Do Catholics Think the Deuterocanonicals Are Important?

[John_Martin]

The Vulgate implicitly declares the Canon by inclusion of all the books required by the Fathers, Sacred Tradition, in proclaiming Christ and providing a full knowledge of Him, so anyone reading scripture and believing the Church that provided scripture to them did not need explicit statement of what is necessary.

Trent provided explicit declaration of the same books after protestors began ravaging it when they left communion with the Church, so it need not be said again explicitly, since faithful Catholics listen to their appointed guardians.

Vatican II did not somehow restate the value of anything in Scripture, as if Trent had somehow never happened or lost its authority, but called for increase in its use, thus building on Trent, beginning with the Liturgy of the Mass, which has happened and still happens.

And as to the Liturgy of the hours, difficult as it is when using the books, many of the Laity did and do use it, and with the advent of apps dedicated to this many more are joining in this continuous liturgy, with its worshipful use of the texts to complement their private reading of all the Canon of Scripture. After becoming Catholic and reading these protested books I felt a deep sadness for what protestants are missing, what they threw away that could open up the fullness of Christ for them.

 

[OraLabora]

I’m only considering the Mass because that’s how Vatican II sets out the project. The average Catholic isn’t going to hear these readings at the LOTH, and that’s the purpose behind the revision of the Lectionary—selecting the important parts of the Bible so they can be read to the people–at least that’s Sacrosanctum Consilium describes it.

Maybe you have an alternative theory as to why they are read from so infrequently?

Laity are strongly encouraged to participate in the LOTH, and more and more of us do.

That said you didn’t answer to my other comment.

If fewer mentions in the Sunday Mass lectionary make a book less important, and thus since the Deuterocanonicals have fewer readings in Mass they are “unimportant”, then in theory Ecclesiastes, which is in the first canon, should be of much lesser importance than the Deuterocanonicals, because Ecclesiastes isn’t used at all in the Mass lectionary for Sundays.

Therefore that would suggest, by your logic that the Deuterocanonicals are in fact more important than some books from the first canon. Thereby shooting down your own theory that they are less important than the first canon.

I understand you’re Protestant and might have legitimate questions, and we’re happy to answer them.

But you’re arguing here with people who know the faith, the liturgy and the Bible pretty seriously, and particularly the Catholic approach to them. So your arguments are bound to be weaker not because you’re less clever, but because you know less about Catholicism than we do. So I don’t quite get the point about your arguing with us on this point, unless it’s a weak attempt at proselytizing us by showing us our “errors”, which BTW is against forum rules.

The Sunday lectionary is not designed around “importance” but around the books selected so that the majority of people who only make it to Sunday Mass, can get the key elements of salvation history necessary to reinforce their faith. Some books are not needed to explain that history. That does not make them less “important”. Think of Sunday as the condensed Reader’s Digest version… we get all we need to understand the story but… there’s more to the story than that.

 

[adf417]

I’m only considering the Mass because that’s how Vatican II sets out the project. The average Catholic isn’t going to hear these readings at the LOTH, and that’s the purpose behind the revision of the Lectionary—selecting the important parts of the Bible so they can be read to the people–at least that’s Sacrosanctum Consilium describes it.

Maybe you have an alternative theory as to why they are read from so infrequently?

Dave why all the fuss about the deuteros? It seems your argument of importance would be much better served using the other books that are not used at all in any mass, nada, zilch, nary! :bigyikes:

See 1st chart on this site.
catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm

Not sure how reliable this is but based on your assertion there may be a Catholic monk somewhere thinking of defecting with yet another new version of the bible without Obadiah. :bigyikes:

Peace!!!

 

[ahs]

I never claimed that all scriptures are to be read at Mass.

I said that **in Vatican II, the more important/better/more excellent parts of Scripture are to be selected to be read at Mass. **

The Deuterocanonicals don’t seem to have much material that measured up to that high standard. So to me all the fuss made by Catholic apologists over the Deuterocanonicals seems like much ado about (almost) nothing.

There’s your strawman again, this time I’m inclined to see it as intentional.

Praestantior doesn’t mean “more representative.”

In the context of the quote that you, yourself, provided, that’s exactly what it’s saying. Today, we might say “a more substantial portion” or “a superior portion [to what had previously been read]” or, more accurately, a “more representative portion”.

I think your error comes in trying to define the one word in isolation (“preastantior” translates to “superior” as a stand alone word). The problem is that the Council didn’t use the word in isolation…it used it in a sentence within a context that literally translates (according to the quote you provided) “more representative portion…”.

Someone has to select what those parts of the Bible are in order to create the lectionary, so in essence, yes, someone decided that.

And now we are back to the argument which was built on a strawman.

 

[ahs]

Praestantior doesn’t mean “more representative.” Someone has to select what those parts of the Bible are in order to create the lectionary, so in essence, yes, someone decided that. If you want to say someone decided on “a more important part of Scripture…” I guess that’s ok, but it doesn’t work very well in English with a comparative.

From the Church that wrote it, and translated its own Latin:

1. The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.

For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.

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. (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 4Dec1963)

 

[Dave_Noonan]

That’s kind of shallow. Taking a jab at the DC’s because because they are not included in the Mass Lectionary… That means that whatever other books that are not included are in the same category as the DC’s.

Would you like to throw them away as well?

I’m not saying other books that are not read should be “thrown out” by any means. But I do think it says something about their relative importance.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

From the Church that wrote it, and translated its own Latin:

1. The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.

For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.

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. (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 4Dec1963)

As one example, go back and look at post #52, which provides a more accurate translation of Sacrosanctum Concilium, though in Spanish. Sorry but the Latin text simply doesn’t mean “a more representative portion.” (I don’t think you can necessarily trust translators that stumble on “dominus vobiscum.”)

 

[Della]

I’m not saying other books that are not read should be “thrown out” by any means. But I do think it says something about their relative importance.

It says absolutely nothing of the kind. In expanding the number of readings from a one year cycle to a three year cycle passages had to be chosen that’s all there was to it and nothing more. The rest is in your imagination and nowhere else.

If you choose to read Matthew instead of Mark for a month are you saying that Mark is of less value? Of course not. Are Catholics restricted to reading only the Sunday Mass readings? Of course not. What is read in the liturgy serves the liturgy, whether you want to believe it or not. After all, you aren’t a Catholic with a Catholic understanding of these things. It isn’t fair for you to judge what is important to Catholics by your assumptions anymore than it would be for me to judge what is important to Evangelicals by what they read on Sundays. Does your church cover the whole Bible in a year’s time at your services? I highly doubt that it does. Does that mean that your church believes some passages more important than others. Of course it doesn’t. Yours is purely a strawman argument. That you can’t see that is the real issue here and a real cause for you to be concerned about. If you have to use strawman arguements to make a point what does that say about your understanding or willingness to admit that you are simply wrong about your assumptions?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Laity are strongly encouraged to participate in the LOTH, and more and more of us do.

That said you didn’t answer to my other comment.

If fewer mentions in the Sunday Mass lectionary make a book less important, and thus since the Deuterocanonicals have fewer readings in Mass they are “unimportant”, then in theory Ecclesiastes, which is in the first canon, should be of much lesser importance than the Deuterocanonicals, because Ecclesiastes isn’t used at all in the Mass lectionary for Sundays.

Therefore that would suggest, by your logic that the Deuterocanonicals are in fact more important than some books from the first canon. Thereby shooting down your own theory that they are less important than the first canon.

Certainly. I would conclude then that in the judgment of the Catholic Church that Ecclesiastes has even less material that is praestantior than some of the Deuterocanonicals.

But you’re arguing here with people who know the faith, the liturgy and the Bible pretty seriously, and particularly the Catholic approach to them. So your arguments are bound to be weaker not because you’re less clever, but because you know less about Catholicism than we do. So I don’t quite get the point about your arguing with us on this point, unless it’s a weak attempt at proselytizing us by showing us our “errors”, which BTW is against forum rules.

Actually I think I know quite a bit about Catholicism, having gone to Catholic grad school and having taught at a Catholic seminary. I’m not trying to proselytize ?], I’m comparing the relative ferocity of the Catholic apologetic defense of the Deuterocanonicals to their actual use in the life of the Catholic Church, particularly as reflected in the Catholic Lectionary.

The Sunday lectionary is not designed around “importance” but around the books selected so that the majority of people who only make it to Sunday Mass, can get the key elements of salvation history necessary to reinforce their faith.

I’m not sure I understand the difference between importance and “key elements”. Also, not all of the Bible is history, btw. I’m trying to stick to how the designers of the revised lectionary themselves describe their process of selection and not what people imagine it to have been.

Some books are not needed to explain that history. That does not make them less “important”. Think of Sunday as the condensed Reader’s Digest version… we get all we need to understand the story but… there’s more to the story than that.

I don’t think Coetus XI would have agreed with your Readers Digest analogy.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I’d like to turn the question on its head for a bit. Which undisputed biblical books are only infrequently (or even never) included in the Lectionary? Anyone know?

I’m thinking all books with women’s names in the title

 

[ahs]

As one example, go back and look at post #52, which provides a more accurate translation of Sacrosanctum Concilium, though in Spanish. Sorry but the Latin text simply doesn’t mean “a more representative portion.” (I don’t think you can necessarily trust translators that stumble on “dominus vobiscum.”)

You are free to disagree with the Latin words that the Church chose, or with the translation in English that was given by the Church that wrote the Latin and translated it for itself. But the context of what the Church said is crystal clear, as is the meaning they intended to convey.

From the Church that wrote it, and translated its own Latin:

1. The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.

For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.

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. (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 4Dec1963)

Your argument is based on a strawman…a mischaracterization of what the Church intended, and a misrepresentation of what the Church actually wrote. Even presented with the evidence you persist in your misrepresentation, so it’s not likely that you are acting out of ignorance. That would mean you are purposefully misrepresenting the Church and the facts. I hope it’s only ignorance, but neither of those is for me to say.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

It says absolutely nothing of the kind. In expanding the number of readings from a one year cycle to a three year cycle passages had to be chosen that’s all there was to it and nothing more. The rest is in your imagination and nowhere else.

No, according to Vatican II, there is a clear selection criteria; it wasn’t a random process. I think you’re imagining a different process that perhaps makes more sense to you, but wasn’t the one that actually occurred–unless you have evidence to the contrary.

It isn’t fair for you to judge what is important to Catholics by your assumptions anymore than it would be for me to judge what is important to Evangelicals by what they read on Sundays.

Oh, I think one can absolutely judge what Evangelicals think is important by what they read and preach on on Sundays.

Does your church cover the whole Bible in a year’s time at your services? I highly doubt that it does.

No we certainly do not cover the entire Bible in church, nor would I ever suggest that’s a good idea.

Does that mean that your church believes some passages more important than others. Of course it doesn’t.

Au contraire. We are not fundamentalists. (Now who’s assuming?) Yes, being in the Reformation tradition means believing that some parts of the Bible are more important than others.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

You are free to disagree with the Latin words that the Church chose, or with the translation in English that was given by the Church that wrote the Latin and translated it for itself. But the context of what the Church said is crystal clear, as is the meaning they intended to convey.

From the Church that wrote it, and translated its own Latin:

1. The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.

For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.

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. (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 4Dec1963)

Your argument is based on a strawman…a mischaracterization of what the Church intended, and a misrepresentation of what the Church actually wrote. Even presented with the evidence you persist in your misrepresentation, so it’s not likely that you are acting out of ignorance. That would mean you are purposefully misrepresenting the Church and the facts. I hope it’s only ignorance, but neither of those is for me to say.

Sorry, but for Church documents the editio typica is the Latin text (which I have continually referred to), not translations into other languages. Latin translations into English were especially faulty during this era as you are probably aware of via the recent re-translation of the missal–not to say all the problems were eliminated.

 

[ahs]

As one example, go back and look at post #52, which provides a more accurate translation of Sacrosanctum Concilium, though in Spanish. Sorry but the Latin text simply doesn’t mean “a more representative portion.” (I don’t think you can necessarily trust translators that stumble on “dominus vobiscum.”)

I looked at all the languages available. Many of them DO translate from Latin, to the pertinent language [Spanish, Portugese, German…], and then back to English as “most important part”. But the context is clear.

Also clear is the fact that people in Germany, Spain, or Portugal, don’t run their texts through a translator to get the correct meaning of their native words based on how it translates into English.

The Italian represents the context just as clearly as the Spanish, but I think it’s clunky translation into English (before you place the words in their proper place) makes the intention all the more clear:

“51. Affinché la mensa della parola di Dio sia preparata ai fedeli con maggiore abbondanza, vengano aperti più largamente i tesori della Bibbia in modo che, in un determinato numero di anni, si legga al popolo la maggior parte della sacra Scrittura.”

“51. In order for the table of the word of God is for the faithful at greater abundance, are **opened wider **than the treasures of the Bible so that, in a certain number of years, will be read to the people most of Scripture.”

Like I said, you are free to disagree with the Latin words that the Church chose, or with the translation in English that was given by the Church that wrote the Latin and translated it for itself. But the context of what the Church said is crystal clear, as is the meaning they intended to convey.

From the Church that wrote it, and translated its own Latin:

1. The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.

For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.

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. (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 4Dec1963)

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I looked at all the languages available. Many of them DO translate from Latin, to the pertinent language [Spanish, Portugese, German…], and then back to English as “most important part”. But the context is clear.

Also clear is the fact that people in Germany, Spain, or Portugal, don’t run their texts through a translator to get the correct meaning of their native words based on how it translates into English.

The Italian represents the context just as clearly as the Spanish, but I think it’s clunky translation into English (before you place the words in their proper place) makes the intention all the more clear:

“51. Affinché la mensa della parola di Dio sia preparata ai fedeli con maggiore abbondanza, vengano aperti più largamente i tesori della Bibbia in modo che, in un determinato numero di anni, si legga al popolo la maggior parte della sacra Scrittura.”

“51. In order for the table of the word of God is for the faithful at greater abundance, are **opened wider **than the treasures of the Bible so that, in a certain number of years, will be read to the people most of Scripture.”

Like I said, you are free to disagree with the Latin words that the Church chose, or with the translation in English that was given by the Church that wrote the Latin and translated it for itself. But the context of what the Church said is crystal clear, as is the meaning they intended to convey.

From the Church that wrote it, and translated its own Latin:

1. The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.

For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.

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. (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 4Dec1963)

As I said, the Spanish translation provided above seems ok to me. The English is faulty. But the translations really don’t matter–only the Latin text “counts” as the official document in the view of the Catholic Church, as I mentioned. If you want to discuss the Latin text and how it fits together, I’d be happy to do that. But all of this information about translations is really not that helpful or even relevant.

 

[ahs]

Sorry, but for Church documents the editio typica is the Latin text (which I have continually referred to), not translations into other languages.

Yes! That’s exactly right. And the Latin of the text translates to “more representative part” in the context of the document.

**Latin translations into English were especially faulty during this era **as you are probably aware of via the recent re-translation of the missal–not to say all the problems were eliminated.

And now we move from strawman to begging the question.

 

[ahs]

The Latin:

“51. Quo ditior mensa verbi Dei paretur fidelibus, thesauri biblici largius aperiantur, ita ut, intra praestitutum annorum spatium, praestantior pars Scripturarum Sanctarum populo legatur.”

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_lt.html

Which translates (with full context):

“51. Where a **richer table of the word of God **will be prepared for the faithful, the biblical treasures opened up more lavishly, so that, of this within the space of four years, **a more representative portion of the holy Scriptures to the people **of the parties.” (emphasis mine to show context)

Like I said, you are free to disagree with the Latin words that the Church chose, or with the translation in English that was given by the Church that wrote the Latin and translated it for itself. But the context of what the Church said is crystal clear, as is the meaning they intended to convey.

 

[ahs]

The English is faulty.

No it’s not.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

The Latin:

“51. Quo ditior mensa verbi Dei paretur fidelibus, thesauri biblici largius aperiantur, ita ut, intra praestitutum annorum spatium, praestantior pars Scripturarum Sanctarum populo legatur.”

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_lt.html

Which translates (with full context):

“51. Where a **richer table of the word of God **will be prepared for the faithful, the biblical treasures opened up more lavishly, so that, of this within the space of four years, **a more representative portion of the holy Scriptures to the people **of the parties.” (emphasis mine to show context)

Sorry, but you’re simply mistranslating praestantior. Check a Latin dictionary. Or read some of the documents from Coetus XI and see how they thought of it in context.

 

[ahs]

Sorry, but you’re simply mistranslating praestantior. Check a Latin dictionary. Or read some of the documents from Coetus XI and see how they thought of it in context.

I’m not misunderstanding it. I am understanding it in full context of the text that the Church wrote in it’s own Ecclesial language and translated into the other various languages.

You shouldn’t presume that I have not checked or read, etc. Are you presuming this only because I disagree with your conclusion at which you arrived using a singular word cherry picked out of a sentence and translated outside the context of the statement made by the Church?

The Latin:

“51. Quo ditior mensa verbi Dei paretur fidelibus, thesauri biblici largius aperiantur, ita ut, intra praestitutum annorum spatium, praestantior pars Scripturarum Sanctarum populo legatur.”

vatican.va/archive/hist_c…cilium_lt.html

Which translates (with full context):

“51. Where **a richer table of the word of God **will be prepared for the faithful, the biblical treasures opened up more lavishly, so that, of this within the space of four years, **a more representative portion of the holy Scriptures **to the people of the parties.” (emphasis mine to show context)

Like I said, you are free to disagree with the Latin words that the Church chose, or with the translation in English that was given by the Church that wrote the Latin and translated it for itself. But the context of what the Church said is crystal clear, as is the meaning they intended to convey.