Trust me- I understand your posts are your opinion. I assume it with every poster (unless attributed or quoted content is included).
Do you claim not to practice your faith? If so I apologize. But I didn’t say it was a practice of the church, just that I didn’t realize it was practiced.
Adding 1 Cor 13 back into the mix will, unfortunately once again lower the percentage of the Bible read at mass during the lectionary cycle.
Will Wallace
I, as well as a lot of Catholics I know, make a habit of reading the daily mass scriptures (posted right here on FR by Salvation) and that RAISES the percentage of the Bible read by Catholics throughout the year.
Anyway, why would my criticism of the Pauline epistles interest you enough to comment? Just the other day, a protestant or two was saying that St. James and St. Jude didn’t belong in the Bible. St. James, I presume because of James 1:22, “Be ye doers of the word and not hearers only” (by memory, that may not be exact) and St. Jude because they thought Peter wrote it, or something like that.
Actually, 1 Cor 13 was read as the second reading for the fourth Sunday after Epiphany this past January 31st.
As Judith Anne pointed out, between the two-year daily Mass Lectionary cycle and the three-year Sunday Mass Lectionary cycle, Catholics read about 72% of the NT and about 13% of the OT just as a matter of keeping up with the Mass readings. If you add the Liturgy of the Hours into the mix, the percentage goes significantly higher (though I haven't seen anybody who has done a statistical analysis like they did for the Lectionary for Mass, like I linked to earlier). You can get a pretty good idea of the volume of Scripture involved by looking at the Universalis website (although, as a caution, it is not an officially sanctioned source, due to copyright restrictions with the officially approved versions of the readings).
Hope that helps quantify her statements.