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.

[Mr Rogers]

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.

[dangus]

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.)

[Mad Dawg]

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 ...

[dangus]

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.

[Mad Dawg]

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.

[papertyger]

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.

[Mr Rogers]

“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.

[dangus]

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.

[Mad Dawg]

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?"

[dangus]

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.

[Mr Rogers]

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...

[vladimir998]

18 Judith 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 %

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

[Mr Rogers]

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.

[papertyger]

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.

[Alex Murphy]

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.

[dangus]

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

[Melian]

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.

[dangus]

>> 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.

[Mr Rogers]

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.

[Alex Murphy]

...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 %