OR ALMOST TWO decades, we’ve been assured a new LECTIONARY for the United States is “forthcoming.” According to highly placed officials at the USCCB, it could be here as early as 2029. On the other hand, those in charge of liturgical matters do whatever they please at any given moment—and they answer to no one. Even a basic question like which feasts in the United States are holy days of obligation has been ensnared in an absurd quarrel between several Vatican dicasteries. When it comes to what Monsignor Skeris called “the USCCB Liturgy Club,” it’s crucial to remember that promises—even legal threats—made in the past mean absolutely nothing (as I recently attempted to explain). As an American politician once said: “That was then; this is now.” It’s a scandalous situation … but what can any of us do? Perhaps it’s best to simply accept it.
Specificity! Specificity! • When Hitler was gaining power in Germany, he promised something “new.” He promised “a departure from the past.” Hitler did deliver something new—but was it better? Foolish people assume “new” is synonymous with “better.” As I’ve explained with examples provided, in many instances the so-called ABBEY PSALMS AND CANTICLES is virtually identical to previous versions, including the NAB. I ask again: Why specifically are they revising the LECTIONARY? What are some specific items they plan to fix?
Sad + Scandalous • Certain passages in our current LECTIONARY without question need to be revised. Look at the GOSPEL for the 22nd Sunday in Ordinary Time (Year A) and you’ll see it was bowdlerized in a shameful and scandalous way by people who don’t believe human beings have a “soul.” Are these same folks the ones who will be “fixing” the LECTIONARY? Why haven’t we seen a list with specific examples that need to be fixed? I have my doubts…
“Voice Of God” Hymns • As I recently explained, it makes sense to try to “even out” translations so they can be sung. Yet seven decades after Vatican II this still hasn’t been done in the United States—so forgive my skepticism. A good example comes from yesterday, where the ALLELUIA VERSE “broke the tone” because it was jagged:
Come after me
and I will make you fishers of men.
That could easily be fixed (as it was in the Spanish LECTIONARY):
Come after me, says the Lord,
and I will make you fishers of men.
Indeed, the traditional Gregorian Chant often has “dicit Dóminus.” This helps to eliminate something many hate: viz. “Voice of God Hymns.”
Inconsistencies • Speaking of yesterday’s Mass, the Responsorial Psalm says “In the sight of the angels I will sing your praises, Lord.” Then (just a few seconds later) we hear: “In the presence of the angels I will sing your praise.” Part of the problem is that various companies own different sections of the LECTIONARY.1 Another problem is the constant and unending search for the most ‘authentic’ psalm manuscript, which becomes obsessed with each new trend.
On the other hand, such inconsistencies have always been part of the sacred liturgy (even in the Traditional Latin Mass). Just one example: “Cum Clamarem” vs. “Dum Clamarem” for the 10th Sunday after Pentecost. As Father Adrian Fortescue wrote in 1912:
The text of the Introit, as of all the chants of the Mass, is taken not from the Vulgate but from the old Itala. It will be remembered that the fact that people were accustomed to sing the Itala text at Mass was the great hindrance to the spread of the Vulgate.
At this point, the USCCB has approved so many “variant” versions of the Responsorial Psalm—which will remain as valid options so long as they are sung—only a fool would believe that this toothpaste can be placed back in the tube.
1 By the way, the sale of (mandatory) indulgenced prayers is immoral. Someday they will have to make restitution for this—which will amount to billions and billions of dollars.
