Scripture: less is more

Reading the various speeches of bishops at the Synod decrying the lack of understanding of scripture, the lack of familiarity with scripture, the poverty of homiletics, the lack of integration of ecclesial life and scripture, the conflict between exegetical study and the pastoral and theological application of scripture.
5th general congregation (VIS report)
6th general congregation (VIS report)

I am left wondering quite where we have gone wrong.

Traditional Catholic spirituality was always marked by a heavy reference to scripture, the Rosary is a great scriptural meditation, allowing the central mysteries of the Gospels to bite deep into the soul. The Ignatian Spiritual Excercises, and their methodology formed men who were willing to lay down their lives for Christ and his Church and lives of total fidelity. Lectio Divina gently drew its practitioners into profound union and contemplation of the Trinity.

My memory as a child, albeit a protestant child, was that scriptural references were part of the warp and weft of our culture, people quoted scriptural phrases knowingly or unknowingly in ordinary conversation. If one goes into an ancient church that still has its decorative scheme intact there a constant references to obscure prophets, to the interpretation of Old Testament themes in the light of the New, which indicates a deep and profound knowledge of the Word of God.

What has happened?

Obviously we have become more secularised, but that is too easy an answer.

I can't help thinking that "less is more", at one time in the English speaking world, the only translations in common use were the protestant King James bible, and for Catholics, for the most part, a single translation of the Vulgate, both were sonorous, both were memorable, but the proliferation of different translations has brought confusion. With a dozen different translations of one verse, it is impossible to committ anything to memory.

For us Catholics, even in the liturgy there are a multiplication of translation, the Office and the Lectionary are at variance. Even in the Mass their is no unity in the various antiphons and prayers and the Lectionary.

Although in theory it is praiseworthy that the more texts have been introduced into the Mass and therefore people are exposed to greater amount of scripture, in practice, I think the plate is piled too high, we are forced to consume too much, and in practice receive little nourishment. Unless the priest has preached on it, who remembers the second reading ten minutes after Mass? Unless it is sung who remembers the psalm?

In theory it is good that we are exposed to all four Gospels, but again in practice, the result is confusion.

I find it interesting that according to the Missal, Mass is supposed to begin with the Entrance Antiphon, a hymn maybe substituted, but as our bishops have never supplied musical settings of these, most parishes opt for a hymn, the same with the Communion Antiphon, as for the Offertory Antiphon this isn't even in the Missal. These little gobbets of scripture set the theme of the Mass and are meant to be a meditation to mull over during the action of the Mass, and for us to take away.

I am not suggesting we return to the Tridentine Lectionary, but I do think we need to simplify and harmonise what we have, I would like to see the Synod fathers look at the value of our three year Lectionary, of the use of three readings at Sunday Mass.

We need to ask what the purpose of scripture is in the Liturgy, in the Divine Office the psalms are actually worship, in the traditional celebration 0f High Mass the proclamation of Gospel, wasn't primarily about teaching, or edification, it was about revelation.

We need to ask what is the purpose of preaching.