigo says:

    If you follow the link from BillG’s name in his comment above, there’s a nifty booklet on the differences between the Mass of the 1962 Missal and the N.O. Mass; thank you, BillG, for linking to this useful, streamlined introduction to the ‘Latin Mass.’

    As to the difference in calendars, it is not only chaotic, it seems to “demote” certain saints by giving them short shrift. So much for our reverence for the Communion of Saints!

  12. Tony from Oz says:


    here is one quote for a copy of Cekada’s 1991 book ‘The Problems With the Prayers of the Modern Mass’ priced at $4!

  13. profling says:

    I have yet to hear a NO priest give a homily on either the readings or the Gospels. It was better when I attended the Eastern rite liturgies.

  14. Imrahil says:

    Dear profling,

    that’s strange. In fact hearing a sermon on the Gospels is, according to my experience, the usual thing in an NO context (on the readings is more rare). I’d give a very conservative estimate at 75%. And that includes good sermons as well as “well, don’t like it and does not refresh me but can’t say is anything wrong” sermons as well as bad sermons.

    Maybe it’s the influence of some sort of the Protestant preachers in the U.S.

Comments are closed.