About Archives Contact Quotes Reading List

More Bible? Not really.

Posted on August 22nd, 2008

T
he classic argument for the contemporary “Three-Year Lectionaries” inspired by the
Second Vatican Council in the 1960’s is that they cover more of the Bible. In a post on
Cyberbrethren, Rev. Paul McCain notes that the historic Lectionary (which, I believe, is the
only lectionary authorized for use in churches of the Augsburg Confession) covers approximately
14.8% of the Bible in a single year, while the latest “Three-Year Lectionary” in use in the LCMS (as
opposed to the one used by WELS, as opposed to the one in LW, as opposed to the RCL, as opposed
to the… (so much for “catholicity”)) covers only 23.9% of the Bible over three years – much lower
than one would expect. Assuming these statistics are correct, if a single year of the “Three-Year
Lectionary” were as Scripturally rich as the historic Lectionary, we would expect the three-year
total to be 44.4%. Instead, it comes in almost 20 points shy of that mark. As McCain said,
“Interesting.”
Since that 23.9% is presented in a way that confuses the masses at the Mass (because the Epistle
reading often is thematically unrelated to the OT and Gospel), it seems the one reason to use one of
the 1960’s-inspired lectionaries is not a very good one.

Share this:

 Email  Twitter  Facebook  Print

Rela t e d

escriptive of What? Fiddlers will fiddle Forbidden Bible Verses

December 3, 2011 December 12, 2011
D
In "Liturgy" In "Theology"

April 14, 2007

In "Theology"

Categories: Liturgy

Tagged: Lectionary, Vatican II

4 Comments Esgetology 
1 Login

Sort by Best
 Recommend ⤤ Share

Join the discussion…

LOG IN WITH
OR SIGN UP WITH DISQUS ?

Name

Christopher Esget • 9 years ago −⚑

Terry,
Do you know of any good writings from a papist perspective on the development of
the new lectionary? A friend of mine recently mentioned a book by Bugnini, but I
haven't had time to track it down yet.
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Terry Maher (Past Elder) • 9 years ago − ⚑

You are quite right that the new lectionary was to bring higher criticism to the
pulpits. This has an aspect, since it began in the Roman Church, that may not be
obvious to Lutherans or anyone else who was outside of the process. Since I was
unfortunately in the process, here goes.

It is not that sermons would become like the lectures one heard in The Historical
Jesus and the Christ of Faith class. Rather, it's a lex orandi lex credendi thing. In
such classes, we came to see that Scripture is a product of the Holy Spirit, but
working through the understanding of the believing community, which is now us.
And we know that the believing community's understanding, through the Holy
Spirit, grows and develops. (Newman, anyone?) Therefore we must understand
earlier expressions of the believing community's understanding to be just that, not
necessarily final or complete. So for example, "Jesus is risen" is a statement. It may
be understood as a statement of fact. It may be too a way the believing community
understands the overwhelming fact of his continuing significance for them. Either
way, one may rightly say "Jesus is risen" alongside and to-gether with someone
whose understanding is the other. The community is one, and it development of
understanding, both historically as a body and individually in its members, grows
 see more

△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Christopher Esget • 9 years ago − ⚑

Rick- I didn't expect you to reply, my friend, although I worried I might offend you.
A brief response to your thoughtful-as-ever comment:

1) The typical argument I hear, from both pastors and laymen, is that the 3-year
lectionaries offer "more Bible." It doesn't surprise me that you have better reasons.
:)

2) I imagine that your sermons faithfully exposit the nuances of the gospels as you
describe. I can't cite a source, but I recall reading some Vatican II-related
documents in seminary where the new lectionary was supposed to help bring higher
criticism into the pulpits through the annual focus on a single gospel. In other
words, I'm sure you are using it faithfully - but I have long harbored the suspicion
that the whole enterprise was the work of the devil, intended to create doubt about
the inspiration of Holy Scripture.

3) I have come to reject Luther's argument about the selection of Epistle readings
needing to be reformed. I think he was reacting against the legalism and works-
righteousness of medieval Roman Catholicism. I am far more concerned with
antinomianism, which is the dirty little secret of LCMS "confessional" preaching.
For that reason (among others), I always remain with the historic epistle reading for
the Sunday.

4) In fairness, I haven't "lived" with a 3-year lectionary since my second year in the
parish - but I recall a deep level of frustration regarding the epistles that I have
never experienced with the historic lectionary. However, I will grant you that at
times the historic epistles are not as well-paired as they could be.

Finally (and this is by no means tongue-in-cheek), I thank you for your thoughtful
comment on my rant which was mostly intended to be provocative.

Your friend and brother in office,

+Christopher
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Rev. Rick Stuckwisch • 9 years ago − ⚑

Personally, I've never viewed the amount of Scripture as being the best reason for
using the Three-Year Lectionary, but I'll comment on that briefly below.

Regarding the statistics that Rev. McCain posted, they are a little bit misleading. For
one thing, it should be noted that the "official" "historic" lectionary, more or less
alluded to in the Augsburg Confession, no longer included the use of the Old
Testament at Mass. The addition of Old Testament Readings in the LSB one-year
lectionary bumps up the overall percentage considerably. Furthermore, the LSB
one year lectionary includes quite a few alternative Readings especially with
 one-year lectionary includes quite a few alternative Readings, especially with
respect to the Old Testament selections, but also in some cases with the Epistles and
Holy Gospels (though the historic lections were always preserved and included).
Also, parenthetical options were included to allow for the lengthening of the historic
lections with additional verses. All of this should be taken into account, as it
obviously increases the total number of verses.

What I don't know, is whether the data that Rev. McCain shared on his blog
includes the sanctoral cycle or not. If so, that would effect the overall data
considerably. In terms of percentages, it would add much more to the one-year
l ti th t th th l ti i th t l ti i h th
see more

△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

ALSO ON ESGETOLOGY

The greatest and most useful work Sermo Dei: St. Bartholomew 2014
1 comment • 2 years ago 1 comment • 3 years ago
Brad Grierson — Great post! Eric Phillips — So good.

The bore of the age Adapting the local lifestyle

Co n t i n u e r e a d i n g

« Faith as pure receptivity    Zoloft as ad-hominem attack »

Return to top

© Copyright Christopher S. Esget 2015

Duet Theme by The Theme Foundry