Do Catholics Think the Deuterocanonicals Are Important?

[patrick457]

Just building up on my last post:

I was wondering how much of, say, Leviticus is read in the Mass and in LotH. (Is the part about crushed testicles even read? )

And then I saw this page: catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm Apparently, 1 Chronicles and Obadiah has the distinction of being two of the undisputed biblical books that isn’t read as Scripture readings during Mass both before and after Vatican II - in other words, ever. (Judith is the third one.)

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Just building up on my last post:

I was wondering how much of, say, Leviticus is read in the Mass and in LotH. (Is the part about crushed testicles even read? )

And then I saw this page: catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm Apparently, 1 Chronicles and Obadiah has the distinction of being two of the undisputed biblical books that isn’t read as Scripture readings during Mass both before and after Vatican II - in other words, ever. (Judith is the third one.)

I think it was those first chapters of Chronicles that turned everyone off . Sad because I did my dissertation on Chronicles (partially).

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Just building up on my last post:

I was wondering how much of, say, Leviticus is read in the Mass and in LotH. (Is the part about crushed testicles even read? )

And then I saw this page: catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm Apparently, 1 Chronicles and Obadiah has the distinction of being two of the undisputed biblical books that isn’t read as Scripture readings during Mass both before and after Vatican II - in other words, ever. (Judith is the third one.)

Interesting link as well. I suppose I could add up all the Deuteros as a group and see whether they are statistically read less than other parts of the OT.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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.

You know, when I read the English translation I did not like it. Still don’t. It is clearly meant to say “excellent or significant” or something along those lines, representative does fall short of what the Latin intends. That’s why I went to my native tongue (Spanish) and it does read more in line with the Latin. To be honest, this is turning out to be a common occurrence where I find myself reading the Latin into Spanish instead of English. I will concede that since English is my 2nd language, I might be missing some of the spirit of its language.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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.

Then you have clearly reached a conclusion.

It’s all relative to what the intention is then, as far as the Mass is concerned - the Church decided on texts that are more relative to the purpose of the Mass

 

[fasolislithuan]

• 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. )

That list is an irrefutable fact. I’ll say moreover that while the decision about the definitive contents of the Bible was made in council and is highly Scriptural the decision about the definitive contents of the Bible in Protestantism was made for decision of the accounting chief of some Bible Society. This is not highly Scriptural but is highly claryfying. Money, money, money!

 

[John_Martin]

It has to do with quantity rather than quality.
“a more quantitatively excelling portion” (as compared to a lesser volume of the word prior to the 4 years)
This fits the theme of a “lavish opening up” and a “to enrich the table of the word (a full table)”.
Since all scripture is inspired by God and profitable for use, none of lesser value, then the only reasonable conclusion is to consider a quantitative translation rather than qualitative. And the higher volume of texts in current liturgy backs up this quantitative viewpoint.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

You know, when I read the English translation I did not like it. Still don’t. It is clearly meant to say “excellent or significant” or something along those lines, representative does fall short of what the Latin intends. That’s why I went to my native tongue (Spanish) and it does read more in line with the Latin. To be honest, this is turning out to be a common occurrence where I find myself reading the Latin into Spanish instead of English. I will concede that since English is my 2nd language, I might be missing some of the spirit of its language.

Thanks for your honesty about that.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

It has to do with quantity rather than quality.
“a more quantitatively excelling portion” (as compared to a lesser volume of the word prior to the 4 years)
This fits the theme of a “lavish opening up” and a “to enrich the table of the word (a full table)”.
Since all scripture is inspired by God and profitable for use, none of lesser value, then the only reasonable conclusion is to consider a quantitative translation rather than qualitative. And the higher volume of texts in current liturgy backs up this quantitative viewpoint.

I would disagree—and I’m also not sure what you’re referring to in “the 4 years”.

If the instructions were all about quantity and not quality (i.e., one text is just as good as another—“none of lesser value”), then I would expect the revised readings to be more or less evenly distributed across the text of the Bible, or maybe at least the OT readings to be evenly distributed across the OT. That’s what makes Patrick’s link so interesting.

I don’t think the assumption matches what actually happened.

 

[SyroMalankara]

This title of this thread should be “do Roman Catholic think DC are important based on my standard that if it’s not read on Sunday often, its less important”.

Syriac Tradition (Catholic and Orthodox) normally never reads out of Revelation at the Divine Liturgy, this doesn’t mean we think it’s less important or to be removed from the Bible. It just isn’t normally read because the Liturgy is infused with Revelation language - the congregants are present at Revelation. There are also other texts only read during Morning or Evening prayers, as it opens up another aspect of salvation history in the context of communal prayer.

I think Dave’s premise is flawed and based on a misunderstanding.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

This title of this thread should be “do Roman Catholic think DC are important based on my standard that if it’s not read on Sunday often, its less important”.

Syriac Tradition (Catholic and Orthodox) normally never reads out of Revelation at the Divine Liturgy, this doesn’t mean we think it’s less important or to be removed from the Bible. It just isn’t normally read because the Liturgy is infused with Revelation language - the congregants are present at Revelation. There are also other texts only read during Morning or Evening prayers, as it opens up another aspect of salvation history in the context of communal prayer.

I think Dave’s premise is flawed and based on a misunderstanding.

I’m not talking about throwing anything out of the Bible, which I’ve mentioned.

For my conception of importance I’m following a specific instantiation of importance/excellence, that is, reading of biblical texts at Mass, and a description of the project of selecting biblical texts for the Lectionary as described in Sacrosanctum Concilium. You’re right, I’m definitely employing use in the Lectionary as a “standard of excellence,” but it’s not like I’m pulling the idea out of thin air—it’s right there in the Church’s documents and discussions.

With the Eucharist being the source and summit of faith for Catholics, I don’t think one could find a more elevated context for reading Scripture than the Mass or a greater mark of dignity and importance for a biblical text. Maybe Catholics would disagree with that. Morning and evening prayer are certainly commendable practices, but that’s not at all the context in which Vatican II discusses the project of lectionary revision.

I’ve also tried to describe this as more of a lex orandi/lex credendi question, which is basically a practical approach to belief—in other words, how do things play out in the real world? Maybe a good analogy would be the way Catholics treat the reading of the Gospel versus the reading of other biblical texts at Mass. Certainly a fairly significant distinction is made liturgically simply because of the elevated place of the Gospels within the Christian faith. Why make distinctions in prayer if the theology of the Church is “one text is as good as another”?

 

[OraLabora]

Actually I think I know quite a bit about Catholicism, having gone to Catholic grad school and having taught at a Catholic seminary.

That doesn’t mean you understand Catholic liturgy, from the point of view of someone who actually lives, breathes and believes in the faith every day. You can theorize about how a plane flies but that doesn’t mean you can fly it. Liturgy is something you need to experience on a daily basis to have it sink in and let it work on you, beyond entering into pointless arguments about why the Church selected this or that book for this or that part of the liturgy. You’re looking at the liturgy (and scripture) as isolated segments rather than an organic whole in order to “sell” us on the idea that the Deuterocanonical books somehow have secondary importance. Scripture brings life to the liturgy; the liturgy is meant to tell a story and cement a relationship. There are several liturgical cycles that are meant to do that:

1 or 2-year lectionary cycle for the Office of Readings; both work through a large chunk of the bible in a way that complements the liturgical year. The 1-year was made so everything can fit in 4 volumes and a traveling clergyman or layman can have everything needed for the current liturgical period in one volume. Clearly the 1-year leaves some readings out. The idea is to tell the story that needs to be told with enough elements to get the gist of the story across. The 2-year elaborates on the story and gives more detail.

Then there’s the 2-year cycle for the weekday Mass; the first reading is on a two-year cycle, and the Gospel on a 1 year; those who attend Mass every day will get the big picture of the story of our salvation from this lectionary.

Lastly there’s the Sunday 3-year cycle. This cycle was actually meant to expand the readings previously used before the Council; there are now three readings; the Old Testament (including the Deuterocanonicals) get “air time” as it were when it rarely did in the past; and the Gospel is on a 3-year cycle and now includes the Gospel of Mark which was absent earlier. Your fixation on the word praestantior also oddly isolated, because when SC was written, the Deuterocanonicals were not part of the Mass lectionary but now they are. By your definition the new Mass enhanced rather than decreased their importance in the Church’s eyes. You are missing the whole point and context of SC 51 by not understanding or knowing the history leading up to the decision. I currently work as a translator (French<>English) and I can tell you that context and history is vitally important to understanding what you are going to translate. I often have to ask a client to provide me with background leading up to a notion I’m supposed to translate. You need to understand that SC was working to, in its eyes, improve and enhance the lectionary so therefore you must know what it is that was missing before.

You can’t just look at liturgy from the detached point of view of a scholar (of a different religion than the one being studied!!!) as compared to clerics and religious for whom liturgy is their daily vocation. The formation of a monk not only includes the theories taught in seminary that you may or may not have learned but also includes daily practice of the liturgy while singing it in choir, a process through which it takes many years to really understand the liturgy, and the importance of liturgy for our faith. If you truly want to know about the importance of the Deuterocanonicals, ask a monk who knows the liturgy. He will be able to place everything in their proper context.

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.

I should perhaps rather us the “story of salvation” rather than history; I meant history as biblical chronology related to salvation and not actual historical events. My bad. In order to explain the story of salvation in Christian terms to the laity, clearly some elements of the Bible are better at doing that than others. To explain the story of salvation to the laity, while leaving out Isaiah or some other prophetic book in favour of Leviticus, would not make sense. Yet Leviticus is an important step in the Jewish relationship with God.

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

Read “From Breviary to Liturgy of the Hours” by Stanislaus Campbell and you’ll see, at least for the Office of Readings 1-year lectionary, and the reasons for using it instead of a 2-year lectionary, that my comment really isn’t all that far off the mark. The idea was to select readings that would include enough of scripture to allow us to understand salvation history. The 2-year does that, and reinforces it.

At this point I’m bowing out from arguing with you. I have been praying, as Benedictine Oblate, the Liturgy of the Hours for 13 years now in addition to my regular Mass attendance. It is far more important to live the liturgy rather than chop it up into little bits, and analyze each bit out of context without thought to the whole. My advice to you would be to get out of the scholar’s mindset and immerse yourself in the liturgy by practicing it on a daily basis, if you truly want to understand it. Because clearly, from your illogical arguments, you do not. The liturgy is a bit like a drip of water on a stone: it takes many, many years for it to leave an impression on it, and on our hearts of stone. Eventually when we “get it”, Christ will give us a heart of flesh. (cf. Ezekiel 36:26, read at Lauds on Sundays of Week II in Ordinary Time).

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I’ve also tried to describe this as more of a lex orandi/lex credendi question, which is basically a practical approach to belief—in other words, how do things play out in the real world? Maybe a good analogy would be the way Catholics treat the reading of the Gospel versus the reading of other biblical texts at Mass. Certainly a fairly significant distinction is made liturgically simply because of the elevated place of the Gospels within the Christian faith. Why make distinctions in prayer if the theology of the Church is “one text is as good as another”?

Yes, if you have been to Mass then you know that we stand when it’s time for the Gospel reading (Speak Oh Lord, your servant is listening, you have the words of everlasting life, alleluia, alleluia… I love that song!!! ). I hum that sung when I’m depressed .

Anyways, I think there is indeed a hierarchy (for lack of a better word) when it comes to Scriptural texts. I think it is safe to say that the Gospels are the highest expression of the Scriptural texts, as they contain not only the Good News but the teachings of Christ. And as we all know, Scripture is Christocentrical “It is they that are witness to me”.

But in the context of lex orandi-lex credendi, I think there is also a distinction on the type of Liturgy. And how our involvement in the Liturgy translates into our every day life.

That significant texts are used for the Mass can be for several reasons, the most important I think is time. To be honest, I would love a 2-3 hour Mass where we can expand more on Scriptures and probably include a reception of donation of food/clothes/etc.

But I can’t help but think, in the context of lex orandi-lex credendi (From USCCB):

Lex orandi, lex credendi has become something of a tenet of liturgical theology, especially in the years since the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. Literally translated, it means “the law of prayer [is] the law of belief.” This axiom is an adaptation of words of Prosper of Aquitaine, a fifth-century Christian writer and a contemporary of St. Augustine. The original version of the phrase, ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi (“that the law of praying establishes the law of believing”), highlighted the understanding that the Church’s teaching (lex credendi) is articulated and made manifest in the celebration of the
liturgy and prayer (lex orandi).1 We understand this to mean that prayer and worship is the first articulation of the faith. The liturgy engages belief in a way that simply thinking about God or studying the faith does not naturally do. In other words, in an act of worship, the faithful are in dialogue with God and are engaged in an active and personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and every individual member of the liturgical assembly is connected to one another as members of the mystical Body of Christ in the Holy Spirit, as they look together with hope for the salvation promised in the Kingdom of Heaven. Theology,
christology, ecclesiology, pneumatology, and eschatology are all expressed in word and deed, in sign and symbol, in liturgical acts.

The intention is to engage the faithful in pursuing and exploring and expanding a life of prayer and labor towards the glory of God. Where we can then expand our knowledge and reading of Scriptures (for example) into all the other texts. Not that they are lesser, necessarily. But because we have been given a “synopsis” of Scriptures in the Liturgy, those words should awake in us a desire to seek more and delve into the reading, praying, laboring in the love of Christ.

Hmm, I might have gotten off course, lol. Anyways, that’s just the way I see it. More of a giving us the concise version to get us to get into the fuller version. . After all, our attention span is not that great anymore these days…

 

[Millie123]

I’m not talking about throwing anything out of the Bible, which I’ve mentioned.

For my conception of importance I’m following a specific instantiation of importance/excellence, that is, reading of biblical texts at Mass, and a description of the project of selecting biblical texts for the Lectionary as described in Sacrosanctum Concilium. You’re right, I’m definitely employing use in the Lectionary as a “standard of excellence,” but it’s not like I’m pulling the idea out of thin air—it’s right there in the Church’s documents and discussions.

With the Eucharist being the source and summit of faith for Catholics, I don’t think one could find a more elevated context for reading Scripture than the Mass or a greater mark of dignity and importance for a biblical text. Maybe Catholics would disagree with that. Morning and evening prayer are certainly commendable practices, but that’s not at all the context in which Vatican II discusses the project of lectionary revision.

I’ve also tried to describe this as more of a lex orandi/lex credendi question, which is basically a practical approach to belief—in other words, how do things play out in the real world? Maybe a good analogy would be the way Catholics treat the reading of the Gospel versus the reading of other biblical texts at Mass. Certainly a fairly significant distinction is made liturgically simply because of the elevated place of the Gospels within the Christian faith. Why make distinctions in prayer if the theology of the Church is “one text is as good as another”?

Yes, the mass is the summit of the Catholic…Weekday masses are part of the lectionary also are they not? The Lectionary includes Sunday mass, weekday mass, and feast days I think from my point of view, you’re trying to make a judgment regarding the churches love and teaching of scripture using only one day of the week, Sunday, as the rule. As a protestant that makes sense for you. But as a Catholic reading your post’s this makes no sense to me. I think this makes sense to you as a protestant because most protestant churches only gather on Sundays, and a few gather on Wednesday’s. Whereas you are here speaking of the lectionary, and the life of the church…the Catholic mass. The church celebrates mass daily. Every mass is worship, is it not? Every mass celebrates the blessed Eucharist, the summit of our Catholic faith, does it not? Every mass feeds the congregants with scripture, does it not? Every mass shares the same dignity whether it is a packed Sunday morning mass, or a small Thursday morning mass…does it not?

I think from reading your thread… you are like a dietician wanting to evaluate a patients diet of scripture. To you the only meal that you want to discuss is the meal that is eaten on Sundays. But, myself reading your thread as a Catholic, you are making a very poor evaluation of the churches diet… As if Sunday mass is the only meal the church eats, and that is the only meal that is important. The church feasts much much more than that. The church feasts daily, on scripture and the holy Eucharist.

 

[OraLabora]

The church feasts daily, on scripture and the holy Eucharist.

Not only daily but all through the day, daily, with the Liturgy of the Hours which, with the Mass, is part of the official public prayer of the Church, with the Mass of course at its summit.

Catholics get a huge dose of scripture available to them. Someone attending Mass every day and participating either alone or in community with the Liturgy of the Hours, is being fed scripture (including almost the entire psalter every 4 weeks, or every week in a monastery) 5 to 7 times a day depending on which version of the LOTH is used and how many minor hours are prayed.

That’s why it struck me as odd for Dave to focus on just one part of the Liturgy. And indeed his view makes no sense to me as a Catholic, which is why I recommended to him to really get immersed in the daily liturgical life of the Church if he truly wants to comprehend it from our point of view.

 

[John_Martin]

I would disagree—and I’m also not sure what you’re referring to in “the 4 years”.

If the instructions were all about quantity and not quality (i.e., one text is just as good as another—“none of lesser value”), then I would expect the revised readings to be more or less evenly distributed across the text of the Bible, or maybe at least the OT readings to be evenly distributed across the OT. That’s what makes Patrick’s link so interesting.

I don’t think the assumption matches what actually happened.

4 years was a misstatement because I was doing two things at once at work while typing my answer, sorry about that - it was a reference that after the 3 year cycle the volume heard would be greater than prior to the changes.

As to quantity, while quality is considered, the document clearly states that there should be a lavish and richer fare at the table (a full table). And the document earlier, in defining its reasoning states:

1. That the intimate connection between rite and words may be apparent in the liturgy:
   (1) In sacred celebrations a** more ample**,** more varied**, and more suitable reading from sacred scripture should be restored.
   AND
2. As regards the readings, the following points shall be observed:
   (a) Readings from sacred scripture shall be so arranged that the riches of the divine word may be easily accessible in more abundant measure;

Richness includes quantity as well as quality, and in “abundant measure”. Suitable does not mean more important, but means that multiple readings show reasonable literal, doctrinal, theological, or historical relationship for the equipping of the saints.

And since the Vatican’s own translators give the English as “a more representative part of scripture” this also indicates that representation of all of Scripture (quantity, because all of Scripture is of the same quality of Scripture) is sought.

While Christ’s body and blood are our food and drink, the Scriptures are the air we breathe as Catholics, and this document shows our shepherds giving us more air in our communion together, which we continue breathing in our lives in the world. Volume, for all of it is good air.

 

[patrick457]

I’d also like to add that the readings are not the only Scripture in the Mass - or at least, were not. I’m referring to things like the Introit or the Communion antiphon: whereas in the EF, these are taken from Scripture, in the OF it’s now more common to have some other hymn in there. (I’ve yet to see or attend an OF Mass that actually uses the Graduale Romanum! But granted, the situation is apparently complicated enough as it is. )

(Take for example Habakkuk. Habakkuk wasn’t read as a Scripture reading at all in the pre-VII Lectionary as per the page I linked earlier, but chapter 2 was used as a Tract for Good Friday (to be more specific, a Vetus Latina version of it, following the Greek): “In the midst of two living creatures you shall be made known; when the years draw near you shall be recognized.”)

 

[spes_salvi]

Personally, I love the story in Tobit! And don’t even get me started on the story of the heroic mother in Maccabees!

So yes, on a personal note, they are very important to me as a Catholic.

 

[OraLabora]

(I’ve yet to see or attend an OF Mass that actually uses the Graduale Romanum! But granted, the situation is apparently complicated enough as it is. )

Surprise surprise, I attend Mass every Sunday in a church that uses the Graduale Romanum daily for the OF Mass.

It’s a Benedictine monastery about 35 minutes drive from home. I’m also an oblate there.

Moreover, I chant in a schola in Sherbrooke, Quebec. We use the Graduale Romanum at the OF Mass once a month. We rotate around parishes in the city to spread chant and reactivate knowledge of it. There are several scholas across Canada doing more or less the same thing. We also chant at funerals, concerts and special occasions (such as parish anniversaries).

Many Benedictine abbeys around the world use the Graduale for the OF. It’s not all that rare in fact.

I should also add that although at Sunday Mass where there are hymns, it is true that the Graduale isn’t used most of the time. However at weekday Masses around here, there usually is no music and the proper antiphons are recited, and not sung. And those antiphons are scriptural, and are often the vernacular translations of the propers in the Graduale.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Yes, the mass is the summit of the Catholic…Weekday masses are part of the lectionary also are they not? The Lectionary includes Sunday mass, weekday mass, and feast days I think from my point of view, you’re trying to make a judgment regarding the churches love and teaching of scripture using only one day of the week, Sunday, as the rule. As a protestant that makes sense for you. But as a Catholic reading your post’s this makes no sense to me. I think this makes sense to you as a protestant because most protestant churches only gather on Sundays, and a few gather on Wednesday’s. Whereas you are here speaking of the lectionary, and the life of the church…the Catholic mass. The church celebrates mass daily. Every mass is worship, is it not? Every mass celebrates the blessed Eucharist, the summit of our Catholic faith, does it not? Every mass feeds the congregants with scripture, does it not? Every mass shares the same dignity whether it is a packed Sunday morning mass, or a small Thursday morning mass…does it not?

I think from reading your thread… you are like a dietician wanting to evaluate a patients diet of scripture. To you the only meal that you want to discuss is the meal that is eaten on Sundays. But, myself reading your thread as a Catholic, you are making a very poor evaluation of the churches diet… As if Sunday mass is the only meal the church eats, and that is the only meal that is important. The church feasts much much more than that. The church feasts daily, on scripture and the holy Eucharist.

I think it would be very difficult to read Sacrosanctum Concilium and say that the Church places Sunday Mass and daily Mass on the same plane. Which is a Holy Day of Obligation?

Still no retraction btw?