Hermeneutical Reflections on the Roman and Ambrosian Lectionary: Criteria, Principles of Selection, Arrangement of the Readings, Possible Improvements

Abstract

This article examines the hermeneutical criteria underlying the various principles of selection and arrangement of the readings within the celebration of the Sunday Eucharist. Methodologically, two dimensions of the lectionary will be considered: the horizontal, referring to the arrangement of the readings throughout the liturgical year, and the vertical, focusing on the intertextuality and thematic relationships among the readings within a single celebration. A special point of reference will be the lesser-known Ambrosian Lectionary of 2008 (Milan), which may be regarded as an advancement of the Roman Ordo Lectionum Missae. In its selection and arrangement of readings, it consciously takes alternative paths to the Roman model. At the end, this article draws conclusions for liturgical hermeneutics and for a possible revision of the Roman order of readings, exploring how the advantages of the Roman and the Ambrosian lectionary could be combined.

1. Introduction

1.1. Knowledge and Understanding of the Bible Through the Liturgy

Most people encounter the Word of God in the liturgy. Through the various readings, they get familiar with the Bible’s main content, with the history of God with humanity and Israel in particular, with the life of Christ, the Apostles, and the early Church. In addition to knowledge of the Bible, the liturgy offers a path to understanding the Bible and conveys a liturgical hermeneutics of Sacred Scripture (Benini 2020; Benini 20231). The liturgy helps the faithful to appreciate the Bible not just as an important historical document, but as an actual Word that God speaks to them. The importance of such a liturgical approach to Scripture has been highlighted in the post-synodal apostolic exhortation Verbum Domini: “A faith-filled understanding of sacred Scripture must always refer back to the liturgy, in which the word of God is celebrated as a timely and living word” (Benedict XVI 2010, n. 52).2 This understanding is not given only by the readings because prayers, hymns, and actions are also permeated by Scripture (Second Vatican Council 1963, Sacrosanctum Concilium [SC] 24; Benini 2023, pp. 17–158). However, the order of readings plays a significant role in shaping the faithful’s knowledge and understanding of the Bible.

The Ordo Lectionum Missae (OLM), newly developed in the course of the liturgical reform initiated by the Second Vatican Council and promulgated in 1969 (see Turner 2022, esp. pp. 1–42; Reichert 2023), seeks—following the mandate of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (SC 35.1)—to introduce the richness of Sacred Scripture into the liturgy with greater abundance and diversity (Haunerland 2015). Primarily for pastoral reasons, the revised lectionary was intended to foster a deeper familiarity with Scripture, to enhance the understanding of the unfolding history of salvation, and to strengthen the spiritual benefit of the faithful (General Introduction to the Lectionary for Mass 1981 [GILM] 58; 60f.106; 80f.83).

Accordingly, the selection and arrangement of the biblical readings are governed by two fundamental principles: on the one hand, the lectio continua or semicontinua, which enables the continuous reading of entire biblical books; on the other hand, the lectio selecta, whereby pericopes are chosen thematically. Despite the undeniable advances made in comparison to the preconciliar lectionary, over time, the OLM has also revealed structural weaknesses. Among other criticisms is the occasionally artificial pairing of Old Testament and New Testament texts, as well as their lack of thematic coherence. Frequently, due to the principle of lectio continua, the Epistles bear no substantial relation to the preceding Old Testament reading or the Gospel and thus appear to “hang in the air.”

1.2. Outline and Methodology

Against this background, this article will examine the hermeneutical criteria underlying the various principles of selection and arrangement of the readings within the celebration of the Eucharist. Furthermore, suggestions for a potential revision of the OLM will be offered, in line with Elmar Nübold’s characterization of the lectionary as “semper reformandus” (Nübold 1997b, p. 617).3 Methodologically, two dimensions of the lectionary will be considered: the horizontal, referring to the arrangement of the readings throughout the liturgical year; and the vertical, focusing on the intertextuality and thematic relationships among the readings within a single celebration. These two aspects will be addressed successively during this analysis, with particular emphasis on the Sunday lectionary of the Mass. At the end, conclusions will be drawn for liturgical hermeneutics and for a possible renewal of the lectionary if that should be done at some point in the future.

A special point of reference will be the lesser-known Ambrosian Lectionary of 2008 (Lezionario Ambrosiano 2008–2009), which represents an independent development within the Ambrosian Rite of Milan and may be regarded as an advancement of the OLM (Benini 2023, pp. 25–32). In its selection and arrangement of readings, it consciously takes alternative paths to the Roman model. Notably, the consistent thematic consonance of all three Sunday readings opens up new hermeneutical perspectives, as the General Introduction of the Ambrosian Lectionary, called Premesse del Lezionario Ambrosiano (PLA),4 points out.5 Furthermore, its structuring of the liturgical year around three great Mysteries (Misteri) leads to a distinct approach to the Ordinary Time in the Roman Rite and thus offers new emphases for the liturgical actualization of salvation history (Magnoli 2013, pp. 185–201).6

2. Principles and Criteria for Text Selection and Horizontal Arrangement

Traditionally, the liturgy has two principles according to which it arranges or selects readings: either according to the principle of the biblical book (continuous reading) or according to the principle of the liturgical mystery on feast days of the liturgical year. After an order of readings had slowly become established with the development of the liturgical year, a lectio semi-continua can be found first for the designated seasons (e.g., Acts during Eastertide) and then also outside of them (Meyer 1993, p. 1356f; Jungmann 1962, pp. 510–16; Jungmann 1970, p. 40f). This principle underlines that the liturgy is guided by Scripture in its proclamation.7 Of course, the sheer volume of text means that passages must be selected or omitted, depending on their importance.8 Conversely, in the second option, the liturgical celebration (such as Easter or a saint’s day) determines the selection. This principle seems to have been a distinctive feature of the Jerusalem liturgy of the 4th century. The pilgrim Egeria constantly emphasizes that the readings were chosen “aptae diei”/“fitting to the day” (Egeria 2017; 32,1; Jungmann 1962, p. 510).

2.1. The Ambrosian Lectionary (2008) and the Old Testament Salvation History

The revised Milanese lectionary of 2008 incorporates additional selection principles, such as the exemplary figures of Old Testament salvation history in the period after Pentecost. Thus, on Sundays from Trinity Sunday exclusively until the Sunday before the beheading of John the Baptist (29 August), the first reading is the main or leading pericope (Fontana 2009, pp. 204–10; Magnoli 2009, p. 503f).9 Based on this, the epistle and gospel are selected to enable a journey (in stages) through the Old Testament history of salvation, which is read in the light of Christ. The first Sundays begin with the creation of the world (2nd Sunday with sapiential texts from Sirach 16–18); the creation of the human being (3rd Sunday AB with Genesis 2); the mystery of sin (3rd Sunday C with Genesis 3; the 4th Sunday exemplified by Noah [A], Sodom and Gomorrah [B], and Cain and Abel [C]); and the covenant with Abraham (5th Sunday).10 The following Sundays each take one character (figura) from the history of Israel, which is interpreted as salvation history, and present (on most Sundays) the path God takes with humankind by means of what we might call “faces”: Moses (6th Sunday), Joshua (7th Sunday), the judges and Samuel (8th Sunday), David (9th Sunday), Solomon (10th Sunday), Elijah (11th Sunday), Jeremiah and the destruction of the Temple (12th Sunday), Nehemiah and the rebuilding of the Temple (13th Sunday), and finally Ezra (14th Sunday). Depending on the date of Easter, up to four of the last Sundays can be omitted, but the last Sunday before the Beheading of John the Precursor is always kept. On this Sunday, the reading is from the martyrdom of the Maccabees, commemorated in the Milanese tradition at the end of August.

God’s salvific action in history is thus proclaimed by means of selected examples from the Old Testament. At the same time, it is placed in the horizon of the New Testament by making links to the Epistle and the Gospel that display a thematic unity. Let us take the 3rd Sunday (creation) as our example. In year A, the creation of the human being Adam and his happy life in paradise (Gen 2:4b–17) is complemented with the aspect of sin and redemption by means of the antithesis between Adam and Christ (Rom 5:12–17). The Gospel presents the salvific will of the Father with the goal of eternal life, which appears in this combination of texts as the re-establishment of the paradisiacal state: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him (…) may have eternal life.” (Jn 3:16). The common theme of marriage unites the texts in Year B: creation as man and woman (Gen 2:18–25), marriage as an image of Christ’s love for his Church (Eph 5:21–33), and the commandment of indissolubility (Mk 10:1–12). Year C again links the fall (Gen 3:1–20) with the parallel between Adam and Christ (Rom 5:18–21) and, in an original manner, with the Annunciation of the birth of Jesus, who “will save his people from their sins” (Mt 1:20b–24b). These are examples of a successful combination that demonstrates the advantages of a consonance for both the hearers and the homily (Benini 2023, p. 28f).11

This clearly shows how the Milanese lectionary emphasizes the intrinsic value of the Old Testament. By focusing on exemplary figures and key stages in the Old Testament’s history of salvation, it also creates—in contrast to the OLM—a certain image of the first part of the Bible. The term “salvation history,” which also recurs frequently in the PLA,12 only emerged in the 19th century and was already controversial at that time. Nevertheless, a salvation-historical view—understood in the sense that God is present in history and repeatedly brings about salvation, which reached its climax in Christ but will only be completed eschatologically—is justified because it is already biblically attested (Weiser 1995, pp. 1336–39; Hengel 2009, pp. 22–34).13 Of course, salvation history must not be misunderstood in the sense of a continuous history.14 Since the intervals between the individual figures within the Bible are very large in the Milanese lectionary (e.g., 5th Sunday: Abraham—6th Sunday: Moses), it cannot seriously be intended to create a direct line, especially since a continuous historical account in the Bible is only contained up to the Babylonian captivity. Rather, the selection is intended to present God’s work in the history of Israel in a liturgical context. By doing so, God’s saving action is brought to mind and can be transferred anamnetically to the present day.15

Obviously, a catechetical motive has also been a guiding factor in the selection, especially since the biblical figures are easy to remember thanks to the narrative and vividness of their pericopes. Now, the readings from Scripture have, among other things, a didactic function,16 even if this is certainly not their primary function, since the liturgy is not a “lesson” on biblical history. The PLA states that this first part of the Pentecost mystery is “celebrativo e catechetico” (PLA 199), i.e.—in this order—liturgical in the sense of anamnesis17 and catechetical in the sense of conveying important Old Testament texts/figures. Although the two aspects cannot be neatly separated, it is worth critically examining whether the catechetical motif was not predominant here; this question arises even more in the following section of the mystery of Pentecost.

2.2. Thematic Selection in the Ambrosian Mystery of Pentecost (Parts 2 and 3)

After the feast of the beheading of John the Baptist, who is also honored on the following Sunday, the Milanese lectionary changes the key pericope from the Old Testament reading to the Gospel. It does so with reference to Luke 16:16: “The law and the prophets were in effect until John came; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed.” This reveals a new principle for the lectionary: thematic selection.

On the following Sundays, we have “a series of Christological themes that are unfolding in an ecclesiological sense, the closer the Sunday of the Dedication [of the Cathedral] draws” (PLA 211). The 2nd and 3rd Sundays circle broadly around Christ, the only-begotten Son of the Father, to whom the Father has entrusted the judgment, to whom the Scriptures bear witness, the Christ whom Peter confesses. The 4th Sunday celebrates the abiding presence of Christ in his Church as the bread of life, so that the theme of the Eucharist is determinative; the bread of life discourse (John 6) is distributed among the three lectionary years. On the 5th Sunday, the central theme is Christ’s principal commandment of love. After this, the attention turns more strongly to the Church. The 6th Sunday recalls the sending out of the disciples, and thus of the believers, as servants of the Gospel (Benini 2023, p. 30).

The first Sunday after the Dedication of the Cathedral, the fourth in October, has the title “Sunday of the missionary commission,” coinciding with the World Mission Sunday of the Roman Catholic Church. The Gospels speak of the missionary commission given by the risen Lord. The readings from the Acts of the Apostles (instead of from the Old Testament) give examples of how this was carried out. The Epistle is chosen on the basis of consonance. As a kind of answer or result, the lectionary places the following Sunday under the title “Participation of the Peoples in Salvation.” The scriptural readings combine appropriate prophetic passages from Isaiah with Pauline texts addressed to the local communities in Rome, Philippi, and Ephesus who had come to the Christian faith from among the Gentiles. As Gospels, the parables of the net full of fish (Mt 13:47–52), the banqueting hall that must be filled (Lk 14:1a, 15–24), and the royal wedding feast (Mt 22:1–14) have been chosen—all texts which underline Christ’s salvific will and announce the final judgment. As in the OLM, the liturgical year concludes with the feast of Christ the King (but two weeks earlier, because Advent lasts for six weeks; Benini 2023, p. 31).

One gets the impression that it is no longer the internal logic of the Bible, i.e., the sequence of an evangelist, that determines the selection. Rather, on the contrary, the pericopes are chosen Sunday after Sunday according to a theme specified from outside. The PLA explicitly states that the readings were compiled according to Christological-ecclesiological criteria. Accordingly, the selection is made less from a biblical perspective and more from a dogmatic one. The change in the logic of selection suggests an even stronger pedagogical or constructive motivation, which carries the risk of narrowing the focus, as the pericopes always have more to say than a specific theme. Of course, the Holy Scriptures (and likewise the Gospels) address a wide variety of topics, but not in a systematic way like a dogmatic handbook. The Gospels are arranged more historically and narratively than thematically. Such a thematic selection is not found in the OLM and was rejected by Cipriano Vaggagini, the head of Coetus XI, that compiled the lectionary. He argued that a thematic orientation could not remain valid over the years.18

2.3. Selection of the More Representative Passages: Biblical, Liturgical, Homiletical, and Pastoral Considerations

Ultimately, the various selection principles are about the effort to proclaim the “praestantior pars” (“more representative portion”; SC 51) of the Scriptures in worship. But the question remains as to the criteria by which this is determined. Basically, biblical, liturgical and pastoral criteria intertwine. To begin with, it should go without saying that one must start from the biblical text itself, since Scripture, as the revealed Word of God, enjoys primacy. Therefore, on the basis of criteria that biblical scholars are better qualified to formulate, those pericopes should be identified which appear particularly relevant, both in terms of their content and from a biblical-theological perspective.19

Of course, different concepts lead to different results. Based on canonical theological considerations, a proposal was made to read from the Torah. Because the Pentateuch has an analogous significance for the Old Testament as the Gospels have for the New, this was to be reflected in the lectionary (Braulik 2005, 2016; Lohfink 2005a, 2005b). This was plausibly contradicted from a liturgical point of view, especially since the structure of the canon and the order of readings represent two levels that cannot be directly equated, at least in the case of three readings.20 In the case of a “continuous reading” of the Old Testament—insofar as one can seriously speak of a continuous reading at all21—it makes sense to give precedence [Voranstellung] (rather than priority [Vorrangstellung]) to the Torah (Becker 2016, p. 439).22 In the case of an intended lectio semi-continua, it is also necessary to check at the horizontal level that the omissions do not result in any breaks in content.

It seems important (from the canonical approach to the entire Scripture) to also pay attention to the fundamental relevance of Old Testament passages for understanding the New Testament, since the Gospel of Christ can only be understood with the Bible of Jesus, the Old Testament (Becker 2016, p. 424; Werbick 2017, pp. 213–18). With regard to the period after Pentecost in the Milanese lectionary, the methodological approach of first examining the biblical texts themselves according to the praestantior pars (instead of deciding on figures from the outset) would include central figures such as Abraham, Moses, etc., because central texts deal with them, but similarly important texts in which no biblical figure is in the foreground would also be included.23

However, since liturgy is not simply about reading texts, but about encountering God through the medium of Scripture (Benini 2023, pp. 168–71, 234–39), biblical criteria (focused on the text as such) must be supplemented with liturgical (or liturgical-theological) criteria. This is evident in the aforementioned mystery principle in the Easter or Christmas season, whereby centuries of use additionally distinguish certain pericopes.24 But this also applies beyond the festive seasons. Since the anamnetic significance of Scripture reading is central to a liturgical hermeneutics of Sacred Scripture, one will also ask which texts are anamnetically “valuable,” i.e., which ones carry a message that exemplifies God’s saving action in human beings (narrated, proclaimed, meditated, etc.). These readings open up a space in which people today can also understand themselves as recipients of God’s saving action.25 Identification with the persons mentioned in the text can be conducive to such an anamnetic understanding of the Scripture readings (Benini 2023, pp. 289–94). Also for this reason, attention should be paid to texts that deal with women (Tafferner 1997, pp. 47–55; Janetzky 1990, pp. 415–31; Studien und Entwürfe zur Messfeier 1995, pp. 115–18); women are absent from the Milanese lectionary, which features exclusively male figures.26

Since liturgy is understood as a dialogue between God and his people (SC 33)27 and Scripture also serves to ensure that “God, who spoke of old, uninterruptedly converses” (Second Vatican Council 1965, Dei Verbum 8)28 with the Church, it is possible to formulate a criterion for determining which texts are actually suitable for such a “conversation.” This idea alone suggests that the reading of Scripture cannot simply serve the purpose of instruction, since, according to the theology of revelation, God does not simply communicate information, but reveals himself (Benini 2023, pp. 234–39). One will therefore consider which scriptural texts deal with situations and thoughts that are significant for people today. Homiletic considerations also play a role, since the homily is intended to continue the dialogue that God began in the scripture readings.29

This already touches on pastoral considerations that ask to what extent a pericope is practical, edifying, faith-promoting, orienting, challenging, parenetic, etc. From a liturgical perspective, such considerations should not be understood merely as a concession to the pastoral needs of the listeners or as a means of increasing their interest in the liturgy of the word. They are ultimately derived from the basic principle of the participatio actuosa, since it also encompasses the reception of the scriptural texts, which should resonate with the listeners (Benini 2023, pp. 280–88). Since participation is part of the essence of liturgy itself (SC 14), the aforementioned criteria are also important for theological reasons (Haunerland 2015, p. 195). One will find texts that should be included in a lectionary from all the above-mentioned points of view, but also those that are to be preferred mainly either on the basis of biblical or pastoral-liturgical criteria, so that even with clear criteria, decisions on individual cases are unavoidable. Neither should difficult texts be excluded on principle, nor should the conditions for the reception of readings be disregarded.

3. Criteria and Biblical Hermeneutical Aspects for Consonance Within a Sunday Formulary

3.1. Comparing Lectionaries Regarding Their Combination of Readings

After the basic selection and horizontal distribution have been discussed in the previous section, the vertical arrangement within the same celebration should be considered. Outside the festive cycles, there are major differences between the various Christian lectionaries with regard to the coordination of the readings for a celebration. While the Byzantine lectionary does not know any conscious combination, in the Roman lectionary the Old Testament reading and the Gospel are related, and in the Milanese lectionary all three readings are chosen to be consonant (Benini 2023, pp. 21–36, esp. pp. 33–36). It should be noted that the principle of consonance outside of the feasts is a recent phenomenon.30 Since the earliest records, in the Roman order of readings, not only the epistle and the gospel have been unrelated (Morin 1910, pp. 41–74; Klauser 1972), but also the Hallelujah verse and the introit and offertory chants have been taken from the psalter in ascending order. Therefore, they have been arranged completely independently of each other (Jungmann 1962, vol. 1, p. 426).31 However, this fact does not seem to have caused any problems.

Now, even without a deliberately consonant selection, intertextual references arise between the individual readings. In the case of two readings, as in the Byzantine liturgy, both texts can often be meaningfully related in certain aspects or appropriately juxtaposed, even though they have not been thematically coordinated; this can be observed many times in the Roman lectionary on weekdays in Ordinary Time. However, when three readings are presented, a non-consonant second reading, as in the OLM, often makes it more difficult for the listener to classify it mentally, especially when a completely different topic is addressed. This can also cause difficulties for the homily, so that in practice a reading is left unaddressed or, in German-speaking countries, is often omitted also for this reason. For reasons of psychological comprehension, Ansgar Franz argues for the consonant combination of all three readings, since a thematic unit of meaning is easier to absorb, memorize and understand; he places these anthropological findings in the liturgical-theological context with the concern for participatio actuosa (Franz 2002, pp. 276–80; Benini 2023, pp. 295–99). Therefore, from homiletic32 and pastoral-liturgical considerations, a successful consonant selection seems to have advantages.

3.2. Advantages of a Harmonious Combination

The question arises as to the criteria for a harmonious combination. The GILM rightly states: “The best instance of harmony between the Old and New Testament readings occurs when it is one that Scripture itself suggests. This is the case when the teaching and events recounted in texts of the New Testament bear a more or less explicit relationship to the teaching and events of the Old Testament.” (GILM 67). Even though not specifically described in the GILM, the selection of pericopes in the OLM was based, for example, on the quotation of an Old Testament passage in the Gospel, similar events or actions, background information useful for understanding the Gospel, supplementary content or contrasting points of view (Nübold 1986, pp. 288–93; Nübold 1990, pp. 32–34; Nübold 1997b, pp. 612–14; Nübold 1997a; Reichert 2023, pp. 69–109). The assignment is not equally successful every Sunday: sometimes connections in content can actually be recognized, sometimes they remain more at the level of keyword associations. The Coetus XI itself seems to have been aware of this, as the quotation shows; for the “best assignment” implies that there are also less good ones.

The Milanese PLA, which attaches great importance to consonance, also speaks of the “criterion of a certain thematic unity.”33 Unlike the OLM, they explicitly mention internal citation, thematic convergence in terms of theological, spiritual or moral profile, organic development according to the sequence “promise—fulfilment” or “figure [figura] —truth” or, finally, typological repetition (PLA 79). It is striking that selection based on a quotation occurs less frequently in Milan than in the OLM (Magnoli 2015, p. 84),34 presumably so as not to make the coordination too narrow. Depending on the liturgical year, the thematic convergence can originate from both the Gospel pericope and the Old Testament reading, while the other classification principles mentioned always logically look back from the New Testament to the Old.

For a liturgical hermeneutics of the Bible, consonance draws unobtrusive attention above all to the unity of the entire Scripture and the interrelatedness of the two Testaments and translates this biblical-theological insight into the celebration (GILM 106; PLA 79; Benini 2023, pp. 256–67). Here, too, specific liturgical considerations must be taken into account. The fact that the liturgy is a celebration of the Paschal mystery—the entire life of Christ culminating in his death and resurrection—has implications for the hermeneutics of Scripture readings.35 This clarifies the significance of the Gospel itself and its priority in the lectionary. Therefore, the selection of Old Testament readings and, in Milan, New Testament readings from the Gospel, i.e., from the goal, is legitimate and, especially in the festive cycle, logically justified, although this may make the Old Testament appear to be a “quarry” for the New Testament (Benini 2023, p. 23). When all Scripture readings are selected in a consonant manner, this logically leads to selecting only those passages from the epistles that fit thematically with the Gospel pericope (instead of reading them continuously). However, this seems more appropriate in terms of content, because they hardly describe any narrative connections and refer directly to the proclamation of Christ or to a Christian life in the community (Söding 2002, pp. 78–80).36 Even if some passages in the epistles are better understood from the overall context of the whole letter, narrative sequences (as in the Gospel or the Old Testament) are easier to remember than theological arguments. This becomes evident from the difficulty of remembering the second reading from the previous Sunday as such. This pragmatic argument speaks against a (semi-) continuous reading from the epistles (Franz 2002, p. 93).37

Now, as described, the Milan order of readings in the period after Pentecost additionally integrates the reverse order of assignment. By moving from the Old Testament pericope to the New Testament, the biblically hermeneutically interesting aspect comes into focus here in that the direction of reading or listening during Mass and the direction of selection are the same. This is, above all, consistent within the Bible, because the New Testament is written based on the knowledge of the Old Testament and is to be understood in this way. Both directions of selection express vertically within the Sunday readings the unity of the Scriptures and “their comprehensive convergence in the mystery of Christ.”38 The fact that this is more evident on some Sundays than on others is in the nature of things, because the biblical canon as a whole reflects the unity of Scripture, but not the individual pericopes that are bound together in a specific Sunday. When both directions complement each other, as in the Pentecost mystery of the Ambrosian lectionary through the combination that first passages from the Old Testament and then from New Testament are the leading pericope, the unity of the two-in-one Christian Bible and its orientation towards Christ also become apparent on a horizontal level.39

Furthermore, as we know in general with regard to intertextuality, the consonant compilation can help to achieve a (deeper and broader) understanding of the pericopes—also of the more difficult texts—by explaining Scripture with Scripture itself (PLA 81; GILM 76; Nübold 1986, p. 331). Additionally, consonance can contribute to the unity of the liturgical celebration.

3.3. Objections to Consonant Formularies—Criteria for Consonance

In the spirit of balanced argumentation, two objections to consonant formulary formation should also be considered, which help to illustrate more clearly how consonance should (not) be. It can be argued, for example, that in radio and television news, very different reports are often strung together in order to hold the attention of the listeners or viewers. Radio broadcasts are probably more comparable to church services, as there are no changing images to provide further information, feelings, etc., and the focus is on the spoken word. In fact, radio programs cover a wide range of topics and tend to be arranged in a contrasting manner, probably in order to cater to the different interests of listeners, i.e., to engage them with topics that actually interest them and to trust that they will therefore accept less relevant topics without switching off or changing the channel. Since such programs are part of many people’s daily lives, or at least familiar to them, they shape contemporary listening habits. One may therefore wonder if a consonant compilation of readings in the liturgy is not completely contrary to such listening habits.

This objection makes it clear that consonance must not mean monotony. Like radio programs, in which the speakers often have different roles (presenter, reporter, commentator, etc.), care should be taken to ensure that the consonant readings contain different text genres (e.g., narrative, parenetic, meditative, normative). This concern is already addressed by the fact that Old and New Testament readings and Gospels are often proclaimed in the same liturgical celebration. In principle, however, the differences in the intention between news or radio broadcasts and worship must also be considered. After all, the purpose is not primarily to provide information through the latest facts or entertainment, which demands variety, but rather to establish a dialogue between God and man.

A second counterargument is that a consonant selection restricts the texts themselves, especially when it is too narrow or too obvious. If two pericopes are combined that are very similar in content, the same message is ultimately only duplicated without any significant added value. It is particularly problematic when the combination presents an Old Testament pericope as merely a shadow of a New Testament one that surpasses it. For example, Elisha’s multiplication of bread (20 loaves for 100 men) seems downright unspectacular compared to Jesus’ multiplication of bread (5 loaves for 5000 men). For the homily, such a combination, which merely contains the statement that Jesus was even better than Elisha, can hardly be made fruitful in terms of content.40 There is also a danger of perceiving only the thoughts of the compiler. When accustomed to the readings having an internal connection to each other, one tends to want to recognize this connection while listening and thus to listen selectively. However, if a text is seen primarily in relation to another, the text’s own richness of meaning can easily be overlooked.41 This applies all the more to the homily and its preparation. Of course, even with a consonant combination, it is still possible to interpret only one of the three texts in the homily or to relate it to other elements of the liturgy. The quality of a homily does not primarily consist in combining as many scriptural texts as possible and “deciphering” the logic behind the order of readings.

The consonance must therefore be neither too narrow nor too superficial, but also not too broad, because then the connections can no longer be recognized (Benini 2023, pp. 281–84). Keywords can serve as markers, similar to how the Scriptures themselves use them to make intra-biblical references visible.42 However, the consonance should go beyond mere associations and be grounded in content. The most sensible approach, therefore, seems to be a dialogical consonance,43 which brings the texts into conversation with each other. Such a consonance has a common (but not identical) orientation, though either a shared theme/content or leitmotif/image44, so that the texts actually “have something to say” to each other (as in a successful human dialogue) and thus complement and illuminate each other.45 Therefore, even texts that diverge in content but are factually compatible can enter into a fruitful relationship.46 Consonance should therefore not be understood solely in the sense of a “common thread” that is as consistent as possible, but can—especially in the liturgical context—be understood as a textual space,47 in which God enters into dialogue with human beings through the harmony of individual texts (Benini 2023, pp. 234–39). A dialogue with God that has begun through successful thematic consonance can then be more easily continued in the homily.

4. Conclusions

4.1. The Time-Bound Nature of the Lectionary and Its Consequences for Liturgical Biblical Hermeneutics

The order of readings plays a significant role in liturgical hermeneutics of Sacred Scripture. A review of the readings in the various liturgical rites shows that differing orders of readings coexist within the Catholic Church; an ecumenical outlook at North America’s Revised Common Lectionary (1992) and Great Britain’s Four-Year Lectionary (1990) broadens this even further.48 It logically follows that the individual rites implicitly weigh biblical hermeneutical aspects differently and make the faithful aware of them in the celebration. Variations also arise from a diachronic perspective. In contrast to the traditional Byzantine lectionary, whose current form dates back to around the 10th century,49 significant reforms have recently been made to the Roman and Milanese lectionaries, which have also had consequences for liturgical biblical hermeneutics. Just as the liturgy as a whole is “semper reformanda,” so too is the lectionary, especially since there can be no ideal lectionary, because even beyond the selection of individual pericopes, certain principles are always favored that simultaneously exclude others.

In the reflections just made on the criteria for designing the lectionary, several considerations between biblical and pastoral-liturgical aspects have also become apparent. Since there can always be criticism of lectionaries depending on the options favored and theological preconceptions, it can be assumed that further reforms of the lectionary will be made in due course. For liturgical biblical hermeneutics, this means that it too is legitimately time-bound.50 Ultimately, however, this is not surprising, especially since biblical scholars have also presented various hermeneutics of Holy Scripture that vary depending on the weighting of (biblical) theological and exegetical insights (despite the use of the same text!).51

However, the liturgical hermeneutics of the Bible is not as time-bound as it appears at first glance. For it is not only the lectionary (for Mass, the Liturgy of the Hours, etc.) that must be considered, but the entire spectrum of the use of the Bible in the liturgy. While the psalms, at least in terms of their distribution as responsorial psalms or in the Liturgy of the Hours, have been subject to liturgical reforms (far less so on feast days), numerous prayers and hymns have been more constant and often originate from tradition. For example, the prayer for the consecration of bishops is taken from the Apostolic Tradition of the third century (Benini 2023, pp. 97–108), and the hymns for Holy Week are still those of Venantius Fortunatus compiled in 569 (Benini 2023, pp. 122–31). Many orations and prefaces of today’s missal can be found in the classical sacramentaries (Pascher 1981–1983; Bruylants 1952; Küppers 1986).52 Likewise, rites inspired by Scripture, such as the washing of feet or the Ephphetha rite (despite some changes), date back centuries (Benini 2021, pp. 34–50; Benini 2023, pp. 147–58). Thus, a liturgical hermeneutics of Scripture also draws on the understanding and use of Scripture in earlier centuries and is therefore less time-bound than the lectionary.

This is important because otherwise an examination of liturgical biblical hermeneutics would mainly bring to light those theological and hermeneutical considerations that were decisive in theology during the post-Vatican liturgical reform and have therefore been incorporated into the lectionary; this would ultimately amount to a hermeneutical circle. Although the readings are a pivotal component of liturgical biblical hermeneutics, it is important to consider the other biblically inspired material as well because all these texts are engaged in a mutually informing hermeneutical conversation in the celebration of the liturgy. Just as the liturgy itself carries on tradition and incorporates contemporary elements, so too does liturgical biblical hermeneutics incorporate old and new elements, some of which are drawn from the rich store of liturgical tradition. Hence, traditional material and the newly composed order of readings enrich each other also regarding liturgical hermeneutics.53

4.2. Combination of the Advantages of the Roman and the Ambrosian Order of Readings?

In light of these considerations, it is understandable that proposals for a possible reform of the lectionary are repeatedly put forward and could be drawn upon in case they are needed. It was not the task or ambition of this article to submit its own proposal for Sundays in Ordinary Time. Nevertheless, in view of the comparisons between the Roman and Milanese orders of readings, the question arises as to whether the strengths of the two reading systems could be combined. For example, after Trinity Sunday, an exemplary presentation of important texts from the Old Testament (beginning with the Torah), which are significant on the one hand for the intrinsic value of the text and on the other hand for the understanding of the Gospel and at the same time for Christian life today, would be conceivable. Old Testament figures—including female ones54—could be used for this purpose. As in Milan, the Old Testament reading would be the guiding pericope for the selection of the New Testament reading and the Gospel. After several weeks, the switch to the Gospel as the guiding pericope would take place, whereby the wide-ranging Old Testament “continuous reading” could now—as before in the OLM—flow into a sequence from an evangelist.55 Coherent parts such as the Sermon on the Mount could be read together over several Sundays, in contrast to the current factual order, in which the Easter cycle interrupts the sequence (Benini 2023, p. 22f). A similar approach could be taken with the parables.

Of course, this would mean that the sequential reading of the Gospel during the Sundays determined by the Old Testament would no longer take place. However, this does not necessarily mean that the assignment of a synoptic Gospel to a lectionary year would have to be abandoned, as shown by the 1965 reform draft from the Maredsous monastery, which was presented to the Coetus XI during the creation of the OLM (Franz 2002, pp. 60–65.70).56 A possible criticism of abandoning the sequential reading of the Gospel can be countered by the argument that—even if a participant in the Mass could remember the exact sequence of the Gospels, which is probably rarely the case—it is relatively unimportant for understanding Jesus’ work whether he first healed a deaf-mute and then performed the multiplication of the loaves, or vice versa (Mk 7:31–8:9). Furthermore, it is well known that the evangelists did not want to write a “diary” of Jesus; rather, they arranged the traditional material according to theological considerations57 into a biographical whole, so that the chronology could differ in details. For example, according to John 2:13–22, the expulsion of the merchants from the temple comes at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, while the Synoptics place it in his last days in Jerusalem. This insight could also give the lectionary the freedom to integrate a section based on Old Testament salvation history in the period after Pentecost, which would not have to abandon the basic biographical orientation familiar from the current OLM for the liturgical year. Immediately following the Christmas season, the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry could remain on the first Sundays in Ordinary Time, as it follows on from the baptism of the Lord in terms of content. With the end of the liturgical year, eschatological themes would then come to the fore.

4.3. Liturgy as the Privileged Setting for the Word of God

As Pope Benedict XVI stated in Verbum Domini, “the liturgy is the privileged setting in which God speaks to us in the midst of our lives; he speaks today to his people, who hear and respond.” (Benedict XVI 2010, no. 52). For people to be able to indeed receive his word, which becomes sacramental and effective in the liturgy (Benedict XVI 2010, no. 56; Benini 2023, pp. 224–45), a lectionary is needed that brings the Bible to the people in the best possible way. This will strengthen their faith and encourage them to put what they have heard into practice in their lives. Should the Roman Catholic Church undertake a further development of the OLM, as in Milan, a few thoughts have been offered here. But even now, it seems helpful to promote a “liturgical approach” to Holy Scripture in biblical scholarship and to encourage cooperation between biblical scholarship and liturgical studies, as was naturally practiced in the creation of the lectionaries. A liturgical hermeneutic grants access to Scripture as the living and efficacious word of God (see Heb 4:12).