Getting Nerdy About Hymnals...

Yesterday I posted the  Foreword and Preface of PRAISE THE LORD (sic).  Already two of my best-informed readers have commented, and I think there is more to say about Catholic hymn-singing.

To continue the exploration, and by way of comparison, here is a link to a .pdf of the Westminster Hymnal, which includes a Preface (1912) by John Cuthbert, +Newport, and a Musical Editor's Preface by Sir Richard Runciman Terry, the leading hymnologist of his day, and the composer of many popular hymn tunes. 

A few things immediately strike one. The first is that +Cuthbert sees hymns as adding to the 'devotion and decorum of extra-liturgical worship and popular services.' Presumably that means pilgrimages and processions, school assemblies and parish jamborees and so forth.

A second thing is that Terry uses the start of his preface to lament and correct many popular mistakes made in singing the hymns. That suggests that Catholic hymn-singing was rather more widespread than I had thought. Popular errors in the oral tradition cannot arise unless people are singing!

A third thing that struck me was the ordering of the book - which was 'prescribed by the bishops' Committee.'  It is interesting to contrast the approach taken in 1912 with that in 1966, to the arrangement of hymns.

Here is the Westminster Hymnal (1912):

And here is PRAISE THE LORD (1966)

The change is clear: the second hymnal is designed for use in the liturgy, and gone are huge numbers of hymns for popular devotion.

I was also interested in Terry's view on the pitching of hymns compared with Trotman's. Terry writes: 'Experience has shown that the difficult tunes for a congregation are those in which the melody lies at a high pitch throughout, and not those which contain an occasional high note. Ewing's well-known tune to 'Jerusalem the golden' is a case in point. It takes the congregation to F sharp (top treble line), yet it is invariably sung with lusty vigour, and remains one of the most popular tunes in English speaking countries. The keys chosen for the tunes of this book have been those which secured the requisite brightness, while placing the tune as a whole within the range of the average singer, to whom it should not cause strain or fatigue.'

Trotman, on the other hand, writes: 'A hymnal is intended primarily for congregational use and experience shows that the keys originally chosen for many hymns are uncomfortably high for the average congregational voice, especially men. For this reason many hymns have been transposed down so that except in unavoidable cases, no tune goes above D. Sometimes this results in slightly muddy harmonies, but this is outweighed by the comfort which the average singer gains by a pitch well within his capability.'

I think Terry is right, on two counts. One is that the occasional high note is not a barrier to most congregations; the second is I think bright harmonies are preferable to muddy ones. Trotman seems to me, here, to be exemplifying that exultation of participation (in a particular sense) over quality that I frequently lament.

There is, of course, much more one could say: I await the wise and perceptive contributions of my readers with interest - and will doubtless return to this subject shortly.

New Blog on the Lectionary

Matthew Hazell has just launched a new blog : Lectionary Study Aids.  The clue is in the name.  The  first aid he has produced is a comprehensive table of the Biblical texts used in the 1962 Propers of the Mass: not only the Epistle and Gospel, but the Introit, Gradual, Offertory and Communion; and not only on Sundays, but on weekdays, feast days, votive Masses - the lot.

Here's a taster:

Do go over and have a look - and maybe leave him a note of encouragement: this is a rich resource indeed!

Bugnini on Lectionary (2)

For anyone who has not been assiduously following  my series of posts on the revision of the Lectionary (shame on you), the journey started here, and may be followed by clicking on the tag Lectionary.

Over the last week, I have been reading (thanks to Thirsty Gargoyle and Ttony) the chapter on The Lectionary from Bugnini’s triumphant apologia.  

I had intended to summarise what he said, than compare what he said with what he did, and see what conclusions one might draw.

That is still the plan, but I realise now that it will take longer than one afternoon, and longer than one post.  So this is part one (somewhat confusingly, it is labelled (2) as I have already posted on this topic a while back: link later in this post).

Despite his book being rather like (as Ttony eloquently put it) a guide to the Cathedral of Hell, a few things struck me as interesting.

One is that the new Lectionary did not spring from Vatican 2.  Experiments were underway before the Council: in Germany, for example, ‘it had become the custom at Mass that while the celebrant was reading the appointed pericopes in Latin, a lector read in German other pericopes on which the homily was then preached.‘  (pp 406 - 407)  These were based on multi-year cycles. Similar practices were in place in Switzerland and Holland. It is clear from Bugnini that these experiments, pre-dating the Council’s deliberations, were foundational in the preparation of the New Lectionary.

So when the text for Sacrosanctum Concilium (hereafter SC) was prepared, some bishops had a much better insight than others into what was really intended.  I suspect (though I have more research to do here) that the same was true of a lot of the texts of the Council.  Hence, I think, what Michael Davies referred to as Liturgical Time Bombs were only surprising to some, but by no means all, of the Council Fathers, when they were later detonated.

Moving on to what Bugnini said about reforming the Lectionary, he starts by stating the goal of the Consilium (the committee established to revise the Liturgy in the wake of SC)

He quotes  SC: ‘more reading from holy Scripture... more varied and more apposite’ (SC 35.1) ‘a more representative portion’ (SC 51)   From this, he concludes that the goal is: ‘A new system of readings had therefore to be designed that would take into account the existing cycle, the findings of comparative liturgy, and the needs of today’s faithful.’ (p410)  

Where those three criteria came from, he does not say. But the second and third were very much of their time.

He then goes onto list the Principles which the Consilium would adopt. The basic principle is that:

‘the mystery of Christ and the history of salvation’ must be presented in the readings.  Therefore the new system of readings must contain the whole nucleus of the apostolic preaching about Jesus as ‘Lord and Christ’ (Acts 2:36) who fulfilled the scriptures by his life, his preaching and above all his paschal mystery and who gives life to the Church until his glorious return.

The new Lectionary must make clear:

- that the Church is today living out the mystery of salvation in its entirety, the mystery that found its complete form in Christ and that must also be completed in us;
- the mysteries of faith and the principles governing Christian life, which are then to be explained in the homily;
- that the entire Old Testament is presupposed in the Lord’s preaching, his actions and his passion;
- that attention to the central theme, the Lord’s Pasch, must not lead to forgetfulness of other themes, for example the coming of God’s reign;
- finally that the liturgical year provides the ideal setting for proclaiming the message of salvation to the faithful in an organized way.’ (pp410 - 411)

Again, how they arrived at these principles is not explained. They are, I suppose, fairly unexceptionable in a bland kind of way: how they could be used to inform any decisions is not clear to me, though that was presumably their purpose.  I am mildly surprised to see no reference to the other Persons of the Trinity.

To undertake this project, they seem to have done four things:

1 make ‘a systematic collection of the biblical passages used in the various liturgies, ancient and modern, Western and Eastern, both in the Catholic Church and in the non-Catholic ecclesial communities’... ‘to show how the Bible had been used in the Eucharistic celebration over the course of eighteen centuries... to identify constants and variants,  and thus point(ed) out a sure path that the new organization of readings might follow.’

2 ‘Thirty-one Bible scholars were given the tasks of selecting from all the books of the Old and new Testaments the passages that they regarded as best suited for liturgical use.’ But the footnote makes clear that in fact, either one or two people were asked to look at each book of the Bible. The list they produced was sent to 100 other experts for comment.

3 Individual members of the Commissio  were asked to lead studies and draw up plans for different parts of the Lectionary, or notes on (eg) the Byzantine, Anglican Lectionaries etc.

4 Finally four members were asked to draw up schemas for seven sub-divisions of the Lectionary (eg Sundays of Advent etc).

This seems to me a process devised by a bureaucrat. The first step is interesting: the effect, of course, is to dilute consideration of the existing liturgical practice by making it one of very many practices studied, some of them Protestant (!)  Looking to Protestanism to inform Catholic Liturgy was certainly a novelty, to say the least. But the sixties were heady days. 

Steps two to four then bow to the cult of the expert: and their results will of course depend on which experts are chosen. But again, that was typical of the time: the Holy Father, cardinals and bishops were devolving responsibilities in a rather drastic fashion.  And the experts seem to have been those who had an interest in reforming the liturgy, so...  It is also odd how few experts were consulted and involved.

Of particular interest (to me at any rate) in the subsequent discussions is Bugnini’s account of the question: should the present (ie the traditional) cycle be kept or abandoned?  He writes: ‘Some members suggested that the Lectionary presently in use be kept intact and serve as one of the cycles, out of respect for tradition and for ecumenical reasons, since most of the Churches (sic) issuing from the Reformation use the traditional Lectionary.’  Referring to the Protestant denominations as ‘Churches’ is indicative, too... 

He continues: ‘the ecumenical argument was given great weight in the discussion,’ and relates something of that discussion in depth. He then deals with the argument for tradition (which, I infer, was not ‘given great weight’). He writes:  ‘The members of the group and the relators are of the opinion that the Consilium must not without good reason consider itself bound to the old Lectionary.’  Clearly, centuries of use and the weight of tradition do not constitute ‘good reason.’

He continues: ‘(a) this is the first time in the history of the Church that the opportunity has arisen of revising it, and this in hitherto unparalleled favourable circumstances and with hitherto unavailable tools.’  That is an extraordinary statement. It acknowledges the fact that they are doing something never before attempted, but instead of that reflection causing them to approach the task with some humility, it is followed by an enormously confident, one might say brash, statement of their readines for the task.

He goes on: ‘(b) if the old Lectionary, whose defects everyone knows, is retained as one of the annual cycles, there will be major differences between that cycle and the others;’  I find this very revealing of Bugnini’s attitude and presumably that of his colleagues.  We can do this job, because we are wiser than our forefathers who left us this legacy: a legacy whose defects we don’t need to articulate, but can merely assert to be agreed by everyone...

This mixture of (as I see it) arrogance and disdain for tradition is evident again in his concluding paragraph of this section : ‘The result was that the faithful could recover an understanding and taste for the word of God, after centuries of neglect and abandonment had caused the fresh and authentic stream of that word to be lost in rivulets and ravines.’ (p 417)

I find it hard to reconcile my knowledge of the saints of yore with that amazing metaphor; and I think it betrays an extraordinary prejudice, or even, one might say, ideology.

There was then a report to the Holy Father, which I have already quoted in full here, along with the Holy Father’s astonishing note authorising the changes.

In the next post in this series, I will try to look at how what Bugnini’s team actually did relates to what he wrote. But this feels quite long enough for one post!

Pentecost Gospel

Today is an interesting day, for those who have been following my analysis of the treatment of the Gospels in the New Lectioanry.

On the one hand, the Gospel for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, which would have been read on this day at every Sunday Mass, every year, closes with a pair of verses which is not read on any Sunday under the new arrangements.

It is St John, 14: 30 - 31: "I shall not talk to you any longer, because the prince of this world is on his way. He has no power over me, but the world must be brought to know that I love the Father, and that I am doing exactly what the Father told me."

Quite why that is no longer an important text is unclear to me, but clearly Bugnini and his team made that decision.  Oddly, they don't seem keen on verses that describe Our Lord's relationship with His Father, nor those that mention the Devil.

The second reason today is interesting in this context is because it also features a Gospel reading with a passage cut out from the middle of it.  The Gospel we heard was St John, 14:15-16, 23-26. So verses 17 - 22 were cut.  

It is true that 17 - 21 are read on the sixth Sunday after Easter in Year A, so they have not disappeared altogether, except verse 22 itself. But it still strikes me as odd: the reading was not particularly long today. So why were these verses deemed inappropriate?  Here they are in the Knox translation, with verse 22 (the one that is never read, even on 6th Sunday after Easter (Year A)) in bold:

 It is the truth-giving Spirit, for whom the world can find no room, because it cannot see him, cannot recognize him. But you are to recognize him; he will be continually at your side, nay, he will be in you.  I will not leave you friendless; I am coming to you.  It is only a little while now, before the world is to see me no more; but you can see me, because I live on, and you too will have life.  When that day comes, you will learn for yourselves that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. The man who loves me is the man who keeps the commandments he has from me; and he who loves me will win my Father’s love, and I too will love him, and will reveal myself to him.  Here Judas, not the Iscariot, said to him, Lord, how comes it that thou wilt only reveal thyself to us, and not to the world?

Any idea why these weren't appropriate for today?

Fascinating Statistics

The Latin Mass Society has just compiled and published some fascinating statistics about the state of the Church in England and Wales over the last 100 years or so.

Presumably this is a reaction to the dodgy ordination stats that were being touted recently to prove that the Church was stronger now than in the 50s, or whatever the rather dubious claim was.

These stats certainly suggest something different: and the Catholic Herald has picked up the story.

Joseph Shaw, on his blog, focuses on the conversion stats: the extraordinarily high rates in the first half of the last century, and the collapse in the second half.

There is a comprehensive set of graphs on flickr showing baptisms, marriages, ordinations, conversions., and also a downloadable spreadsheet of all the data, complete with the graphs, here.

Here is just one example, to whet your appetite:

All in all, this is a wealth of information, and I am very grateful to Mike Lord of the LMS for sending it to me, and to the Latin Mass Society itself, of course, for compiling and publishing it.

Fascinating resource for further Lectionary studies

I forgot to mention in my previous post this fascinating resource which Joseph Shaw pointed me at.

Here you can see all the readings in the Old Missal, along with an analysis of the proportions from the different Gospels, OT v. NT and so on.  On a linked page, you can also see the stats for the EF Missal and the New Lectionary compared.

All very interesting, and certainly demonstrates how much more of theBible we have read in the new system.

Never let it be said I take a wholly one-sided approach to this issue (though in fact, I will argue later, as I have before, that more is not necessarily better in this particular instance).

St John Omitted Down to Size...

At last, I have completed my analysis of the Gospels read (or to be more accurate,  not read) at Sunday Masses in the three year cycle of the New Lectionary.

I have to say that I was somewhat shocked as I went through the Lectionary looking at how St John's Gospel is treated.

I had assumed, I suppose, that because it was not one of the synoptics, and therefore had a higher proportion of unique material, that less of it would be cut omitted.  However, that was not what I found. 

I will now reflect on all the information I have collated, read Bugnini's account of the changes (which I have in full thanks to the  the Thirsty Gargoyle ) and will post my initial reflections over the next day or two.  I will be most interested in other peoples' views, too.


Here I list all the passages that are omitted (my friend the Gargoyle thinks the word cut is too prejudicial, so I bow to his judgement) from St John's Gospel.

Where they are not featured in another Gospel read during the three years, they are in bold.



Chapter 1 

43 ff Calling of Phillip, Nathaniel under the tree; you will see heaven laid open. (St Mark’s account of the calling of the 12 used: very different and omits Nathaniel etc) 

Chapter 2

12 Stayed with his mother and his brethren (Only in St John)

Chapter 3

1-13 Nicodemus (Only in St John)

22ff St John the Baptist He must increase and I must decrease (Only in St John)

Chapter 4

1-4 Disciples baptising more than John (Only in St John)

43ff Healing of the official’s son at Cana (Only in St John)

Chapter 5

1 - 18 Cure of the man by the Pool (Only in St John)

19 - 47 The Son and the Father; John the Baptist as witness; If you believed in Moses... (Only in St John)

Chapter 6

16-23 Walking on the water (St Matthew’s account used)

36 - 40 The will of the Father; whoever believes I will raise up on the last day (Only in St John)

59 He taught this doctrine at Capernaum, in the synagogue (Only in St John)

70 - 71 Yet one of you is a devil... (Only in St John)

Chapter 7

1-36 The feast of Tabernacles; Our Lord teaches in the temple; why do you want to kill me? There is one who sent me... where I am, you cannot come. (Only in St John)

40 - 53 Would the Christ be from Galilee; have any of the authorities believed? Nicodemus: we cannot pass judgement without a hearing. (Only in St John)

Chapter 8

12 ff The light of the world, the Father is my witness, I am not of this world, I preach what the Father has taught me, if you were Abraham’s children, the devil is your father... you are a Samaritan, and possessed, Abraham saw my day and rejoiced, Before Abraham was, I AM. (Only in St John) 

Chapter 10

19-26 He is possessed... If you are the Christ, tell us plainly... I have told you, but you do not believe. (Only in St John)

31 - 42 They fetched stones to stone him.... Is it not written: I said you are gods?  The Father is in me, and I am in the Father. John gave no signs, but all he said about this man was true. (Only in St John)

Chapter 11

46 The Jewish leaders plot: Caiaphas: it is better that one man die; a high priestly prophesy. (Only in St John)

Chapter 12

1-11 Anointing  by Mary (St Mark’s account used) 

17-19 The crowd bear witness to raising of Lazarus: the pharisees: ‘all the people are following him’ (Only in St John)

34 Walk in the light, Isaiah’s prophecy: he has blinded their eyes; whoever believe in me believes in the one who sent me  What the Father has told me is what I speak. (Only in St John)


Chapter 13

16 No servant is greater than his Master  (St Luke’s account used)

17 -30 Judas’ betrayal foretold (St Matthew’s account used) 

33b ...and as I told the Jews, where I am going, you cannot come.  (Only in St John)

36 - 38 Peter’s denial foretold. (St Matthew’s account used)

Chapter 14

13-14 Whatever you ask for in my name...(Only in St John)

22 Judas (not Iscariot): do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world? (Only in St John)

30 -31 The prince of this world is on his way... I am doing exactly what the Father told me. (Only in St John)

Chapter 15

18-25 ...if the world hates you... if they persecuted me, they will persecute you... still they hate both me and my Father...(Only in St John)

Chapter 16

1-11 They will expel you from the synagogues... because they have never known either the Father or myself...unless I go, the Advocate will not come to you... the prince of this world already condemned. (Only in St John)

17 - 33 What does he mean: you will no longer see me, then you will see me?... You are sad now... your hearts will be full of joy... Ask and you will receive... the Father loves you...Now you are speaking plainly... the time will come when you are scattered... be brave: I have conquered the world. (Only in St John)

Chapter 20

10-18 The appearance to Mary Magdalene (Also omitted from St Mark)

Chapter 21

20 Peter: What about him, Lord? ... the rumour that John would not die...  John testifies to the truth of his Gospel, and to the fact that Our Lord did much more than is recorded therein. (Only in St John)

By What Authority?

Here is the next stage in my analysis of the passages cut from the Sunday Gospels over the three year cycle.

For an explanation, see the first post in the series.

Today, I look at the second half of St Luke's Gospel. Once I have finished St John's, we can start to look at why some passages may have been cut...

As always, passages that have been cut and are not covered by one of the other Gospels are in bold.

The title of this post is doubly relevant (you can work that one out for yourself...)

**

Chapter 13 

10 - 17  Healing of Woman on Sabbath: Hypocrites: is there one of you who does not untie his ass on the Sabbath?   (St Luke only)

18 - 21 Kingdom of Heaven: Mustard seed; yeast. (St Matthew’s account used)

31 - 33 Herod: that fox...   (St Luke only)

34 - 35 Jerusalem: you kill the prophets...(St Matthew’s account used)

Chapter 14

2-6 Cure of man with dropsy on the Sabbath: is it lawful...? St Luke only

15- 24 The banquet and guests who refuse to come... (St Matthew’s account used)

34- 35 If salt loses its taste... (St Matthew’s account used)

Chapter 16

14 - 15 Pharisees love of money... (St Luke only)

16 Kingdom of heaven stormed... (corresponding passage from St Matthew also cut)

17 It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away... (St Matthew’s account used)

18 Whoever divorces his wife: adultery. (St Mark’s account used)

Chapter17

1 - 4 It were better a millstone... (St Matthew’s account used)

20 - 25 The coming of the Kingdom (corresponding passage from St Matthew also cut)

26 - 30 As in Noah’s day... (St Matthew’s account used)

31 - 37 Remember Lot’s wife... (St Luke only)

Chapter 18

15 - 17 Let the children come...  (St Mark’s account used)

18 - 27 How hard for the rich... (St Mark’s account used)

28 - 30 What of us, who left all...? (corresponding passage from St Matthew also cut)

31- 34 The Son of Man to be handed over... (cut from St Matthew and St Mark as well)

35 - 43 Healing of the blind man at Jericho (St Mark’s account used)

Chapter 19

11 - 27     Parable for the ten pounds (St Matthew’s account is used)

41 - 44 Weeping for Jerusalem: not one stone left... St Luke only

45 - 48 Expulsion of moneychangers (St John’s account used)

Chapter 20

1 - 8 By what authority? (Also cut from St Matthew and St Mark)

9- 19 The Vineyard (St Matthew’s account is used)

20 -26 Tribute to Caesar (St Matthew’s account is used)

39 - 44 Christ the Son of David? (Cut from St Matthew, too)

45 - 47 Beware of the Scribes... (St Matthew’s account is used)

Chapter 21

1-4 The Widow’s mite (St Mark’s account used)

20 - 25 Siege of Jerusalem  (Also cut from St Matthew and St Mark)

29 - 33 The fig tree (St Mark’s account used)

Chapter 22

1 - 13 Betrayal by Judas; the preparation for the Passover. (St Mark’s account used)

Don't mention St John the Baptist!

One of my many vices is failing to finish projects I start.  

With the best of intentions I launch into something with great enthusiasm, but as I progress, it gets both harder and more tedious; and other things come up that seem more urgent, more important, or simply more fun. A friend tells me it's because I'm an INFP...

However, I am determined to see through this project of analysing the passages of the Gospel that have been cut from the 3 year Sunday cycle, despite it being somewhat slow going and taking rather more time than I had foreseen.

Fortunately, every now and then something crops up that re-kindles my initial enthusiasm. Today there were two such things.  One is the question about St John the Baptist: why has he been airbrushed out?

The second you will discover if you read to the end of this post (no, don't scroll down: that's cheating.  I had to write it so you could at least read it, which will be much quicker and less tedious, believe me! If you are pushed for time, it's the bold bits that are interesting...)

So here is my analysis of the first 12 Chapters of St Luke's Gospel, listing all the passages that are not read as part of the 3-year cycle, and showing in bold those that are not represented by a parallel passage from another Gospel.

Chapter 1 

5 - 25  Zachariah and Elizabeth, birth of St John the Baptist (St Luke only)

51 - 52 He has shown the power of his arm... pulled down princes...  (St Luke only)

55 According to the promise...  (St Luke only)

NB The rest of the Magnificat (46 - 50, 53-54) is used as a Responsorial Psalm, not a Gospel reading!

57-80 Birth and circumcision of St John the Baptist, Benedictus, Hidden life of St John the Baptist.  (All St Luke only.)

Chapter 3

7 - 9  St John the Baptist: ‘Brood of vipers’ (St Matthew’s account used.)

19 - 20 St John the Baptist imprisoned. (Parallel passage cut from both other synoptics)

23 - 38 Genealogy of Our Lord (St Matthew’s Genealogy used)

Chapter 4

31 - 44 Taught with authority; Casts out unclean spirit; cures Simon’s mother-in-law; many cures. (St Mark’s account used)

Chapter 5

12 - 16 Cure of a leper (St Mark’s account used)

17 - 26 Cure of a paralytic (St Mark’s account used)

27 - 32 Calling of Levi, dining with publicans and sinners. (St Matthew’s account used)

33 - 38 Fasting; the cloak and the wineskins. (St Mark’s account used)

Chapter 6

1 - 11 Picking corn on the sabbath; Cure of the man with a withered hand (St Mark’s account used)

12 - 16: The Twelve (St Matthew’s account used)

18 - 19: People cured of unclean spirits, everyone trying to touch him (Parallel passage cut from both other synoptics)

46-49: House built on rock or sand. (St Matthew’s account used)

Chapter 7

18 - 30 St John the Baptist sends messengers (St Matthew’s account used)

31 - 35 Condemnation of this generation (corresponding passage from St Matthew also cut)

Chapter 8

4 - 15 Parable of the sower (St Matthew’s account used)

16 - 18 Parable of the Lamp (St Matthew’s account used)

19 - 21 Our Lord’s family (St Mark’s account used)

22 - 25 Calming of the storm (St Mark’s account used)

26 - 39 Gadarene swine [cut from all three!]

40 - 56 Cure of woman with issue of blood, Jairus’ daughter raised to life. [St Mark’s account used] 

Chapter 9

1 - 6  Sending of the Twelve (St Matthew’s account used)

7 - 11 Herod hears of Christ; John the Baptist beheaded. (Parallel passage cut from both other synoptics)

25 What gain to win the whole world... (St Matthew’s account used)

 26  If anyone is ashamed of me... (Parallel passage cut from St Mark)

27 Some standing here who will not taste death... (The parallel passages from St Matthew and St Mark are also omitted.)

37 - 43 The epileptic demoniac (the parallel passages from St Matthew and St Mark are also omitted.)

44 - 50 Prophesy of the Passion, Who is the greatest, casting out devils in your name...  (St Mark’s account used)

Chapter 10

13 - 15 Alas for you Chorazin!.. (Parallel passage cut from St Matthew)

16 Who rejects you, rejects me... (only in St Luke: parallel passages in other Gospels only have the positive version: whoever accepts etc.)

21 - 24 ‘Revealing them to mere children...’ (St Matthew’s account used)

Chapter 11

14- 23 But if it is through the finger of God that I cast out devils... (St Mark’s account used)

24 - 26 The return of the Unclean Spirit (the corresponding passage from St Matthew is also cut)

27 - 28 Happy the womb that bore you... (St Luke only)

29 - 32 Sign of Jonah (the parallel passages from St Matthew and St Mark are also omitted.)

33 - 36 Parable of the Lamp (St Matthew’s account used)

37 - 53 Pharisees and lawyers rebuked: filled with wickedness; unmarked tombs; unendurable burdens; prophets murdered between altar and sanctuary; will not let others enter... (all of this either unique to St Luke, or in some cases also cut from St Matthew)

Chapter 12

1 - 12 Yeast of the Pharisees; fear he who can kill both body and soul; who disowns me...; blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; do not worry how to defend yourselves. (Parallel passages cut from St Matthew and St Mark)

22-31 Consider the birds of the air... the flowers... (St Matthew’s account used)

***

What struck me today in particular is that it is interesting to note that Chapter 9 vv 28- 36 are not cut, even though we have St Mark’s account of The Transfiguration  used in Year B.  So the reasons for the cuts are not solely duplication, or available time.  There is another agenda going on, too.  I have not been collecting such duplications as I go, but one is enough, I think, to make that point...