It always interesting to me to note the continuities and discontinuities between the Anglican and pre-Reformation lectionaries, for both the Divine Office and the Mass. In general, the lectionary for the Divine Office in the traditional Western rite was not independent from the lectionary for the Mass. The brief "chapters" (usually consisting of a single sentence) of the Day Hours were typically partial quotations from the Epistle of the day, while the antiphons at Lauds and Vespers were often taken from the Gospel to be read at Mass that day. While there is certainly some overlap, this is very different from the independent Office and Eucharistic lectionaries that subsequently became the norm in Anglicanism. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer appoints readings from Exodus 13, 1 Samuel 1, Haggai 2, Romans 12, Galatians 4, and Hebrews 10 for Matins and 1 & 2 Evensong of the Feast of the Purification. Malachi 3:1ff and Luke 2:22ff are appointed for the Eucharist, just as they were in the Roman lectionary for the Mass. The Monastic Night Office also appointed Exodus 13 to be read, along with passages from Leviticus, commentaries by Augustine and Ambrose on the Gospel, and the Mass Gospel itself (including the Nunc Dimittis, as in the 1662 BCP). The "Little Chapters" at Lauds, Vespers, and the Minor Hours consist of portions of the verses from Malachi appointed for the Mass. The 1979 lectionary appoints 1 Samuel 2:1ff, Haggai 2:1ff (as in the 1662), 1 John 3:1ff, and John 8:31ff for the Daily Office, and Malachi 3 (as in the Roman Office), Hebrews 2, and Luke 2 (also as in the Roman Office) for the Eucharist. So there is actually a fair amount of continuity between the 1979 Book of Common Prayer and both the 1662 Prayer Book and the traditional Roman/Monastic Office. Interestingly, both the 1662 and 1979 BCPs retain the old Roman Collect for the day, juxtaposing the irony of recognizing the child Jesus as the light to the Gentiles while in the Jewish Temple (of all places), with the need to acknowledged as "pure" by the Father (which the Gentiles as such were not), by assimilation to the image of his Son. The Feast is also one of those rare instances when a reading from a Prophet takes the place of the usual Epistle reading at the Mass. Despite the similarities, what we see here are in fact two different approaches to instilling the meaning of the Feast Day in the heart and mind of the believer: The traditional Anglican approach, exemplified not only by the 1662 but also by the 1979, involves the reading of a lot of Scripture, but over the course of fewer services (3 altogether: Matins, Eucharist, and Evensong). By contrast, the traditional Roman Office, while containing fewer readings overall, involves a lot of repetition that is not limited to the readings but also includes the antiphons for Lauds that are repeated at the Minor Hours and Vespers. Parts of the Malachi passage are recited at Lauds, Terce, Sext, None, and Vespers, while the antiphons for the Psalms, Benedictus, and Magnificat not only consist of excerpts from the Gospel of the day but also connect each Office with the Mass (along with the Collect for the Feast, which is also repeated at each Hour except for Prime and Compline). Which way is better? Which method produces the better fruit, and the more resilient remembrance of God?