Although the ecclesiastical year begins with Advent, the beginnings of the Bible are not read till March.  Hence, we begin the lessons from Genesis, after Septuagesima Sunday, and not, as we should naturally expect, at Advent, the beginning of the ecclesiastical year.  The order in which the Scripture lessons are read does not follow the order in which the books of the Bible stand in the sacred volume.  Thus, the Acts of the Apostles begin on the Monday after Low Sunday and are read for a fortnight; The Apocalypse begins on the third Sunday after Easter and is read for a week; then the Epistle of St. James begins, and so on, with special regard to the feasts of the time, rather than to the order of the books of the Bible.

The lessons of the second nocturn are generally commemorative of a saint or some episode of a saint’s life.  They have been much, and often ignorantly criticised, even by priests.  The science of hagiology is a very wide and far-reaching one, which demands knowledge and reverence.  Priests wishing to study its elements may read with pleasure and profit and wonder The Legends of the Saints, by Pere H. Delehaye, S.J., Bollandist (Longmans, 3s. 6d.).  “Has Lectiones secundi Nocturni ex Historiis sanctorum, quas nunc habemus recognitas fuisse a doctissimis Cardinalibus Bellarmino et Baronio, qui rejecerunt ea omnia, quae jure merito in dubium revocari poterant et approbatus sub Clemente VIII.”  (Gavantus).  And Merati adds “quod aliqua qua controversia erant utpote alicujus aliquam haberent probabilitatem, ideo rejecta non fuerant sed retenta eo modo quo erant cum falsitatis argui non possent, quamvis fortasse opposita sententia sit a pluribus recepta” (Merati, Obser. ad Gavant, sec. v., chap. xii., nn. 10 and 16).  The words of these learned men and the writings of the learned Bollandist mentioned above are worthy of consideration, as sometimes priests are puzzled about the truth and accuracy of the incidents recorded in those lessons of the second nocturn.  They should be treated with reverence.  The ignorant flippancy of a priest in an article (in a very secular periodical) on St. Expeditus gave great pain to Catholics and gave material for years to come to scoffing bigots.

“Legends, i.e., narratives, were based upon documents of the nature described above, and worked up by later writers, either for the purpose of edification or from the point of view of the historian.  The writings, however, differ endlessly as to their value, according to the knowledge and authority possessed by the writers, and according to their nearness to the events described.  There were many martyrs whose sufferings were recorded in no acta or passiones, but were imprinted on the memory of men and became part of the traditions handed down in the community, until they were finally committed to writing.  The later this took place the worse for the authenticity.  For it was then that anachronisms, alterations in titles, changes in the persons and other similar historical errors could more easily creep into the narrative, as we know in fact they have done in many instances.  The historical sense was unfortunately lacking to the Franks and Byzantines, as well as all idea of sound criticism.