Review of Index Lectionum by Roseanne Sullivan

This article was originally published in Homiletic and Pastoral Review (http://www.hprweb.com/2017/01/index-lectionum-scripture-usage-in-roman-catholic-masses-before-and-after-vatican-ii) on January 20, 2017. This version is slightly revised and reprinted by permission.

Matthew P Hazell & Dr. Peter A Kwasniewski (Foreword), Index Lectionum: A Comparative Table of Readings for the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Rite, Volume I (Lectionary Study Press, 2016. See this article on NLM for ordering information.)

The creation of a new form of the Mass was the single most dramatic change to Roman Catholic life out of all the many changes that followed the Second Vatican Council. Pope Paul VI’s Apostolic Constitution, Missale Romanum, which was published in 1969, along with the subsequent publication of the new missal with the same name in 1970, altered the Mass in many ways. One of the most significant differences between the Mass of 1969 (which is now called the Ordinary Form) [1], and the Mass according to the Missale Romanum of 1962 (which is now called the Extraordinary Form) was the introduction of many more Scripture readings along with many changes to where and how much of the previously included readings were used in the liturgy of the Mass.

One unexpected and disquieting thing that becomes obvious when you take a close look at the tables in Index Lectionum, which compare the two sets of Mass readings, is how much Scripture was removed from the new Mass, even though the stated goal was to include more Scripture.

Let’s start with some of the history and stated motives behind the revisions to the Scriptures read in Masses during the liturgical year. Later on, this article gives an example of the consequences of one notable omission of verses that are doctrinally important: verses 27-32 of 1 Corinthians 11 no longer appear in the New Mass lectionary at any time during the year, even though these verses are essential for understanding why the Church prohibits Catholics in an illicit marriage from receiving Communion and why the doctrine should not be changed.

Paul VI and Sacred Scripture in the Mass

Blessed Pope Paul VI was a strong proponent of including more Scripture in the Mass. “Paul VI exhibited a long and consistent record, dating from the years prior to his election to the See of Peter, of promoting, encouraging, and emphasizing at every opportunity the value of the greatly extended use of Sacred Scripture that became such a major feature of the post-conciliar liturgical reform. Indeed, it seems clear that, in his mind, this was the most important and valuable single feature of the reform.”[2]

Before the council ended, and within a few months after Pope Paul VI’s election, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC), was released as the council’s first document. The readings used at Masses were changed based four sections of SC: 24, 35, 51, 92. The most frequently quoted section in support of this change is number 35. § 35: In the sacred rites, a more abundant, more varied, and more appropriate selection of readings from Sacred Scripture is to be restored.[3]

In 1964, Pope Paul VI established the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia, the council for implementing the constitution on the liturgy. Part of the consilium’s assigned task was to create a new lectionary. [4]

The consilium expanded the lectionary from a single-year cycle to a three-year cycle for Sundays and a two-year cycle for weekdays. The Latin edition of the lectionary was published in 1969, the English edition for the USA in 1970; use of the revised lectionary[5] and the revised Roman Missal began on the First Sunday of Advent: November 30, 1970.

For Sundays and major feast days, each yearly cycle begins on the first Sunday of Advent (the last Sunday of November or first Sunday of December). In the new lectionary, the readings for each of the three years of the A, B, C cycle for Sundays are mostly taken from the Synoptic Gospels. Matthew’s Gospel was assigned to year A, Mark’s to year B, and Luke’s to year C.

• Year A: Gospel of Matthew (November 2013 through 2014)
• Year B: Gospel of Mark (December 2014 through 2015)
• Year C: Gospel of Luke (December 2015 through 2016)

Readings from the Gospel of John are assigned during Lent, Holy Week, and Eastertide during every year. (For more about the changes to which Johanine verses are used when, see an interesting discussion in Dr. Peter Kwasniewski’s Foreword to the Index Lectionum.)

For Sundays and feast days, a third reading was added before the Epistle and Gospel, which is taken from the Old Testament except during Eastertide, when the third readings is taken from the Acts of the Apostles. On ordinary weekdays, readings are taken from the remaining parts of the Bible.

For weekdays, odd-numbered years use the readings for Cycle I; even-numbered years are Cycle II.

A Responsorial Psalm [6] was also added between the Epistle and Gospel.

Overview of the Changes

“The Catholic Lectionary” website by Father Felix Just, S.J., is one useful resource for learning more about the lectionaries before and after the Second Vatican Council. The following summary of the differences between the two lectionaries for the Extraordinary and Ordinary Form is based on the “Historical Overview” page found at Fr. Just’s website. [7]

Extraordinary Form Lectionary

Roman Missal / Missale Romanum (various pre-Vatican II editions, based on the Missal of Pope Pius V from 1570)
• The same readings are read each year on the Sundays and feast days.
• Most Masses had only two readings: the Epistle and the Gospel.
• Parts of the Old Testament were read only on a few feasts, vigils, ember days, and within some liturgical octaves.
• Most weekday Masses did not have their own assigned readings (Propers). On feast days, the readings were from the feast. Otherwise, the readings were usually from the prior Sunday.
• The biblical texts used for Sundays, vigils, and major feasts include about 22% of the NT Gospels, 11% of the NT Epistles, and only 0.8% of the OT (not counting the Psalms).

Ordinary Form Lectionary

Lectionary for Mass (first and second edition after the Second Vatican Council, 1963)
• A greater variety of readings is included in a three-year cycle for Sundays (A/B/C) and a two-year cycle (I/II) for weekdays.
• Three main readings are now prescribed for Sundays and major feasts: Reading 1, usually from OT books; Reading 2, from NT Epistles; Reading 3, from NT Gospels.
• The biblical texts used for Sundays, vigils, and major feasts now include about 58% of the NT Gospels, 25% of the NT Epistles, but still only 3.7% of the OT (not counting the Psalms).
• Including all the Masses for Sundays, weekdays, rituals, votives, the propers and commons of saints, and special needs and occasions, the Lectionary for Mass now covers much of the NT (about 90% of the Gospels, 55% of the rest: Acts, Epistles, Revelation), but still very little of the OT (slightly over 13%).

One commentator noted, “It is interesting to know that only 13.5% of the OT and 71.5% of the NT is read in the Ordinary Form. The ‘read the Bible in 3 years’ idea is a myth.”

Index Lectionum

Index Lectionum is the first volume in a proposed series titled Lectionary Study Aids, by Matthew P. Hazell. The index is a straightforward book of tables that list all the readings from the Old and New Testaments and indicate where they are used in both forms of the Mass. The index does not cover the use of the Bible in liturgies outside of the Mass, except for the blessings and sacramental celebrations found in each Missal.

Matthew Hazell is a convert to Catholicism from evangelical Protestantism who lives in Sheffield England. He is a scholar whose particular interest is in the Roman Catholic liturgical reform of the twentieth century. He maintains a blog about his projects and studies at “Lectionary Study Aids”, [8] which is a good resource for anyone interested in liturgical studies, and he is a contributor to the New Liturgical Movement website at http://newliturgicalmovement.org.

Hazell is preparing a second volume dealing with the Psalms. The planned second volume will include the entrance (introit), offertory, and postcommunion chants and antiphons, as well as the graduals, tracts, alleluias, and responsorial psalms in both forms of the Roman Rite.

Hazell mentioned in his Introduction that he hopes also to create another Index to compare the use of Scriptural and other readings in the Divine Office and Liturgy of the Hours.

Continue Reading this Article. . .

On the Inclusion of 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 in the Ordinary Form

In his recent NLM article The Omission that Haunts the Church, Dr Peter Kwasniewski rightly observes that the omission of 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 from multiple points in the usus recentior has contributed to the contemporary crisis over who can receive Holy Communion. There was a brief but interesting exchange in the comments section of the article about whether or not it was licit for a priest or lector to include vv. 27-29 in the relevant Ordinary Form readings. I thought this question deserved some further consideration, since the rubrics governing this, as well as their history, are actually quite interesting to look at.

It should be said, first of all, that in my conversations with people about the lectionary of the Ordinary Form, they are often quite surprised about these sorts of omissions, and are unaware that not every reading from the preceding tradition has been included in the OF. [1] Of course, some readings, such as 1 Cor. 11:23-29 for Corpus Christi, had verses eliminated from them by the Consilium; others, such as 1 Pet. 2:11-19a (the epistle for the 3rd Sunday after Easter) are missing entirely. These omissions are more common than many people think, and my recently published book Index Lectionum: A Comparative Table of Readings for the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Rite provides the tools to make discovering them much easier. [2]

With regard to the topic at hand, the General Introduction to the Lectionary (GIL) states that “in the celebration of Mass the biblical readings with their accompanying scriptural chants may not be omitted, shortened, or, worse still, replaced by non-biblical readings” (GIL 12). It should be noted that this paragraph has nothing to say on whether or not readings may be lengthened.

On the issue of ‘difficult’ texts, among which 1 Cor. 11:27-29 could be classified, the GIL says:

In readings for Sundays and solemnities, texts that present real difficulties are avoided for pastoral reasons. The difficulties may be objective, in that the texts themselves raise complex literary, critical, or exegetical problems; or, at least to a certain extent, the difficulties may lie in the faithful’s ability to understand the texts. But there could be no justification for depriving the faithful of the spiritual riches of certain texts on the grounds of difficulty if its source is the inadequacy either of the religious education that every Christian should have or of the biblical formation that every pastor should have. Often a difficult reading is clarified by its correlation with another in the same Mass. (GIL 76, my emphasis)

There is a certain subjectivity as to what the “religious education” or “spiritual formation” of clergy and laity “should” consist of, but I would hope everyone can agree that knowledge of Who one is receiving and of the dispositions necessary to receive Him in Holy Communion are an essential part of this (cf. Code of Canon Law 913.1, 915-916, 919.1; Catechism of the Catholic Church 1384-1387, 1415). Thus, we are entitled to ask: can the omission of 1 Cor. 11:27-29 be justified based on what the OF lectionary says about itself in this section? To state the question differently: can the addition of these verses be defended on the basis that their exclusion unjustly deprives the faithful of the spiritual riches that are rightly theirs?

(It should also be noted that the way in which the principles in this paragraph were applied in the OF lectionary, along with those of GIL 75, [3] deserves much more critical attention that it has received up until now.)

On the omission of verses within readings, GIL says this:

The omission of verses in readings from Scripture has at times been the practice in many liturgical traditions, including the Roman. Admittedly such omissions may not be made lightly, for fear of distorting the meaning of the text or the intent and style of Scripture. Yet on pastoral grounds it was decided to continue the tradition in the present Order of Readings, but at the same time to ensure that the essential meaning of the text remained intact. One reason for the decision is that otherwise some texts would have been unduly long. It would also have been necessary to omit completely certain readings of high spiritual value for the faithful because those readings include some verse that is unsuitable pastorally or that involves truly difficult problems. (GIL 77)

It is true that, from time to time, verses are omitted from lections found in the 1962 Missale Romanum: for example, Acts 3:13-15, 17-19 on Easter Wednesday, and Eph. 3:8-12, 14-19 on the feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. The GIL seems a little disingenuous here, though, because I can find no occasion on Sundays in the EF where verses are omitted from the middle of readings, yet this happens with some regularity in the OF. [4]

Still, when this paragraph of the GIL speaks of “continuing the tradition”, common sense would indicate that this refers to certain readings that are new to the OF lectionary, and thus were not part of the Roman lectionary tradition up until 1969. It would not be consistent to say, for example, that leaving out vv. 27-29 from 1 Cor. 11:23-29 “continues the tradition” of the omission of verses, as those verses have been part of the tradition for centuries. In fact, it would be against the tradition of the Roman Rite to omit them! [5]

With regard to the readings on Sundays and solemnities, it may surprise some to learn that the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) has changed over the years:

Dominicis et sollemnitatibus assignantur tres lectiones, scilicet Prophetæ, Apostoli et Evangelii, quibus populus christianus ad continuitatem operis salutis, secundum mirabile propositum divinum, educatur. Hæ lectiones stricte adhibeantur.
Sundays and Solemnities have assigned to them three readings, that is, from a Prophet, an Apostle, and a Gospel, by which the Christian people are instructed in the continuity of the work of salvation according to God’s wonderful design. These readings should be followed strictly. (GIRM 357 [2002])

Diebus dominicis et festis assignantur tres lectiones, scilicet Prophetæ, Apostoli et Evangelii, quibus populus christianus ad perennitatem operis salutis, secundum mirabilem disciplinam divinam, educatur.
Sundays and holydays have three readings, that is, from the Old Testament, from the writings of an apostle, and from a Gospel. Thus God’s own teaching brings the Christian people to a knowledge of the continuity of the work of salvation. (GIRM 318 [1975])

The stipulation that the readings for Sundays and solemnities are to be “followed strictly”, which would seem to exclude any lengthening of them, does not appear in the earlier GIRM. Thus, from a technical standpoint, only since 2002 has it been illicit to lengthen readings in the Ordinary Form. [6]

Given what the most recent edition of the GIRM has to say, I would argue that, at the present time, adding 1 Cor. 11:27-29 to the relevant readings on Sundays and solemnities in the OF is illicit. However, the omission of these verses does not seem at all consistent with the language and ambitions of Sacrosanctum Concilium 51:

The treasures of the bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God’s word. In this way a more representative portion of the holy scriptures will be read to the people in the course of a prescribed number of years (my emphases).

Again, we are entitled to ask: How is it “more representative” to omit verses that have been read for centuries in the Roman Rite? How do this and other omissions serve to “open up more lavishly” the scriptures? How is “richer fare” provided when the traditional readings of the Roman Rite are shortened or eliminated? I would argue that, in the particular case of Corpus Christi, rather than omitting 1 Cor. 11:27-29 out of a concern that these are ‘difficult’ verses, the proper solution for the Consilium would have been to lengthen the traditional reading for the OF to include the more ‘upbeat’ conclusion of vv. 30-32:

That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

These verses most certainly “correspond to the principal themes” (cf. GIL 108) of Corpus Christi as expressed in the Collect common to the OF and EF: tribue, quæsumus, ita nos Corporis et Sanguinis tui sacra mysteria venerari, ut redemptionis tuæ fructum in nobis iugiter sentiamus (“grant us, we pray, so to revere the sacred mysteries of your Body and Blood that we may always experience in ourselves the fruits of your redemption”).

In any case, it is to be hoped for that the Holy See will correct this and other serious omissions in the Ordinary Form lectionary in the years to come. Until then, bishops, priests and deacons should be strongly encouraged to read these verses in the one place in the OF where it is licit to read them: the homily.

NOTES

[1] Some are also surprised to be informed that the Church does not read the entirety of all four Gospels every year (or every three years), or the whole New Testament every two years, for example. I am not sure quite where these sorts of myths about the OF lectionary originated, but they certainly need to be debunked when possible.

[2] The Index Lectionum is available from Amazon (US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain). In his Foreword to the book, Dr Kwasniewski goes into more detail about some of the readings and verses in the EF that have been omitted from the OF.

[3] “In the case of certain rather long texts, longer and shorter versions are provided to suit different situations. The editing of the shorter version has been carried out with great caution.” This is all that the GIL has to say about why long and short forms of certain texts exist in the OF lectionary. However, Phil. 3:17–4:1 (2nd Sunday of Lent, Year C) is not a long text, yet it has a short form (3:20–4:1); Mt. 13:44-52 (17th Sunday per annum, Year A) also has a short form (13:44-46), despite being only 9 verses long! Readers can look at these passages for themselves and quickly deduce perhaps why, in the case of certain rather short texts, even shorter versions are provided.

[4] For example, in the following sequence of Sundays in Year C: Neh. 8:2-4a, 5-6, 8-10 (3rd Sunday per annum); Jer. 1:4-5, 17-19 (4th); Isa. 6:1-2a, 3-8 (5th); Lk. 6:17, 20-26 (6th).

[5] Text-critical omissions, such as that of v. 44 from Mt. 21:33-46 (read on Friday of week 2 of Lent in the EF and OF) are perhaps the one exception to this rule, though the relationship between text-criticism and tradition certainly warrants further discussion.

[6] SC 22 § 3 does say that “no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority”, though it has to be said that the rubrics of the OF (e.g. the frequent use of vel similibus verbis) somewhat undermine this particular section of the Constitution. Whether bishops or bishops’ conferences could mandate the lengthening of particular readings in their dioceses is a separate question (cf. SC 22 §§ 1-2).

Christian Wisdom from the Anglican Tradition

A devout Anglican reader of this blog send me the following texts from the Book of Common Prayer, as evidence that the points made by St. Paul, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. John Vianney, and, well, the entire Catholic tradition, have a notable place in the Anglican tradition as well. As I read through these texts, I marveled at the strength and clarity of the exhortations — no beating around the bush here, no mincing of words, no political correctness. One might wonder why the Roman Catholic Church today has such a difficult time speaking the selfsame truths.

Obviously, Latin Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and other Protestant readers of NLM have their well-known disagreements about Eucharistic theology; that is not the point at present. The point is that we can find, across the confessional spectrum, brilliant examples of forthright preaching of the Christian’s moral responsibility in the face of the meaning of the sacrament of the Eucharist. This is what has been lost in so many places, and, as the Anglican Ordinariate has abundantly demonstrated, we can continue to learn from the best traditions of our baptized brethren in Christ.

Besides all this, we should savor the lofty eloquence of this Authorized Version-style English, which runs circles around our feeble attempts today to find a “sacral register.”

* * *

This Exhortation may be used, in whole or in part, either during the Liturgy or at other times. In the absence of a deacon or priest, this Exhortation may be read by a lay person. The people stand or sit.

Beloved in the Lord: Our Savior Christ, on the night before he suffered, instituted the Sacrament of his Body and Blood as a sign and pledge of his love, for the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of his death, and for a spiritual sharing in his risen life. For in these holy Mysteries we are made one with Christ, and Christ with us; we are made one body in him, and members one of another.
          Having in mind, therefore, his great love for us, and in obedience to his command, his Church renders to Almighty God our heavenly Father never-ending thanks for the creation of the world, for his continual providence over us, for his love for all mankind, and for the redemption of the world by our Savior Christ, who took upon himself our flesh, and humbled himself even to death on the cross, that he might make us the children of God by the power of the Holy Spirit, and exalt us to everlasting life.
          But if we are to share rightly in the celebration of those holy Mysteries, and be nourished by that spiritual Food, we must remember the dignity of that holy Sacrament. I therefore call upon you to consider how Saint Paul exhorts all persons to prepare themselves carefully before eating of that Bread and drinking of that Cup. For, as the benefit is great, if with penitent hearts and living faith we receive the holy Sacrament, so is the danger great, if we receive it improperly, not recognizing the Lord’s Body. Judge yourselves, therefore, lest you be judged by the Lord.

When the Minister giveth warning for the Celebration of the Holy Communion, (which he shall always do upon the Sunday, or some Holy Day, immediately preceding,) he shall read this Exhortation following; or so much thereof as, in his discretion, he may think convenient.

DEARLY beloved, on —— day next I purpose, through God’s assistance, to administer to all such as shall be religiously and devoutly disposed the most comfortable Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; to be by them received in remembrance of his meritorious Cross and Passion; whereby alone we obtain remission of our sins, and are made partakers of the Kingdom of heaven. Wherefore it is our duty to render most humble and hearty thanks to Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that he hath given his Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, not only to die for us, but also to be our spiritual food and sustenance in that holy Sacrament. Which being so divine and comfortable a thing to them who receive it worthily, and so dangerous to those who will presume to receive it unworthily; my duty is to exhort you, in the mean season to consider the dignity of that holy mystery, and the great peril of the unworthy receiving thereof; and so to search and examine your own consciences, and that not lightly, and after the manner of dissemblers with God; but so that ye may come holy and clean to such a heavenly Feast, in the marriage‐garment required by God in holy Scripture, and be received as worthy partakers of that holy Table. 
          The way and means thereto is: First, to examine your lives and conversations by the rule of God’s commandments; and whereinsoever ye shall perceive yourselves to have offended, either by will, word, or deed, there to bewail your own sinfulness, and to confess yourselves to Almighty God, with full purpose of amendment of life. And if ye shall perceive your offences to be such as are not only against God, but also against your neighbours; then ye shall reconcile yourselves unto them; being ready to make restitution and satisfaction, according to the uttermost of your powers, for all injuries and wrongs done by you to any other; and being likewise ready to forgive others who have offended you, as ye would have forgiveness of your offences at God’s hand: for otherwise the receiving of the holy Communion doth nothing else but increase your condemnation. Therefore, if any of you be a blasphemer of God, an hinderer or slanderer of his Word, an adulterer, or be in malice, or envy, or in any other grievous crime; repent you of your sins, or else come not to that holy Table.
          And because it is requisite that no man should come to the holy Communion, but with a full trust in God’s mercy, and with a quiet conscience; therefore, if there be any of you, who by this means cannot quiet his own conscience herein, but requireth further comfort or counsel, let him come to me, or to some other Minister of God’s Word, and open his grief; that he may receive such godly counsel and advice, as may tend to the quieting of his conscience, and the removing of all scruple and doubtfulness.

& Or, in case he shall see the People negligent to come to the Holy Communion, instead of the former, he may use this Exhortation.

DEARLY beloved brethren, on —— I intend, by God’s grace, to celebrate the Lord’s Supper: unto which, in God’s behalf, I bid you all who are here present; and beseech you, for the Lord Jesus Christ’s sake, that ye will not refuse to come thereto, being so lovingly called and bidden by God himself. Ye know how grievous and unkind a thing it is, when a man hath prepared a rich feast, decked his table with all kind of provision, so that there lacketh nothing but the guests to sit down; and yet they who are called, without any cause, most unthankfully refuse to come. Which of you in such a case would not be moved? Who would not think a great injury and wrong done unto him?
          Wherefore, most dearly beloved in Christ, take ye good heed, lest ye, withdrawing yourselves from this holy Supper, provoke God’s indignation against you. It is an easy matter for a man to say, I will not communicate, because I am otherwise hindered with worldly business. But such excuses are not so easily accepted and allowed before God. If any man say, I am a grievous sinner, and therefore am afraid to come: wherefore then do ye not repent and amend? When God calleth you, are ye not ashamed to say ye will not come? When ye should return to God, will ye excuse yourselves, and say ye are not ready? Consider earnestly with yourselves how little such feigned excuses will avail before God. Those who refused the feast in the Gospel, because they had bought a farm, or would try their yokes of oxen, or because they were married, were not so excused, but counted unworthy of the heavenly feast. Wherefore, according to mine office, I bid you in the Name of God, I call you in Christ’s behalf, I exhort you, as ye love your own salvation, that ye will be partakers of this holy Communion. And as the Son of God did vouchsafe to yield up his soul by death upon the Cross for your salvation; so it is your duty to receive the Communion in remembrance of the sacrifice of his death, as he himself hath commanded: which if ye shall neglect to do, consider with yourselves how great is your ingratitude to God, and how sore punishment hangeth over your heads for the same; when ye wilfully abstain from the Lord’s Table, and separate from your brethren, who come to feed on the banquet of that most heavenly food. These things if ye earnestly consider, ye will by God’s grace return to a better mind: for the obtaining whereof we shall not cease to make our humble petitions unto Almighty God, our heavenly Father.

St. Thomas Aquinas and Pope Francis on 1 Corinthians 11:27–29

In his great encyclical on Sacred Scripture, Providentissimus Deus, Pope Leo XIII writes:

With the age of the scholastics came fresh and welcome progress in the study of the Bible. … The valuable work of the scholastics in Holy Scripture is seen in their theological treatises and in their Scripture commentaries; and in this respect the greatest name among them all is St. Thomas Aquinas. (n. 7)

It is therefore with complete confidence that we can and should take up the Angelic Doctor’s commentaries on the Apostle to the Gentiles. These commentaries, from Aquinas’s maturest period, are some of the best reflections of his primary work as a Magister Sacrae Paginae at the university.

Earlier this week at NLM, I discussed the astonishing exclusion of 1 Corinthians 11:27–29 from the postconciliar liturgy (Mass and Office), in spite of the fact that it had been present in many places in the preconciliar Mass and Office. Our astonishment will be all the more complete when we read St. Thomas’s probing comments on these verses.

St Thomas Aquinas’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:27–29

Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [nn. 687–94] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. [nn. 695–96] For he who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. [n. 697]
       687. After showing the dignity of this sacrament, the Apostle now rouses the faithful to receive it reverently. First, he outlines the peril threatening those who receive unworthily; second, he applies a saving remedy, at but let a man prove himself.
       688. First, therefore, he says, therefore, from the fact that this which is received sacramentally is the body of Christ and what is drunk is the blood of Christ, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
       In these words must be considered, first, how someone eats or drinks unworthily. According to a Gloss this happens in three ways.
       First, as to the celebration of this sacrament, namely, because someone celebrates the sacrament in a manner different from that handed down by Christ; for example, if he offers in this sacrament a bread other than wheaten or some liquid other than wine from the grape of the vine. Hence it is said that Nadab and Abihu, sons of Aaron, offered before the Lord “unholy fire, such as he had not commanded them. And fire came forth from the presence of the Lord and devoured them” (Lev 10:1).
       689. Second, from the fact that someone approached the Eucharist with a mind not devout. This lack of devotion is sometimes venial, as when someone with his mind distracted by worldly affairs approaches this sacrament habitually retaining due reverence toward it; and such lack of devotion, although it impedes the fruit of this sacrament, which is spiritual refreshment, does not make one guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, as the Apostle says here. However, a certain lack of devotion is a mortal sin, i.e., when it involves contempt of this sacrament, as it is said: “but you profane it when you say that the Lord’s table is polluted and its food may be despised” (Mal 1:12). It is of such lack of devotion that the Gloss speaks.
       690. In a third way someone is said to be unworthy, because he approaches the Eucharist with the intention of sinning mortally. For it is said: “he shall not approach the altar, because he has a blemish” (Lev 21:23). Someone is understood to have a blemish as long as he persists in the intention of sinning, which, however, is taken away through penitence. By contrition, indeed, which takes away the will to sin with the intention of confession and making satisfaction, as to the remission of guilt and eternal punishment; by confession and satisfaction as to the total remission of punishment and reconciliation with the members of the Church. Therefore, in cases of necessity, as when someone does not have an abundance of confessors, contrition is enough for receiving this sacrament. But as a general rule, confession with some satisfaction should precede. Hence in the book On Church Dogmas it says: “One who desires to go to communion should make satisfaction with tears and prayers, and trusting in the Lord approach the Eucharist clean, free from care, and secure. But I say this of the person not burdened with capital and mortal sins. For the one whom mortal sins committed after baptism press down, I advise to make satisfaction with public penance, and so be joined to communion by the judgment of the priest, if he does not wish to receive the condemnation of the Church.”
       691. But it seems that sinners do not approach this sacrament unworthily. For in this sacrament Christ is received, and he is the spiritual physician, who says of himself: “those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick” (Matt 9:12). The answer is that this sacrament is spiritual food, as baptism is spiritual birth. But one is born in order to live, but he is not nourished unless he is already alive. Therefore, this sacrament does not befit sinners who are not yet alive by grace; although baptism befits them.
       Furthermore, as Augustine say in his Commentary on John, “the Eucharist is the sacrament of love and ecclesial unity.” Since, therefore, the sinner lacks charity and is deservedly separated from the unity of the Church, if he approaches this sacrament, he commits a falsehood, since he is signifying that he has charity, but does not. Yet because a sinner sometimes has faith in this sacrament, it is lawful for him to look upon this sacrament, which is something absolutely denied to unbelievers, as Dionysius says in Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.
       692. Second, it is necessary to consider how one who receives this sacrament unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. This is explained in three ways in a Gloss.
       In one way materially: for one incurs guilt from a sin committed against the body and blood of Christ, as contained in this sacrament, which he receives unworthily and from this his guilt is increased. For his guilt is increased to the extent that a greater person is offended against: “how much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God and profaned the blood of the covenant?” (Heb 10:29).
       693. Second, it is explained by a similitude, so that the sense would be: he shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord, i.e., he will be punished as if he had killed Christ: “they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt” (Heb 6:6). But according to this the gravest sin seems to be committed by those who receive the body of Christ unworthily. The answer is that a sin is grave in two ways: in one way from the sin’s species, which is taken from its object; according to this a sin against the godhead, such as unbelief, blasphemy and so on, is graver than one committed against the humanity of Christ. Hence, the Lord himself says: “whoever says a word against the son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven” (Matt 12:32). And again a sin committed against the humanity in its own species is graver than under the sacramental species.
       In another way, the gravity of sin is considered on the part of the sinner. But one sins more, when he sins from hatred or envy or any other maliciousness, as those sinned who crucified Christ, than one who sins from weakness, as they sometimes sin who receive this sacrament unworthily. It does not follow, therefore, that the sin of receiving this sacrament unworthily should be compared to the sin of killing Christ, as though the sins were equal, but on account of a specific likeness: because each concerns the same Christ.
       694. He shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord is explained in a third way, i.e., the body and blood of the Lord will make him guilty. For something good evilly received hurts one, just as evil well used profits one, as the sting of Satan profited Paul.
       By these words is excluded the error of those who say that as soon as this sacrament is touched by the lips of a sinner, the body of Christ ceases to be under it. Against this is the word of the Apostle: whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily. For according to the above opinion, no one unworthy would [be able to] eat or drink. But this opinion is contrary to the truth of this sacrament, according to which the body and blood of Christ remain in this sacrament, as long as the appearances remain, no matter where they exist.
       695. Then when he says, but let a man prove himself, he applies a remedy against this peril. First, he suggests the remedy; second, he assigns a reason, at for he who eats; third, he clarifies the reason with a sign, at therefore, there are many.
       696. First, therefore, he says: because one who receives this sacrament unworthily incurs so much guilt, it is necessary that a man first examine himself, i.e., carefully inspect his conscience, lest there exist in it the intention to sin mortally or any past sin for which he has not repented sufficiently. And so, secure after a careful examination, let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice, because for those who receive worthily, it is not poison but medicine: “let each one test his own work” (Gal 6:4); “examine yourselves to see whether you are holding to your faith” (2 Cor 13:5).
       697. Then when he says, for he who eats, he assigns the reason for the above remedy, saying: a previous examination is required, for he who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment, i.e., condemnation, to himself: “those who have done evil will rise to the resurrection of judgment” (John 5:29). Not discerning the body of the Lord, i.e., from the fact that he does not distinguish the body of the Lord from other things, receiving him indiscriminately as other foods: “anyone who approaches the holy things while he has an uncleanness, that person shall be cut off from my presence” (Lev 22:3).

* * *

In the foregoing text, we see St. Thomas Aquinas lucidly expounding 1 Cor 11:27–29 in accord with the great majority of Catholic theologians and magisterial documents down through the ages. In striking contrast, we find Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia stating outright (as modern scriptural exegetes are wont to do) that vv. 27–29 are more correctly interpreted in a social sense, in accord with the context of 1 Cor 11:17–34; indeed he goes so far as to dismiss the traditional reading as being out of context and generic. Pay careful attention to n. 186:

Pope Francis’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:27–29

       185. Along these same lines, we do well to take seriously a biblical text usually interpreted outside of its context or in a generic sense, with the risk of overlooking its immediate and direct meaning, which is markedly social. I am speaking of 1 Cor 11:17–34, where Saint Paul faces a shameful situation in the community. The wealthier members tended to discriminate against the poorer ones, and this carried over even to the agape meal that accompanied the celebration of the Eucharist. While the rich enjoyed their food, the poor looked on and went hungry: “One is hungry and another is drunk. Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the Church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?” (vv. 21-22).
       186. The Eucharist demands that we be members of the one body of the Church. Those who approach the Body and Blood of Christ may not wound that same Body by creating scandalous distinctions and divisions among its members. This is what it means to “discern” the body of the Lord, to acknowledge it with faith and charity both in the sacramental signs and in the community; those who fail to do so eat and drink judgement against themselves (cf. v. 29). The celebration of the Eucharist thus becomes a constant summons for everyone “to examine himself or herself” (v. 28), to open the doors of the family to greater fellowship with the underprivileged, and in this way to receive the sacrament of that eucharistic love which makes us one body. We must not forget that “the ‘mysticism’ of the sacrament has a social character” (Pope Benedict XVI). When those who receive it turn a blind eye to the poor and suffering, or consent to various forms of division, contempt and inequality, the Eucharist is received unworthily. On the other hand, families who are properly disposed and receive the Eucharist regularly, reinforce their desire for fraternity, their social consciousness and their commitment to those in need.

* * *

Now, it requires no special expertise to see that a social reading of 1 Cor 11:27–29 and a moral-dogmatic reading of it are not incompatible; indeed, it is part of the genius of St. Paul that he often interweaves the communal, the spiritual, and the sacramental. The problem consists rather in the downplaying or sidelining of the dominant traditional reading in a document tackling the thorny question — debated intensely now for some time — of who should and should not be admitted publicly to the banquet of the Holy Body and Blood of Christ. The classic interpretation of this passage, epitomized in the Church’s Common Doctor, is particularly relevant and profoundly needed in our times. A refusal to pay heed to it, or, worse, a dismissive attitude towards it, is symptomatic of precisely that hermeneutic of rupture and discontinuity so keenly diagnosed by Pope Benedict XVI.

And this brings us back to the heart of the problem: the desire to sweep under the rug the demanding message of 1 Cor 11:27–29, on the necessity of individual examination of conscience and a sincere turning away from mortal sin. Concerning this and other “hard teachings” of Scripture — passages included in the old lectionary but deemed “too difficult” for modern man and therefore excised from the revised one — Peter Kreeft has some incisive words:

We want it all. We want God and… But we can’t have God and… because there is no such thing. The only God there is, is “God only,” not “God and.” God is a jealous God. He himself says that, many times, in his word. He will not share our heart’s love with other gods, with idols. He is our husband, and his love will not tolerate infidelity. A hard saying, especially to our age, which is spiritually as well as physically promiscuous. But if we find the saying hard, that is all the more reason to look at it again and look at ourselves in its light, for the fact that we find it hard means that we have not accepted it yet, and need to. It’s precisely those parts of God’s revealed word that we don’t like or understand that we need to pay the most attention to.  (Making Choices: Practical Wisdom  for Everyday Moral Decisions [Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1990], 151)