Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lectionary Statistics - How much of the Bible is included in the Lectionary for Mass? (Popquiz!)
catholic-resources.org ^ | Updated on January 2, 2009 | Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D.

Posted on 11/01/2009 3:53:11 AM PST by GonzoII

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC LECTIONARY WEBSITE
by Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D.

Lectionary Statistics

How much of the Bible is included in the Lectionary for Mass?
Not as much as you might think, yet far more than was included in the Roman Missal before the Second Vatican Council!

The bishops assembled at Vatican II declared, "The treasures of the Bible are to be opened up more lavishly so that a richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God's word. In this way the more significant part of the Sacred Scriptures will be read to the people over a fixed number of years" (Sacrosanctum Concilium, #51). As the following tables show, the current Lectionary for Mass does indeed offer a "richer fare" of biblical readings during the Eucharistic liturgy than was available before Vatican II. However, since many parts of the Bible (esp. the Old Testament) are still not included in the Lectionary, one must go beyond the readings used at Mass to cover the entire Bible.

The following tables compare the current edition of the Lectionary for Mass (1981 Latin, 1998/2002 USA editions)
with the pre-Vatican II Missale Romanum (substantially unchanged between 1570 and 1969, with a few modifications in 1951)
and the complete New American Bible (see the bottom of this page for a key to the column headings).

Readings from the Old Testament:

Before Vatican II, each Catholic Mass included only two biblical readings, which were normally referred to as "The Epistle" (since the first reading was almost always taken from one of the New Testament letters) and "The Gospel." Readings from the Old Testament were never used on Sundays, but only at the Easter Vigil, the Vigil of Pentecost, the feast of Epiphany and its octave, during Holy Week, and on some weekdays (esp. Ember days, weekdays of Lent, the feasts of some saints, and some votive Masses).

Since Vatican II, Masses on Sundays and major feast days include three biblical readings, the first of which is usually taken from the Old Testament (except during the Easter Season, when the first reading is from the Acts of the Apostles). The OT reading is normally very brief and thematically related to the Gospel reading of the day, so there is no detectable order or semi-continuous pattern from one Sunday to the next. Weekday Masses usually have only two readings, the first of which is taken from either the OT or the NT, according to a two-year weekday cycle.

OT Name of Book NAB Pre-Vatican II Missal:
Vigils & Feasts
Current Lectionary:
Sundays & Major Feasts
Current Lectionary:
Sundays & Weekdays
# Chap. # Vv. Total Vv. Used % Used Vv. Used % Used Vv. Used % Used
1 Genesis 50 1533 100** 6.5 % 138 9.0 % 428 27.9 %
2 Exodus 40 1213 28 2.3 % 112 9.2 % 208 17.1 %
3 Leviticus 27 859 0 0 % 9 1.0 % 42 4.9 %
4 Numbers 36 1289 0 0 % 11 0.9 % 81 6.3 %
5 Deuteronomy 34 959 9 0.9 % 52 5.4 % 106 11.1 %
6 Joshua 24 658 0 0 % 9 1.4 % 42 6.4 %
7 Judges 21 618 0 0 % 0 0 % 51 8.3 %
8 Ruth 4 85 0 0 % 0 0 % 21 24.7 %
9 1 Samuel 31 810 0 0 % 31 3.8 % 148 18.3 %
10 2 Samuel 24 695 0 0 % 19 2.7 % 110 15.8 %
11 1 Kings 22 817 0 0 % 37 4.5 % 166 20.3 %
12 2 Kings 25 719 0 0 % 14 1.9 % 100 13.9 %
13 1 Chronicles 29 943 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 %
14 2 Chronicles 36 821 0 0 % 8 1.0 % 17 2.1 %
15 Ezra 10 280 0 0 % 0 0 % 21 7.5 %
16 Nehemiah 13 405 0 0 % 8 2.0 % 19 4.7 %
17 Tobit 14 245 0 0 % 0 0 % 71 29.0 %
18 Judith 16 340 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 %
19 Esther 16 272 0 0 % 0 0 % 7 2.6 %
20 1 Maccabees 16 922 0 0 % 0 0 % 54 5.9 %
21 2 Maccabees 15 556 0 0 % 8 1.4 % 35 6.3 %
22* Job 42 1068 0 0 % 11 1.0 % 87 8.1 %
24* Proverbs 31 915 0 0 % 24 2.6 % 47 5.1 %
25 Ecclesiastes 12 222 0 0 % 4 1.8 % 34 15.3 %
26 Song of Solomon 8 117 0 0 % 0 0 % 7 6.0 %
27 Wisdom of Solomon 19 436 0 0 % 42 9.6 % 102 23.4 %
28 Sirach/Ecclesiasticus 51 1372 0 0 % 48 3.5 % 208 15.2 %
29 Isaiah 66 1291 24** 1.9 % 166 12.9 % 322 24.9 %
30 Jeremiah 52 1364 0 0 % 38 2.8 % 162 11.9 %
31 Lamentations 5 154 0 0 % 0 0 % 8 5.2 %
32 Baruch 6 213 30** 14.1 % 27 12.7 % 44 20.7 %
33 Ezekiel 48 1273 14** 1.1 % 48 3.8 % 180 14.1 %
34 Daniel 14 530 24** 4.5 % 5 0.9 % 178 33.6 %
35 Hosea 14 197 16 8.1 % 11 5.6 % 38 19.3 %
36 Joel 4 73 0 0 % 5 6.8 % 27 37.0 %
37 Amos 9 146 0 0 % 13 8.9 % 51 34.9 %
38 Obadiah 1 21 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 %
39 Jonah 4 48 10** 20.8 % 6 12.5 % 39 81.3 %
40 Micah 7 105 0 0 % 4 3.8 % 24 22.9 %
41 Nahum 3 47 0 0 % 0 0 % 8 17.0 %
42 Habakkuk 3 56 0 0 % 5 8.9 % 12 21.4 %
43 Zephaniah 3 53 0 0 % 8 15.1 % 13 24.5 %
44 Haggai 2 38 0 0 % 0 0 % 18 47.4 %
45 Zechariah 14 211 0 0 % 5 2.4 % 24 11.4 %
46 Malachi 3 55 0 0 % 6 10.9 % 18 32.7 %

* Note 1: The above table does not include the Psalms, since they are used so often in various ways during the Mass.
** Note 2: The 1951 revision of the Roman Missal reduced the number of OT readings at the Easter Vigil from twelve to four,
and omitted all six OT readings from the Pentecost Vigil, thereby further reducing the total amount of the OT read before Vatican II;
remaining were only 33 verses of Genesis, 28 of Exodus, 9 of Deuteronomy, 12 of Isaiah and 16 of Hosea. For details, see the Roman Missal page.

OT Summary:

OT Section NAB Pre-Vatican II Missal:
Vigils & Feasts
Current Lectionary:
Sundays & Major Feasts
Current Lectionary:
Sundays & Weekdays
# Chap. # Vv. Total Vv. Used % Used Vv. Used % Used Vv. Used % Used
Torah/Law 187 5853 137 2.3 % 322 5.5 % 865 14.8 %
Historical Books 316 9186 0 0 % 134 1.5 % 862 9.4 %
Wisdom Books (w/o Psalms) 163 4130 0 0 % 129 3.1 % 485 11.7 %
Four Major Prophets 191 4825 92 1.9 % 284 5.9 % 894 18.5 %
Twelve Minor Prophets 67 1050 26 2.5 % 63 6.0 % 272 25.9 %
OT Total (w/o Psalms) 924 25044 255 1.0 % 932 3.7 % 3378 13.5 %
Note 3: The 1951 revision of the pre-Vatican II Roman Missal (see note 2 above) reduced the total to only
98 verses or 0.39% of the Old Testament (aside from the Psalms) read at Vigils and major feast days.

Readings from the New Testament:

Before Vatican II, the same readings were used each year for the various Masses in the Roman Missal. The first reading was usually from one of Paul's Letters or the Catholic Epistles. The Gospel readings were most often taken from Matthew or John, less frequently from Luke, and only rarely from Mark.

Since Vatican II, much more of the New Testament is included in the Lectionary for Mass. The Acts of the Apostles is used as the first reading on the Sundays and weekdays during the Easter season. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are read semi-continuously on the Sundays of Ordinary Time on a three-year cycle, while passages from the Gospel of John are used mostly during the seasons of Lent and Easter and on several major feast days. Excerpts from all other NT books and letters are used as the second reading at Masses on Sundays and major feasts according to a three-year cycle, and/or weekday Masses on a two-year cycle. (Click on any of the previous underlined links for more details.)

NT Name of Book NAB Pre-Vatican II Missal:
Sundays & Major Feasts
Current Lectionary:
Sundays & Major Feasts
Current Lectionary:
Sundays & Weekdays
# Chap. # Vv. Total Vv. Used % Used Vv. Used % Used Vv. Used % Used
1 Matthew 28 1071 373 34.8 % 594 55.5 % 916 85.5 %
2 Mark 16 678 30 3.4 % 414 61.1 % 653 96.3 %
3 Luke 24 1151 188 16.3 % 650 56.5 % 1011 87.8 %
4 John 21 879 256 30.0 % 526 59.8 % 813 92.5 %
5 Acts 28 1007 35 3.5 % 165 16.4 % 492 48.9 %
6 Romans 16 433 69 15.9 % 117 27.0 % 228 52.7 %
7 1 Corinthians 16 437 75 17.2 % 162 37.1 % 244 55.8 %
8 2 Corinthians 13 256 40 15.6 % 48 18.8 % 123 48.0 %
9 Galatians 6 149 45 30.2 % 47 31.5 % 90 60.4 %
10 Ephesians 6 155 57 36.8 % 96 61.9 % 141 91.0 %
11 Philippians 4 104 25 24.0 % 47 45.2 % 73 70.2 %
12 Colossians 4 95 16 16.8 % 35 36.8 % 62 65.3 %
13 1 Thessalonians 5 89 16 18.0 % 39 43.8 % 69 77.5 %
14 2 Thessalonians 3 47 0 0.0 % 17 36.2 % 28 59.6 %
15 1 Timothy 6 113 0 0.0 % 20 17.7 % 51 45.1 %
16 2 Timothy 4 83 0 0.0 % 25 30.1 % 39 47.0 %
17 Titus 3 46 9 19.6 % 8 17.4 % 28 60.9 %
18 Philemon 1 25 0 0.0 % 8 32.0 % 19 76.0 %
19 Hebrews 13 303 17 5.6 % 84 27.7 % 188 62.0 %
20 James 5 108 11 10.2 % 31 28.7 % 99 91.7 %
21 1 Peter 5 105 33 31.4 % 36 34.3 % 57 54.3 %
22 2 Peter 3 61 0 0.0 % 7 11.5 % 15 24.6 %
23 1 John 5 105 13 12.4 % 33 31.4 % 95 100.0 %
24 2 John 1 13 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 6 46.2 %
25 3 John 1 15 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 4 26.7 %
26 Jude 1 25 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 6 24.0 %
27 Revelation 22 404 0 0.0 % 38 9.4 % 129 31.9 %

NT Summary:

NT Section NAB Pre-Vatican II Missal:
Sundays & Major Feasts
Current Lectionary:
Sundays & Major Feasts

Current Lectionary:
Sundays & Weekdays

# Chap. # Vv. Total Vv. Used % Used Vv. Used % Used Vv. Used % Used
Gospels (4) 89 3779 848 22.4 % 2184 57.8 % 3393 89.8 %
Acts 28 1007 35 3.5 % 165 16.4 % 492 48.9 %
Pauline Letters (7) 61 1493 270 18.1 % 468 31.3 % 846 56.7 %
Deutero-Paulines (6) 26 539 82 15.2 % 201 37.3 % 349 64.7 %
Hebrews 13 303 17 5.6 % 84 27.6 % 188 62.0 %
Catholic Epistles (7) 21 432 57 13.2 % 107 24.7 % 292 67.6 %
Book of Revelation 22 404 0 0 % 38 9.4 % 129 31.9 %
NT w/o Gospels 171 4178 461 11.0 % 1063 25.4 % 2296 54.9 %
NT Grand Total 260 7957 1309 16.5 % 3247 40.8 % 5689 71.5 %

Key to the Column Headings:

Main Lectionary Page 1998/2002 USA Edition 1992 Canadian Edition
Links to Other Websites 1970 USA Edition Roman Missal (Pre-Vatican II)


Return to the HOME PAGE of Felix Just, S.J.
This page was last updated on January 2, 2009.
web version copyright © 1999--2006



TOPICS: Catholic; General Discusssion; Worship
KEYWORDS: bible; catholic; liturgy; scripture
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-226 next last
To: narses
If you are referring to "“All who live a just life will be saved even if they do not believe in Jesus Christ...", then I'd have huge issues with as, as does God's Word.

"I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose." - Galatians 2

Or, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14

I'll admit, it seems like there ought to be some clarifying context where your Pope says, "But NO ONE can live like that, so the sacrifice of Jesus is critical, since no one can be justified in the eyes of God by their merit." Apart from that, it is direct contradiction with Jesus Christ himself.

51 posted on 11/01/2009 12:19:58 PM PST by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

Scriptural citation please. I’m not interested in philosophy, but revelation.


52 posted on 11/01/2009 12:22:09 PM PST by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

John MacArthur means nothing to me. What did he say that you find relevant?


53 posted on 11/01/2009 12:24:53 PM PST by papertyger (It took a Carter to elect a Reagan, President Palin....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
The only way to pull this one out is if one remembers that, as my pastor says, "The only thing we can contribute is sin." That is, IF someone lives a just life and all that other stuff, he does so only (he CAN do so only) because God is, infinitesimal instant by infinitesimal instant, keeping him just and the rest.

To live in accordance with the beatitudes is a gift, not an accomplishment.

The rest is not so much of a problem for me. A Buddhist monk undertook a "meritorious" work, to fund a production of the major Buddhist Scriptures. Three times, as he amassed almost enough money to do this great thing, there was a natural disaster, a famine, flood, what have you. Three times he gave up his project and donated the assembled funds for relief.

Now I don't know about the state of his soul, and it's not my business. But I do know that when I undertake some piddly project and it doesn't come out according to my 'vision', I remember that monk, and offer the little I foolishly pretend to have to God. That's certainly God calling me to grace, and using the story of that monk as the stick with which to hit me on the head (which I so sorely and so often need.)

So I envision the "contribute under the influence of grace to the building of this Kingdom.”

I don't see how the monk could have done it without God moving his heart, I don't see how I would know it, and recognize God's prompting me to self-oblation without God moving my heart.

But I DO wish Popes wouldn't say stuff like that some times, I confess ...

54 posted on 11/01/2009 12:25:12 PM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin: pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

The role of elders in dealing with heresy, which is what I thought you said the Magisterium would be required to do.

I didn’t quote him because I thought you would be impressed by his name, but because he accurately cites the scriptures involved. Perhaps you could try reading it again...


55 posted on 11/01/2009 12:33:02 PM PST by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
I'll admit, it seems like there ought to be some clarifying context where your Pope says, "But NO ONE can live like that, so the sacrifice of Jesus is critical, since no one can be justified in the eyes of God by their merit."

Seriously, it's not so much that we keep forgetting that a lot of people think we deny the grace of God, though that's part of it, as that we don't always frame our remarks with that audience in mind.

56 posted on 11/01/2009 12:33:56 PM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin: pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Scriptural citation please. I’m not interested in philosophy, but revelation.

Genesis 1:1. And you're not interested in revelation, either. It was just given to you, and you dismissed it.

57 posted on 11/01/2009 12:37:11 PM PST by papertyger (It took a Carter to elect a Reagan, President Palin....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; Mad Dawg
"I still haven’t found any scriptural authority for saying God is outside of time."

Here's some Sunday School discussion for you:

Dan 2:21 "And He changeth the times and the seasons; He removeth kings and setteth up kings. He giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding. 22 He revealeth the deep and secret things; He knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with Him."

Acts 17: 26 "And He hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation."

Rom 11: 36 "For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things, to whom be glory for ever. Amen."

Acts 1: 7 "And He said unto them, "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father hath put in His own power. "

Third Millennium Bible

Regards.

58 posted on 11/01/2009 12:44:57 PM PST by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

No, it wasn’t. You ASSUME creation is the start of time, then cite creation as proof God is outside of time.

You cannot assume a proof.

Here is a scriptural citation:

“But when this priest [Jesus] had offered [past tense] for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down [past tense]at the right hand of God. Since that time [present tense] he waits [for a future event] for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made [past tense] perfect forever those who are being made holy.” - Hebrews 10

Hmmm...it shows God inside of time. Now, God could have said He is outside of time - that time is not a part of who He is - but God does not. Instead, He had Jesus, having done one thing, now waiting for another to happen.

“And you’re not interested in revelation, either.”

Poor taste.


59 posted on 11/01/2009 12:46:15 PM PST by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: shibumi
If you take the numbers of the reading citations, add to them the Julian number of the date on which they're read, and divide by your weight in grams ... (O my GAWD, I almost let the secret out!)

The usual line is that the OT reasing is selected to do a kind of "compare and contrast" with the Gospel reading, while the other NT reading is sometimes chosen that way and sometimes chosen for reasons which sure escape me. But the OT and Gospel present a theme, and usually the selection from the Psalms resonates with that theme.

During Eastertide (from Easter to Pentecost) instead of an OT reading the eading is from Acts, usually from the address Peter gave on the first Pentecost.

Today, All Saints, was a "solemnity" (pronounced solemnididdy)(well, it is if you're under 6 years old), one of the few special days which takes precedence of a Sunday. So the readings for today were
Rev 7:2-4,9-14
Ps 24:1-6
I John 3:1-3,
and the Beatitudes from Matthew.

So you can see how all the readings pick up the theme of the promise and nature of holiness for all of us.

I hope that's useful and responsive.

60 posted on 11/01/2009 12:49:23 PM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin: pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Thank you for the quotes.

Dan 2:21 - God controls what happens in time.

Acts 17:26: “And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place” - God controls what happens in time.

Romans 11:36: “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever.” No indication He is outside of time, or that time is not integral to His actions. Eternal, but not necessarily outside of time.

Acts 1:7: “7He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority.” God controls what happens when, but this doesn’t show God outside of time.

So I guess we disagree, but I thank you for your post.


61 posted on 11/01/2009 12:53:20 PM PST by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Readings where the same passage occurs in more than one book. Almost every verse of Mark, for instance, also appears in Matthew or Luke. Paul repeats certain teachings in more than one of his letters. And various passages of the Torah appear in more than one book. (The Ten Commandments, for instance, appear three times, in Exodus, Leviticus and Dueteronomy.)


62 posted on 11/01/2009 1:00:07 PM PST by dangus (Nah, I'm not really Jim Thompson, but I play him on FR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; papertyger
I’m not interested in philosophy, but revelation.

This is the most interesting -- even radical, at least radically important -- thing you've written. As such, it's one of the hardest to discuss.

"Philosophy" was given a bad name by the gnostic heretics, at whom even the philophers sneered (Plotinus wrote -- and I actually read, decades ago, a treatise "Against the Gnostics.") Likewise with "Metaphysics" and, I would add "Mysticism". In my view all these terms have meanings neither pro- nor con- Xty and revelation. When we use words like "cause" or "change" (or, ahem, "time") we are not able to avoid taking up the tools of philosophers, in my view.

ONE reason I, at any rate, think that 1 AD was a good time for IHS to be born and the Gospel to flower is that there had been a LOT of good philosophers around and there were the rudiments of a common culture with an intellectual class who could respond to and then articulate the Gospel.

Personally I would disagree with PT that you need physical stuff to have time. You just need something that changes, IMHO.

Aristotle says (and I can't think how to disagree) that time is the measure of motion," where "motion" would include the change of a stationary object.

If you think about what a time measuring device is (an ideal clock is a closed system in which something happens -- think about it) it seems hard to imagine "time without any change at all" being a meaningful phrase.

None of that requires (or admits?) recourse to Scripture. It's about what we mean by time, what time "is".

But then, once we nail down what time is, we can wonder meaningfully about God and time.

In fact, I don't see how one can do systematic theology without some kind of philosophical context with which one agrees or disagrees ...

63 posted on 11/01/2009 1:05:45 PM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin: pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; GonzoII

1 Chronicles cntains almost no unique material not found in the Books of Kings. I’m pretty certain I’ve heard Judith 13 at mass.


64 posted on 11/01/2009 1:07:56 PM PST by dangus (Nah, I'm not really Jim Thompson, but I play him on FR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; GonzoII
Again, we would need to do some work on how God can mqanipulate time without being outside of it.

On another track -- philosophical question, I fear -- how can we talk about God in time without slipping into a kind of ditheism :God and Time. Would we want to say God MADE time?

My head hurts.

65 posted on 11/01/2009 1:09:14 PM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin: pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
You ASSUME creation is the start of time, then cite creation as proof God is outside of time.

That's my point about not understanding what you read: it's not an assumption, it's a fact. God could not have called something out of nothing if mass predated creation. Without mass, there is no time, and that is an irreduccable fact that is understood by its definition.

66 posted on 11/01/2009 1:09:38 PM PST by papertyger (It took a Carter to elect a Reagan, President Palin....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

“Without mass, there is no time, and that is an irreduccable fact that is understood by its definition.”

No, it isn’t. It is your assumption.


67 posted on 11/01/2009 1:23:39 PM PST by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

At the time of Christ, there were Jews who read only the five books of Moses as scripture (the Sadducees), Jews who read only the books of Moses plus the Prophets, and Jews who read the entire Old Testament canon plus several books which not even Catholics include. There were no groups of Jews which read the entire Protestant canon, and only the Protestant Canon. The Catholic canon consists of those books which had been translated into Greek for the benefit of Jews living in diaspora.

After the destruction of the Temple, the Jews decided that they had to agree on a set canon. The reason that they did not include the book of 2 Maccabees is that it argued for a resurrection of the body, and seemed to suggest an imminent arrival of the Messiah. These notions were blamed for causing the Christian movement, which the Jews in turn blamed for their destruction, so they were removed from the bible. (There was a false notion at the time of Luther that 2 Maccabees had been a Greek book; we now have pre-Christian, Hebrew manuscripts.)

Regardless of whether 2 Maccabees was read by Jews as scripture, it offers historical proof that notions such as participatory atonement, purgation, and the Resurrection of the Dead were already held as truth, before the Catholic Church, since manuscripts of 2 Maccabees are older than Christ.


68 posted on 11/01/2009 1:25:59 PM PST by dangus (Nah, I'm not really Jim Thompson, but I play him on FR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: papertyger; Mr Rogers
I dispute Mass as a prerequisite. All you need, I think, is something that changes. The minute (so to speak) you have that, you have time.

If you come from a tradition which doesn't "do" philosophy and that sort of thing, it's not a quick nor an easy sale. To me, it's a given, because, intellectually at least, I was a philosopher before I was a committed Xtian, that God never changes. But I can see how if one doesn't have a background if thinking like that, might not agree.

"Making sense" itself is a phrase open to different understandings. And back me into a corner over how a thing can change and yet be what it is ... well, I start stammering. And then the non-philosophers can ask, "Isn't philosophy just a matter of filling the space between here and speechlessness with a lot of noise?"

69 posted on 11/01/2009 1:29:31 PM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin: pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Time is a function of space. Without space, there is no time. This is a notion understood by the ancients when they used words like “eternal,” and surprisingly confirmed by modern physics.


70 posted on 11/01/2009 1:29:47 PM PST by dangus (Nah, I'm not really Jim Thompson, but I play him on FR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

For the most part, I find these discussion too much for my noggin.

What I have are a number of verses in a number of places where it seems time is an integral part of God Himslef - hence Jesus DID something, is now waiting, and will do something else.

One possible explanation would be that God was ‘talking down’ to us, which is often required. However, I think the idea that God is outside time is simple enough that He could have revealed so without anyone batting an eye.

Another explanation is that time is somehow integral to God, as is truth, love, etc.

For philosophy, I find it best to TRY to limit what is stated categorically to what God has revealed. Beyond that, we should be free to disagree without harm. Where to draw that line is probably beyond me...


71 posted on 11/01/2009 1:30:15 PM PST by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: dangus

18 Judith 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 %

I thought I had heard it to at Mass. Maybe in the old Mass?


72 posted on 11/01/2009 1:38:12 PM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: dangus

There are historical documents from the time of Christ and before that indicates otherwise. Jerome argued against accepting the Apocryphal books as canon based largely on Jewish rejection of them, although he gave way when outvoted.


73 posted on 11/01/2009 1:43:00 PM PST by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
No, it isn’t. It is your assumption.

I'll try one more time before you go into the "invincibly ignorant" catagory...

E=mc squared has been verified to at least 16 decimal places. Now if you solve for time (a factor of "c") and make mass zero, the equation goes undefined because you have a zero for your denominator. Time is a physical property just like width and length, and every encyclopedia that addresses the issue recognizes this fact.

74 posted on 11/01/2009 1:50:11 PM PST by papertyger (It took a Carter to elect a Reagan, President Palin....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg; Mr Rogers
Another way to say it is that time is about things that change, and only creatures change.

When we think not only about a thousand ages being short as the watch that ends the night but also a day's being like a thousand years, we imagine ourselves being able to expand or contract our experience of time. But then WE still change in reaciton to what's around us, what we perceive. So in our imagination we posit a third "time", the short time in which I am as a thousand ages pass, or the other time in which a day is so very long - my eperinece of time as I say, "That was a short time," or "That was a long time."

Further we have to struggle with the thousand ages being like an evening in some respects, but in others, as God sprinkles grace on the mired and slow-moving soul, the complex ALMOST-instant in which the soul turns from doubt to faith, can be imagined as the slow intricate gracious work of God and His angels in the mysterious depths of that soul. So we're going to end up positing an indefinitely (if not infinitely) large array of subjective times for God to operate in as he straightens recalcitrant Mad Dawgs out and keeps them safe and manages the internal economy of the sub-atomic particles in the Magellanic Cloud.

If, on the other hand, we have God outside of time, while the basic notion is incomprehensible, the rest falls easily into place. "Before Abraham was," or, indeed, anything or anyone else, "I AM!" Also during and after ....

Does God's "Omnipresence" include time, or just space?

Here's a short thought experiment. Go take a look at post #1 in this thread I had made last May, illustrating God's "size." Now imagine that same concept applied where every moment in time is visible. Now I believe that "time" is a part of His creation, that time itself is a created thing. Because God exists apart from His creation (and is therefore "outside" of it), and because time is a part of the creation, therefore not only does God's omnipresence allow Him to be everywhere at the same time, He is able to be everywhen as well.

75 posted on 11/01/2009 2:10:04 PM PST by Alex Murphy ("Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him" - Job 13:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

I’m not old enough to recall the old mass.


76 posted on 11/01/2009 3:01:13 PM PST by dangus (Nah, I'm not really Jim Thompson, but I play him on FR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
What I glean from this post is this: People love to toss out the accusation that Catholics don't read the Bible. Your post demonstrates that a Catholic who does nothing to practice his faith except attend weekly Mass (and the few Holy Days) will hear almost half the Bible. That's a far cry from "Catholics don't read the Bible." The Church is apparently formally requiring Catholics to hear at least half the Bible during their required weekly obligation to attend Mass. Correct? Now a really good Catholic may attend Mass during the week. Daily Communicants hear two thirds of the Bible. It's just part of the Mass. The priest, at every Mass, should be conducting his own little Bible Study with the congregation during the homily. This is the basic foundation of Bible knowledge for Catholics. Catholics are encouraged to study the Bible on their own and in groups in addition to this foundation. Now let's be fair about Bible consumption: How many Christians read this much of the Bible? And to be even more fair, what percentage of the Bible would we all throw out because it is just about Jewish battles, lineage, or the intricacies of Jewish tradition and ritual? Is anybody really studying those chapters? If we throw those out, the percentage of the relevant portion of the Bible that Catholics read goes up. Now be super fair: Christian religions have thrown parts of the original Bible out! What percentage? How do their numbers stack up when we calculate them without the sections they threw away? I think we can see that Catholics have nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to consumption of the Bible. It's an integral part of the Mass, which is the most important aspect of our faith. That old "Catholics don't read the Bible" just won't hunt. In fact, it's a lie.
77 posted on 11/01/2009 4:23:28 PM PST by Melian ("frequently in error, rarely in doubt")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

>> There are historical documents from the time of Christ and before that indicates otherwise. <<

Name one.

>> Jerome argued against accepting the Apocryphal books as canon based largely on Jewish rejection of them, although he gave way when outvoted. <<

His actual statement was that those who interpreted his words as denying the scriptural authenticity of the disputed books were “fools and slanderers.” Martin Luther, an inveterate slanderer, labelled those books, “apocrypha,” to confuse them with another category of Christian writings which had been called apocrypha since the dawn of the Church. Thus many Protestants are misled by believing that ancient condemnations of “apocrypha” were leveled at books the same Church fathers quoted as divine relevation.


78 posted on 11/01/2009 6:49:54 PM PST by dangus (Nah, I'm not really Jim Thompson, but I play him on FR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: dangus

See: http://bible.org/article/content-and-extent-old-testament-canon

or here: http://department.monm.edu/classics/Speel_Festschrift/sundbergJr.htm

Consider this:

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.” (Cardinal Cajetan, “Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament,” cited by William Whitaker in “A Disputation on Holy Scripture,” Cambridge: Parker Society (1849), p. 424)

Also see: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/guest-blogdid-jerome-change-his-mind.html

Now, you claim “Martin Luther, an inveterate slanderer, labelled those books, “apocrypha,” to confuse them with another category of Christian writings which had been called apocrypha since the dawn of the Church.”

Were you aware that the term Deutero-Cathonical was coined in the late 1500s? They had been called Apocryphal for a thousand years...was Luther supposed to invent Deuterocanonical for you, so he could call them something else?

Your history is wrong.


79 posted on 11/01/2009 7:24:57 PM PST by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Melian; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; Gamecock; Forest Keeper; Mr Rogers
...a Catholic who does nothing to practice his faith except attend weekly Mass (and the few Holy Days) will hear almost half the Bible.

Incorrect. Check the charts below, taken from the article itself. By doing "nothing to practice his faith except attending Sunday weekly Mass (and the few Holy Days), in two years' time (after which the reading cycle ends), a Mass-attending Catholic will hear 3.7% of the Old Testament (932 verses), and in three years' time (after which the reading cycle ends) a Mass-attending Catholic will hear 40.8% of the New Testament (3247 verses). That all adds up to a total of 4179 out of 33001 verses mentioned in the chart, i.e. only 12.7% of the entire Bible (excluding Psalms) is heard by a weekly-Mass-attending Catholic.

That's a far cry from "Catholics don't read the Bible."

Incorrect. By your own description, your offered Catholic example has not bothered to read any of it for himself. Your example is precisely that of a "Catholic who doesn't read the Bible." He's only hearing it, and only 12% of it at that.

The Church is apparently formally requiring Catholics to hear at least half the Bible during their required weekly obligation to attend Mass. Correct?

Incorrect. Again, check the charts below.

Now a really good Catholic may attend Mass during the week. Daily Communicants hear two thirds of the Bible. It's just part of the Mass.

Incorrect. Check the charts below. By doing "nothing to practice his faith except attending Sunday and Daily Mass (and the few Holy Days), in two years' time (after which the reading cycle ends), a Mass-attending Catholic will hear 13.5% of the Old Testament (3378 verses), and in three years' time (after which the reading cycle ends) a Mass-attending Catholic will hear 71.5% of the New Testament (5689 verses). That all adds up to a total of 9067 out of 33001 verses mentioned in the chart, i.e. only 27.5% of the entire Bible (excluding Psalms) is heard by a daily-Mass-attending Catholic.

Now let's be fair about Bible consumption: How many Christians read this much of the Bible? And to be even more fair, what percentage of the Bible would we all throw out because it is just about Jewish battles, lineage, or the intricacies of Jewish tradition and ritual? Is anybody really studying those chapters? If we throw those out, the percentage of the relevant portion of the Bible that Catholics read goes up.

Let me emphasis this for the lurkers: you, as a Catholic, are advocating throwing out whole chunks of inspired text. Catholic apologists take Martin Luther to task for having considered removing James and Revelation from the NT, something which he never actually went through with. Meanwhile, your own liturgy has been throwing out a majority of the inspired text from the Mass for nearly two millennia! How else can we explain you mistaking the Bible for being 75% shorter than it actually is?

I think we can see that Catholics have nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to consumption of the Bible. It's an integral part of the Mass, which is the most important aspect of our faith.

I'd consider 12.7% to be something to be ashamed of, myself. I'd be even more embarrassed if to admit that the amount that I thought was "almost half of the Bible" was really less than one-eighth. That would betray a severe ignorance of how much content is actually in the Bible!

That old "Catholics don't read the Bible" just won't hunt. In fact, it's a lie.

"Almost half", huh?

"Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ!"

OT Summary:

OT Section NAB Pre-Vatican II Missal:
Vigils & Feasts
Current Lectionary:
Sundays & Major Feasts
Current Lectionary:
Sundays & Weekdays
# Chap. # Vv. Total Vv. Used % Used Vv. Used % Used Vv. Used % Used
Torah/Law 187 5853 137 2.3 % 322 5.5 % 865 14.8 %
Historical Books 316 9186 0 0 % 134 1.5 % 862 9.4 %
Wisdom Books (w/o Psalms) 163 4130 0 0 % 129 3.1 % 485 11.7 %
Four Major Prophets 191 4825 92 1.9 % 284 5.9 % 894 18.5 %
Twelve Minor Prophets 67 1050 26 2.5 % 63 6.0 % 272 25.9 %
OT Total (w/o Psalms) 924 25044 255 1.0 % 932 3.7 % 3378 13.5 %

NT Summary:

NT Section NAB Pre-Vatican II Missal:
Sundays & Major Feasts
Current Lectionary:
Sundays & Major Feasts

Current Lectionary:
Sundays & Weekdays

# Chap. # Vv. Total Vv. Used % Used Vv. Used % Used Vv. Used % Used
Gospels (4) 89 3779 848 22.4 % 2184 57.8 % 3393 89.8 %
Acts 28 1007 35 3.5 % 165 16.4 % 492 48.9 %
Pauline Letters (7) 61 1493 270 18.1 % 468 31.3 % 846 56.7 %
Deutero-Paulines (6) 26 539 82 15.2 % 201 37.3 % 349 64.7 %
Hebrews 13 303 17 5.6 % 84 27.6 % 188 62.0 %
Catholic Epistles (7) 21 432 57 13.2 % 107 24.7 % 292 67.6 %
Book of Revelation 22 404 0 0 % 38 9.4 % 129 31.9 %
NT w/o Gospels 171 4178 461 11.0 % 1063 25.4 % 2296 54.9 %
NT Grand Total 260 7957 1309 16.5 % 3247 40.8 % 5689 71.5 %

80 posted on 11/01/2009 8:30:11 PM PST by Alex Murphy ("Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him" - Job 13:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Yes, the term Deuterocanonicals is fairly modern. No, they weren’t called “apocrypha;” they were called “holy scripture.” The term “deuterocanonicals” was invented to describe the books slanderously, diabolically and deceitfully called, “apocrypha” by Martin Luther, without surrendering to his slander and deceit. Incidentally, the term also includes the Book of Revelations, which Luther declared that no loving God could ever have inspired, Hebrews which he called “an epistle of straw,” James, which he called a “diabolical invention,” 2 and 3 Peter, and 1 and 2 John.

Why on earth would you cite Whittaker as a source for Cardinal Catejan as a source for Jerome, when you can read Jerome’s own words?

Examine Catejan’s words again. Can you picture someone defending the orthodoxy of the Catholic faith counseling advising, “For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome.”

As for your Sundberg article: It’s a fascination mix of admissions (the centrality of the Septuagint to early Christianity) and falsehoods (the absence of the deuterocanonicals from the Qumran.) His description of the contents of the Qumran read like what he’d wish the Qumran included. Five of the Seven dueterocanonicals are in the Qumran scripture. The book of Esther is entirely absent. (So much for the notion that the canon closed before the dueterocanonicals were recorded.) Also, the Book of Daniel, as it appears in the Qumran in fact does include the passages, “Bel and the Dragon” and “Susanna.” It does NOT however, include the last chapter, suggesting the compilation of Daniel’s stories was still a work in progress. (Some have read my assertion as denying the prophetic origin of Daniel, which is ridiculous, since the book is not told in the first-person voice.)


81 posted on 11/01/2009 8:43:59 PM PST by dangus (Nah, I'm not really Jim Thompson, but I play him on FR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Melian
"It's an integral part of the Mass, which is the most important aspect of our faith.

Preach it from the mountain tops!!

82 posted on 11/01/2009 9:14:38 PM PST by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy; Melian
"That old "Catholics don't read the Bible" just won't hunt. "

We still get a lot of Scripture at Mass. And how much we read at home isn't indicated. I still think the statement is holds true.

83 posted on 11/01/2009 9:19:19 PM PST by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Thank you for your post, Alex. Not only was it informative, but it was pretty darn hilarious. No wonder so many RCs are so confused about God and faith and worship. They are the blind following the blind.

12.7% biblical literacy translates to 87.3% biblical illiteracy.

84 posted on 11/02/2009 12:01:05 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Bump to post 80 and a correct understanding of the article. RCs have nothing to be proud of here.


85 posted on 11/02/2009 12:05:22 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Can one bound by time control time?


86 posted on 11/02/2009 12:28:14 AM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

I think the difference is that Mass scripture reading is part of the greater, a supplement to, and the Mass itself is scripture. Also, the homily on the scripture is not the Mass.

When I attended Protestant churches, the homily, sermon, is the crux of the service, and it is mostly Bible study, since they do not have Mass. They’re gathered to hear someone preach - about the Bible. It’s the sola scriptura thing again.

The majority of my scripture reading is outside Mass, often selected by what was included in the Mass. The value of scripture in Mass, to me, is providing the proper context and interpretation - a guide for my reading outside Mass.


87 posted on 11/02/2009 12:35:29 AM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy; Melian; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; Gamecock; Mr Rogers
By doing "nothing to practice his faith except attending Sunday weekly Mass (and the few Holy Days), in two years' time (after which the reading cycle ends), a Mass-attending Catholic will hear 3.7% of the Old Testament (932 verses), ...

Excellent analysis, Alex. So per year then, the faithful Catholic attender will hear less than 2% of the scriptures that Christ taught from. Amazing.

88 posted on 11/02/2009 12:52:08 AM PST by Forest Keeper (It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

That is, without a doubt, one of the best posts I have ever read on FR.

(Can I put it on my homepage?)


89 posted on 11/02/2009 1:17:26 AM PST by Gamecock (A tulip, the most beautiful flower in God's garden.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: papertyger; Alex Murphy
...the Magisterium, without which the concept of heresy becomes meaningless.

You are correct. The magesterium is a great model of what heresy looks like.

90 posted on 11/02/2009 1:22:39 AM PST by Gamecock (A tulip, the most beautiful flower in God's garden.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy; Melian; Dr. Eckleburg; Gamecock; Forest Keeper; Mr Rogers
I would also add that while Catholics are free to read the scriptures, they are not free to interpret the scriptures. It wouldn't make any difference if a Catholic read the Bible once a month, they are not allowed to draw any conclusion except the conclusion the Church tells them.

Kind of makes one wonder what "free will" is all about. ;O)

91 posted on 11/02/2009 4:36:32 AM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: shibumi
Or is there some mystical significance to the jumbled order and selective readings?

It's not "mystical" significance, but there is significance.

For example, the Sunday readings work through one of the synoptic gospels each year in the three-year cycle, with readings from John interspersed.

The gospel readings basically tell the story of Christ's life from before the beginning to after the end, but there are a couple of parallel "timelines". One starts with the first Sunday of Advent and ends after Easter; the other starts after the Christmas season and continues until Advent.

The first one points to the resurrection of Christ; the second points to the resurrection of all men at the last day.

Each week, the OT reading is the prophetic foreshadowing of the Gospel reading. This is true except during the Easter season, when the first reading tells the story of the infant church from Acts.

Trust me, the selections are "jumbled" and were carefully thought out over years by solid Scripture scholars.

92 posted on 11/02/2009 5:45:50 AM PST by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Did the Jews accept 2 Maccabees as scripture?

The Jews rejected 2 Macc after the crucifixion. I don't think their rejection should have any authority for Christians. The Christian church accepted 2 Macc with no, or almost no, disagreement from AD 400 to Luther's day.

93 posted on 11/02/2009 5:48:46 AM PST by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
You're confused. All the readings for Sundays and Solemnities are on a three-year cycle.

And I guarantee that whatever Scripture Catholics hear is more than the congregants of most Baptist or similar churches hear at church. There are Baptist preachers (I've heard them) who preach from Romans, then Galatians, then Romans again. Wow, that's really something to be proud of.

And don't forget, "the Gospels don't apply to us in the church age". Ever heard that? I have.

Now, does listening at Mass replacing personal Bible study? No, and Rome says it doesn't, and has said so repeatedly.

94 posted on 11/02/2009 5:54:46 AM PST by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

***Kind of makes one wonder what “free will” is all about***

I just spewed Diet Mountain Dew all over my monitor.


95 posted on 11/02/2009 5:56:31 AM PST by Gamecock (A tulip, the most beautiful flower in God's garden.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
It wouldn't make any difference if a Catholic read the Bible once a month, they are not allowed to draw any conclusion except the conclusion the Church tells them.

False, not to mention silly.

What they aren't allowed to do is draw conclusions that contradict the teachings of the church. Big difference between "you can't draw any conclusions" and "you can't draw conclusions that contradict the following teachings Catholics are required to believe".

(Mind you, if they draw conclusions which contradict dogma, they're simply not reading the Scriptures correctly, or not understanding the dogma, or both.)

96 posted on 11/02/2009 5:56:49 AM PST by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Erratum:

Should have been: Trust me, the selections are not "jumbled"

97 posted on 11/02/2009 5:58:36 AM PST by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Campion

The fact that Catholics state which portions of the Bible will be read at mass, and read them on a schedule, enables protestants to state: “Catholics only read 12% of the Bible, excluding Psalms, and that’s pathetic.” The statistic, of course, does not include any private readings that individual Catholics may do on their own.

Protestants, with a couple of exceptions, do not have any set schedule of readings, so how does anyone know how much of the Bible they read? I am positive that there are extremely few pastors who assign one book of the Bible per week to be read by their congregation, and who then preach a sermon on that book. Even so, a full year would not get through the Bible. And they certainly don’t read a full book per week aloud to their congregations.

Protestants, on the other hand, concentrate on a very few books of the Bible, and preach them till their congregation THINKS it is getting the Bible, when in reality they are not. Instead, Protestants preach Bible stories, on the level of a 12 yo, for the main part.

Before I became Catholic, I attended Protestant churches each for half a year at least. I did not hear as much of the Bible in them, as I did in the Catholic church. Of course, I was interested in the Bible, and read it several times before making a decision. I still read it, in several versions.

Oh, and NO ONE told me what to believe, or if they tried, I ignored them. I guess you’d have to say I was led by the Holy Spirit, because that has always been my prayer before reading.


98 posted on 11/02/2009 6:06:32 AM PST by Judith Anne (Drill in the USA and offshore USA!! Drill NOW and build more refineries!!!! Defund the EPA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

I am using the table. It says that Catholics who attend on Sundays and Holy Days hear 40.8% of the New Testament and 3.7% of the Old Testament.

I am not saying throw the other parts of the Bible out. I’m saying that the numbers would obviously change if we computed them without the chapters/books in the Old Testament about Jewish lineage, battles, and intricate Jewish ritual.

My point is that a nominal Catholic, who does nothing but attend Mass weekly, is hearing almost half of the New Testament. We read along in the missals. We study what was said in the homily at Mass. We are encouraged to read the Bible on our own. And, if we attend daily Mass and do nothing else, we hear two thirds. This is part of our mandatory participation in the Mass, which is critical to our faith.

I stand by my statement that the old saw “Catholics don’t read the Bible” is untrue and anyone who has told you that is pushing their own, questionable agenda.


99 posted on 11/02/2009 6:25:15 AM PST by Melian ("frequently in error, rarely in doubt")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Campion
And I guarantee that whatever Scripture Catholics hear is more than the congregants of most Baptist or similar churches hear at church.

I guess it's a good thing I'm not a Baptist then, isn't it?And you offer a guarantee? Where can my Baptist friends turn in their receipts?

Calvin's preaching was of one kind from beginning to end: he preached steadily through book after book of the Bible. He never wavered from this approach to preaching for almost twenty-five years of ministry in St. Peter's church of Geneva - with the exception of a few high festivals and special occasions. "On Sunday he took always the New Testament, except for a few Psalms on Sunday afternoons. During the week . . . it was always the Old Testament". The records show fewer than half a dozen exceptions for the sake of the Christian year. He almost entirely ignored Christmas and Easter in the selection of his text.

To give you some idea of the scope of the Calvin's pulpit, he began his series on the book of Acts on August 25, 1549, and ended it in March of 1554. After Acts he went on to the epistles to the Thessalonians (46 sermons), Corinthians (186 sermons), pastorals (86 sermons), Galatians (43 sermons), Ephesians (48 sermons) - till May 1558. Then there is a gap when he is ill. In the spring of 1559 he began the Harmony of the Gospels and was not finished when he died in May, 1564. During the week of that season he preached 159 sermons on Job, 200 on Deuteronomy, 353 on Isaiah, 123 on Genesis and so on.

One of the clearest illustrations that this was a self-conscious choice on Calvin's part was the fact that on Easter Day, 1538, after preaching, he left the pulpit of St. Peter's, banished by the City Council. He returned in September, 1541 - over three years later - and picked up the exposition in the next verse.

-- excerpted from John Piper's The Divine Majesty Of The Word

And don't forget, "the Gospels don't apply to us in the church age". Ever heard that? I have.

I guess it's a good thing I'm not a radical dispensationalist, either.

Now, does listening at Mass replacing personal Bible study? No, and Rome says it doesn't, and has said so repeatedly.

Yes, I'm well aware that "Rome" has advocated regular, private Bible study - since at least 2005, in fact. However, several of your fellow FRCatholics have posted to me recently that listening at Mass constitutes reading the entire Bible. IMO those conversations led to this very thread being posted.

BTW, several other FRCatholics are ignorant as to who this "Rome" you speak of is. You might need to take them aside and give them an education.

100 posted on 11/02/2009 6:26:54 AM PST by Alex Murphy ("Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him" - Job 13:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-226 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson