Do Catholics Think the Deuterocanonicals Are Important?

[patrick457]

In the old days in the Roman Rite, there was also the practice of lectio continua, the reading of most of the books of the Bible (divided into readings or lessons) during Matins. It begins with Genesis on Septuagesima in the pre-Lent period and then goes back and forth across the OT and the NT:

Septuagesima and Lent: Genesis and the other books of the Pentateuch
Passiontide (Holy Week): Jeremiah
Easter: Acts, Revelation, Epistles of James, Peter, John.
Time after Pentecost: Books of Kings (1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings)
Month of August: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Wisdom, Sirach
September: Job, Tobit, Judith, Esther
October: 1-2 Maccabees
November: Ezekiel, Daniel, twelve minor Prophets

Advent: Isaiah, Pauline epistles
Christmas, Epiphany: Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews (in this order)

In reality, some books are skipped: aside from the Psalms (which to be fair is already read throughout the canonical hours) and the gospels, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (in reality, only most of Genesis and some of Exodus are read during Septuagesima and Lent), Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1-2 Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Song of Songs, Baruch, are left out. Also, not all of the books are read, only parts of it. Plus, whenever there was an important feast day you have to substitute the feast’s reading for the one assigned for the feria.

Also, the months above is just a rough guide: in reality, the readings could be a little late. For example, this year’s October 1 Matins readings (at least, divinumofficium.com/) are (still) from Judith.

 

[Millie123]

Interesting. So when are the Sunday readings from Tobit and 1 Maccabees? Any Judith?

Here are a few for you
Readings from 1 Macc:
usccb.org/bible/readings/111813.cfm
usccb.org/bible/readings/112313.cfm
usccb.org/bible/readings/112113.cfm

Reading Tobit:
usccb.org/bible/readings/060513.cfm
usccb.org/bible/readings/060413.cfm
usccb.org/bible/readings/060313.cfm

From Judith:
The Responsorial song for the feast of Our lady of Guadalupe
usccb.org/bible/readings/121214.cfm

 

[JRKH]

For all the fuss made by Catholic apologists about the Deuterocanonical texts, I’m wondering why they aren’t made more of a priority in Catholic worship. If those responsible for the Catholic Lectionary (Coetus XI) didn’t consider these books to be a very essential or useful part (praestantior pars) of Scripture, the history of their inclusion or exclusion in the canon seems almost irrelevant—since they are mostly ignored anyway.

Why is that?

I cannot speak for any other Catholic. I can only offer my views on the matter.
The Deuteros are neither more nor less important than any of the other texts in the Bible. The use a any given text in mass involves a number of factors and each is given equal weight overall.

As to the “fuss”, to use your term…IMHO it is not about the relative importance of the books themselves so much as it is about what their absence tells us about the reformers and their reform movement…

• For more than 1000 years, from ca 400 up to the reformation, the Latin Rite Church used a bible of 73 books.
• This canon was established by Spirit Guided council
• When Martin Luther studied, he studied out of a 73 book bible.
• When he came up with the idea that all doctrine needed to be found in the bible, and the bible alone, he was holding a 73 book bible.
• BUT THEN…After deciding that the Bible needs to be the sole rule of faith…He started pulling books out.
• He didn’t remove them entirely - but placed them in a separate section and declared them to be NOT inspired.
• Only later did they disappear entirely - (a printer left them out to save on printing costs as I understand it)
• Note here that while the canon was established in council - which is highly Scriptural (see Acts 15) the canon was changed predominantly by a single individual (or two if you count the printer. )

So the “fuss” as you put it is this…How can you give credence to a reform movement which in one breath says, “Here is the complete living word of God” and then in the next breath says, “except for this part and this part and this part…”

I know the above is kind of a broad swipe…but it is the thing that turned me off of protestantism pretty much from the get-go.

As another point, just because a book is not read in the mass does not mean that that same book isn’t useful in establishing doctrine.
For example, a protestant struggles with the concept of purgatory and praying for the dead. He struggles partly because one of the most direct references on the matter is missing from his bible. It is in 2 Maccabees.

Peace
James

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Here are a few for you
Readings from 1 Macc:
usccb.org/bible/readings/111813.cfm
usccb.org/bible/readings/112313.cfm
usccb.org/bible/readings/112113.cfm

Reading Tobit:
usccb.org/bible/readings/060513.cfm
usccb.org/bible/readings/060413.cfm
usccb.org/bible/readings/060313.cfm

From Judith:
The Responsorial song for the feast of Our lady of Guadalupe
usccb.org/bible/readings/121214.cfm

Right. You were saying: “**ut I easily found Sunday readings from Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, 1 and 2 Macc…” (my emphasis) and as far as I knew the readings from 1Macc and Tobit were NOT Sunday readings–which your links seem to confirm.

You might want to rethink your claim.**

 

[Elizium23]

Yes, I am not ignorant of this, however, these are delineated as fully part of the canon of scripture from the Council of Trent as found in the Vulgate, and it is protestants who seek to instigate question of their validity as the Word of God.
“Deuterocanonical” is a term used by theologians in the course of their source criticism, but by Catholics in their life of Faith, the term used is “Bible” or “Scripture” or “Word of God”.

Protestants use the term “Apocrypha” in order to question their validity. Catholics like me use the term “Deuterocanonical” to affirm it.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I cannot speak for any other Catholic. I can only offer my views on the matter.
The Deuteros are neither more nor less important than any of the other texts in the Bible. The use a any given text in mass involves a number of factors and each is given equal weight overall.

As to the “fuss”, to use your term…IMHO it is not about the relative importance of the books themselves so much as it is about what their absence tells us about the reformers and their reform movement…

• For more than 1000 years, from ca 400 up to the reformation, the Latin Rite Church used a bible of 73 books.
• This canon was established by Spirit Guided council
• When Martin Luther studied, he studied out of a 73 book bible.
• When he came up with the idea that all doctrine needed to be found in the bible, and the bible alone, he was holding a 73 book bible.
• BUT THEN…After deciding that the Bible needs to be the sole rule of faith…He started pulling books out.
• He didn’t remove them entirely - but placed them in a separate section and declared them to be NOT inspired.
• Only later did they disappear entirely - (a printer left them out to save on printing costs as I understand it)
• Note here that while the canon was established in council - which is highly Scriptural (see Acts 15) the canon was changed predominantly by a single individual (or two if you count the printer. )

So the “fuss” as you put it is this…How can you give credence to a reform movement which in one breath says, “Here is the complete living word of God” and then in the next breath says, “except for this part and this part and this part…”

I know the above is kind of a broad swipe…but it is the thing that turned me off of protestantism pretty much from the get-go.

As another point, just because a book is not read in the mass does not mean that that same book isn’t useful in establishing doctrine.
For example, a protestant struggles with the concept of purgatory and praying for the dead. He struggles partly because one of the most direct references on the matter is missing from his bible. It is in 2 Maccabees.

Peace
James

I don’t want to de-rail the thread but some of what you’re presenting just isn’t accurate history or leaves out some important considerations. (For me the “invented history” aspects of Catholicism are as much of a turn off as the ahistorical approach of Christian fundamentalism. I guess everyone has their own “turn offs.”)

BUT I would certainly agree that the initial ground of Protestantism in a Lutheran sense is that some parts of the Bible are more important that others. (That view is NOT, however shared by those following late 19th/early 20th century Christian fundamentalism.)

My inquiry is this: based on the choices of which texts to include in the Lectionary, the Deuterocanonical texts don’t seem to be very important or essential vis-a-vis the emphasis they are given by Catholic apologists.

 

[patrick457]

I checked the Matins readings for the 17th-18th Weeks after Pentecost of this year (late September-early October 2015) as per the 1955-1960 Breviary in divinumofficium.com. (I didn’t include the responsories.)

17th Week after Pentecost (Tobit)

September 20th (17th Sunday after Pentecost)
Tobit 1:1-4
1:5-10, 11-15
Matthew 22:34-46, Homily 72 on Matthew (John Chrysostom)

Sept. 21st (St. Matthew)
(1st Nocturn)
Ezekiel 1:1-4
1:5-9
1:10-12)
Sept. 22nd (St. Thomas of Villanova)
Tobit 2:19-21
2:22-23, 3:1-3, 3:4-6
(Biography of St. Thomas)
Sept. 23rd (Ember Wednesday in September; St. Linus)
Mark 9:16-28, Homily on Mark 9 (Venerable Bede)
Homily (continued)
Homily (continued)
Sept. 24th (Our Lady of Ransom)
Tob. 12:1-4
Tob. 12:5-10
Tob. 12:11-17
Sept. 25th (Ember Friday)
Luke 8:36-50, Homily 33 on the Gospels (Gregory the Great)
Homily (continued)
Homily (continued)
Sept. 26th (Ember Saturday)
Luke 13:6-17, Homily 33 on the Gospels (Gregory the Great)
Homily (continued)
Homily (continued)

18th Week after Pentecost (Judith)

September 27th (18th Sunday after Pentecost)
Judith 1:1-4
1:5-9, 10-12; 2:1-3;
Matthew 9:1-8, Sermon 50 (Peter Chrysologus)
September 28th (St. Wenceslas)
4:1-4
4:5-8
(Biography of St. Wenceslas)
September 29th (St. Michael)
(1st Nocturn)
Daniel 7:9-11
10:4-8;
10:9-14
September 30th (St. Jerome)
10:1-4
10:11-12, 16-20
(Biography of St. Jerome)
October 1st:
12:10-13
13:1-7
13:8-11
Oct. 2nd (Guardian Angels)
Exodus 23:20-23
Zechariah 1:7-11
Sermon (Bernard of Clairvaux)
Oct. 3rd (St. Therese of Lisieux):
16:24-27
16:28-31
(Biography of St. Therese)​

You would notice that certain feastdays cause a break in the flow. (You can find a full listing here.) Interestingly, I can find no trace of Esther for this year at least (1-2 Maccabees is read from the 19th Week to the end of October).

 

[JRKH]

I don’t want to de-rail the thread but some of what you’re presenting just isn’t accurate history or leaves out some important considerations. (For me the “invented history” aspects of Catholicism are as much of a turn off as the ahistorical approach of Christian fundamentalism. I guess everyone has their own “turn offs.”)

BUT I would certainly agree that the initial ground of Protestantism in a Lutheran sense is that some parts of the Bible are more important that others. (That view is NOT, however shared by those following late 19th/early 20th century Christian fundamentalism.)

My inquiry is this: based on the choices of which texts to include in the Lectionary, the Deuterocanonical texts don’t seem to be very important or essential vis-a-vis the emphasis they are given by Catholic apologists.

Agreed - my presentation was not very - - - uummmm - - - Scholarly…
I was just trying to express my views quickly - and well I’m not all that knowledgeable on the timeline etc.

Basically what I was trying to express was that the fuss isn’t so much about the relative importance of a given book…it has to do with other aspects.

Peace
James

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I’m afraid I’m not making myself clear. I am explaining what those terms mean to Catholics, not telling you what Coetus XI intended. He in no way was saying that other biblical texts are of less worth, if that’s what you’re getting at. It simply isn’t thought of in those terms at all.

First off, Coetus XI (as the name implies) is a committee, not a “he”.

My question would be then, if for some reason Coetus XI didn’t think of the Bible in those terms (that some texts are just more important than others), why would they describe their task as identifying the Bible’s most important and essential texts for use in a revised lectionary?

 

[johnnyc176]

Jesus founded the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church gave us the Bible. So yes I think that all 73 books in the Bible are important.

 

[patrick457]

I think we need to define in just what sense are we to understand the word ‘Liturgy’ here in this thread. Does it refer to the Mass only? Or do we take it as referring to the Mass and to the Liturgy of the Hours (aka the Divine Office)?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Jesus founded the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church gave us the Bible. So yes I think that all 73 books in the Bible are important.

Do you think that all books are equally important? Or are some more important than others?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I think we need to define in just what sense are we to understand the word ‘Liturgy’ here in this thread. Does it refer to the Mass only? Or do we take it as referring to the Mass and to the Liturgy of the Hours (aka the Divine Office)?

That’s a good question. On one hand, it might be more manageable to just speak about Mass. But I think your remarks about the daily office are somewhat telling actually, since that’s a context were one reads both Scripture and pious homilies, and where the Deuterocanonical are comparatively getting some emphasis. If anything, pointing this out raises even more questions: Why here—daily office? And NOT here—Sunday Mass?

Really my inquiry is more a lex orandi, lex credendi question. Obviously if one wants to emphasize the importance of a biblical text, Sunday Mass is the place to start.

 

[TARRAT]

The Catholic Church has the sacrifice of the Mass seven days a week. She teaches her faithful every day and those readings are easily accessible. Do protestants only think one day is worthy of praising God.

 

[Mintaka]

A lot of readings come up in the saints’ day Masses, etc., also.

My understanding is that the Catholic Church was coming up with the new lectionary, a lot of Protestant groups expressed interest on getting in on it. The commission tried to make it more accessible for Protestants with that in mind. That’s why most of the Catholic books’ readings are in the Divine Office or on daily Mass days.

OTOH, since priests and many religious have to say the Office every day of their lives, there was every reason to strive not to repeat stuff at Mass that’s in the Divine Office readings. Divine Office is very big on some of the stuff that’s very very Catholic.

Three Children is a big deal in the Divine Office and is done all the time, so there’s no reason to have it often at Mass in the readings. Same thing with a bunch of other canticles.

If you read any kind of patristics or medieval theology, you will soon find out that a lot of the “obscure” books were bread and butter back in the day. I know more about Habakkuk, Zephaniah, and Haggai than I ever expected to know. Judith and Tobit were seriously popular, too.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

That’s a good question. On one hand, it might be more manageable to just speak about Mass. But I think your remarks about the daily office are somewhat telling actually, since that’s a context were one reads both Scripture and pious homilies, and where the Deuterocanonical are comparatively getting some emphasis. If anything, pointing this out raises even more questions: Why here—daily office? And NOT here—Sunday Mass?

Really my inquiry is more a lex orandi, lex credendi question. Obviously if one wants to emphasize the importance of a biblical text, Sunday Mass is the place to start.

Why would they need to be included in the Mass?

While the Mass is divided in the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist, we must keep in mind that the Mass is not an all inclusive scripture study. But we must keep in mind what the Mass is:

**
1349 The Liturgy of the Word includes “the writings of the prophets,” that is, the Old Testament, and “the memoirs of the apostles” (their letters and the Gospels). After the homily, which is an exhortation to accept this Word as what it truly is, the Word of God,175 and to put it into practice, come the intercessions for all men, according to the Apostle’s words: "I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings, and all who are in high positions."176

1382 The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord’s body and blood. But the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice is wholly directed toward the intimate union of the faithful with Christ through communion. To receive communion is to receive Christ himself who has offered himself for us.**

We must then understand that the Mass is about Communion (Lumen Gentium 11) with Christ and not necessarily a reading from all the books of Scriptures.

Therefore, it is fitting for the Scriptures to be covered more extensively in the Liturgy of the Hours:

**The Liturgy of the Hours

1174 The mystery of Christ, his Incarnation and Passover, which we celebrate in the Eucharist especially at the Sunday assembly, permeates and transfigures the time of each day, through the celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours, "the divine office."46 This celebration, faithful to the apostolic exhortations to “pray constantly,” is "so devised that the whole course of the day and night is made holy by the praise of God."47 In this "public prayer of the Church,"48 the faithful (clergy, religious, and lay people) exercise the royal priesthood of the baptized. Celebrated in “the form approved” by the Church, the Liturgy of the Hours "is truly the voice of the Bride herself addressed to her Bridegroom. It is the very prayer which Christ himself together with his Body addresses to the Father.49

1175 The Liturgy of the Hours is intended to become the prayer of the whole People of God. In it Christ himself "continues his priestly work through his Church."50 His members participate according to their own place in the Church and the circumstances of their lives: priests devoted to the pastoral ministry, because they are called to remain diligent in prayer and the service of the word; religious, by the charism of their consecrated lives; all the faithful as much as possible: "Pastors of souls should see to it that the principal hours, especially Vespers, are celebrated in common in church on Sundays and on the more solemn feasts. The laity, too, are encouraged to recite the divine office, either with the priests, or among themselves, or even individually."51

1176 The celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours demands not only harmonizing the voice with the praying heart, but also a deeper "understanding of the liturgy and of the Bible, especially of the Psalms."52

1177 The hymns and litanies of the Liturgy of the Hours integrate the prayer of the psalms into the age of the Church, expressing the symbolism of the time of day, the liturgical season, or the feast being celebrated. Moreover, the reading from the Word of God at each Hour (with the subsequent responses or troparia) and readings from the Fathers and spiritual masters at certain Hours, reveal more deeply the meaning of the mystery being celebrated, assist in understanding the psalms, and prepare for silent prayer. The lectio divina, where the Word of God is so read and meditated that it becomes prayer, is thus rooted in the liturgical celebration.

1178 The Liturgy of the Hours, which is like an extension of the Eucharistic celebration, does not exclude but rather in a complementary way calls forth the various devotions of the People of God, especially adoration and worship of the Blessed Sacrament.**

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Why would they need to be included in the Mass?

Because that’s what was set out at Vatican II in Sacrosanctum Concillium 50 ff: “ut…praestantior pars Scriptuarum Sanctarum populo legitur.”

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Because that’s what was set out at Vatican II in Sacrosanctum Concillium 50 ff: “ut…praestantior pars Scriptuarum Sanctarum populo legitur.”

From Sacrosanctum Concillium:

1. The treasures of the bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God’s word. In this way a more representative portion of the holy scriptures will be read to the people in the course of a prescribed number of years.

Could you please provide the full context of the paragraph you are referring to?

Thanks,

 

[Todd977]

Although there are no Sunday readings from 1 Maccabees, Judith, Tobit or deuterocanonical verses of Esther, there are Sunday readings from 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and deuterocanonical verses of Daniel. (source)

However, since Catholics are also likely to attend a Wedding Mass, Tobit should probably be included in the above list of books of the Bible they are regularly exposed to.

BTW, there do not appear to be any Sunday readings from 2 John, 3 John or Jude.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

From Sacrosanctum Concillium:

1. The treasures of the bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God’s word. In this way a more representative portion of the holy scriptures will be read to the people in the course of a prescribed number of years.

Could you please provide the full context of the paragraph you are referring to?

Thanks,

That’s the paragraph which is in the context of reforming the Mass. Except praestantior pars doesn’t mean “representative portion.”