Do Catholics Think the Deuterocanonicals Are Important?

[OraLabora]

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?

The Eucharist is the Eucharist. Jesus is still fully present in the Eucharist every single day that it is confected. Is Jesus any less Jesus because it’s a weekday Mass? Obviously not. Is His Grace any less effective because it was received at a weekday Mass than a Sunday Mass? Clearly not.

You are confusing “degree of solemnity” of a celebration with the “importance” of a sacrament. A sacrament is the greatest of the instruments God uses to give us Grace. The grace we receive at a weekday Mass is the same grace that we receive at Sunday Mass. What you are suggesting is like suggesting that our baptism is a less efficacious instrument of Grace if we are baptized on, say, any 'ol Saturday in Ordinary Time instead of at the Easter Vigil.

All this continues to prove your ignorance of liturgy and sacramental Grace. Again I will suggest, instead of trying to argue a Protestant point of view with Catholics about a topic you know little about, try learning about that topic by actually living it. Catholic liturgy and worship is actually something that needs to be experienced with all one’s senses, not learned about in a college textbook.

Don’t also confuse the scholarly study of Catholicism with religious instruction in Catholicism.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

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. For example, one would never hear a reading from 1Maccabees or Tobit at Sunday Mass. And even if the daily Mass readings are considered, one would never ever hear from, say, the book of Judith. 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?

Actually Catholic apologists don’t make a fuss about the Deuterocanonicals: Protestants do. They protested their usage. The Deuterocanonicals were accepted at the Council of Florence 75 years before the Reformation began. They were used widely (if not always extensively) in writings in the Church both East (including the EOC) and West before that. The EOC uses them to this day as well as the CC East and West.

As “Index II: Table of Readings” of the present Lectionary indicates
Tobit – used 5 times
1 Macc – 4 times
2 Macc – 3 times
Wisdom – 16 times
Sirach – 27 times
Baruch – 6 times

There are several canonical books (e.g., Lv, 2 Chr, Ezra, Neh) used less. From the NT, 2 Jn, 3 Jn, Jude, are read only once every 2 years . . . on weekdays! Philemon, 1 Sunday and 1 weekday a year.

No one claims that every part of every canonical book of the OT has the same appeal, probative value, or obvious and direct relation to Christ. But that is far from saying they are not inspired and inerrant Scripture.

 

[OraLabora]

Actually Catholic apologists don’t make a fuss about the Deuterocanonicals: Protestants do. They protested their usage.

A very good point. As I read through, for example the Liturgy of the Hours, when I come across a reading from a deuterocanonical (such as Tobit today, or say 1 or 2 Maccabees in the Office of Readings on the 31st week of OT), there’s no footnote, remark, asterisk, or whatever to say “this is not really part of the real Bible” or “this isn’t a particularly important reading, so it’s optional”.

It’s just treated as any other Bible reading. It’s that day’s reading, for that part of the liturgy, and therefore if you are participating in the liturgy, you use that reading.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Actually Catholic apologists don’t make a fuss about the Deuterocanonicals: Protestants do.

I guess in my experience, conversations with Catholic apologists on this issue frequently devolve to a sort of: “Nah, nah, our Bible is better than yours.” What I’m wondering with this thread is whether these books are really, in terms of *real praxis * for Catholics, all that important so as to treat them as such an object of extreme division. Does the average Catholic know/care about the content of 1 & 2 Maccabees? Do the books make a bit difference in their lives other than one or two prooftexts? Would ignorance of Maccabees for Catholics be the same as ignorance of the Gospel of John. Or, in plain, stark terms, if they’re aren’t read that much anyway, why make such a big deal out of them?

That’s a lot to cover, so I started off just by looking at the Sunday Lectionary (primarily), since its revision was set out as a matter of such sharp importance in SC.

No one claims that every part of every canonical book of the OT has the same appeal, probative value, or obvious and direct relation to Christ. But that is far from saying they are not inspired and inerrant Scripture.

It seems to me that several of the posters are saying exactly that. Sort of an “all biblical texts are equal” approach. Do you read their comments differently?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

All this continues to prove your ignorance of liturgy and sacramental Grace. Again I will suggest, instead of trying to argue a Protestant point of view with Catholics about a topic you know little about, try learning about that topic by actually living it. Catholic liturgy and worship is actually something that needs to be experienced with all one’s senses, not learned about in a college textbook.

Don’t also confuse the scholarly study of Catholicism with religious instruction in Catholicism.

In general, I find your condescending, assumptive comments pretty far off the mark and sadly for the faith, not that atypical. I attended Mass twice a week in grad school and morning and/or evening prayer probably once a week on average. As a seminary instructor I attended Mass weekly as did most faculty.

I won’t be responding to further comments such as these.

 

[Millie123]

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?

You are wrong. Every single mass is on the same plane. It’s Christ’s same sacrifice being offered and made present to us at every single mass, his same atonement. I think that for you to promulgate the thought that the church teaches that the Sunday sacrifice of the mass is on a different superior plane than let’s say a Tuesday morning mass, is falling pretty close to superstition. The reason why Sunday mass is a Holy Day of Obligation is because that is the day we commemorate the resurrection. In your short response to me in effect what you have suggested, is that a daily mass, is a less effective mass, a less effective sacrifice, a lesser gift of Christ made present, a lesser amount of grace, on a lesser plane than a Sunday mass…The church teaches nothing of the sort. That is ludicrous and superstitious. I suggest you read Mediator Dei. w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei.html

"In obedience, therefore, to her Founder’s behest, the Church prolongs the priestly mission of Jesus Christ mainly by means of the sacred liturgy. She does this in the first place at the altar, WHERE CONSTANTLY the sacrifice of the cross is represented[5] and with a single difference in the manner of its offering, renewed.[6] She does it next by means of the sacraments, those special channels through which men are made partakers in the supernatural life. She does it, finally, by offering to God, all Good and Great,THE DAILY TRIBUTE OF HER PRAYER AND PRAISE. “What a spectacle for heaven and earth,” observes Our predecessor of happy memory, Pius XI, “is not the Church at prayer! FOR CENTURIES WITHOUT INTERRUPTION, FROM MIDNIGHT TO MIDNIGHT, the divine psalmody of the inspired canticles is repeated on earth; THERE IS NO HOUR OF THE DAY that is not hallowed by its special liturgy; there is no state of human life that has not its part in the thanksgiving, praise, supplication and reparation of this common prayer of the Mystical Body of Christ which is His Church!”

“This result is, in fact, achieved when Christ lives and thrives, as it were, in the hearts of men, and when men’s hearts in turn are fashioned and expanded as though by Christ. This makes it possible for the sacred temple, where the Divine Majesty receives the acceptable worship which His law prescribes, to increase and prosper DAY BY DAY in this land of exile of earth. Along with the Church, therefore, her Divine Founder is present at EVERY LITURGICAL FUNCTION”

“It is an unquestionable fact that the work of our redemption is continued, and that its fruits are imparted to us, DURING THE CELEBRATION OF THE LITURGY, notable in the august sacrifice of the altar. CHRIST ACTS EACH DAY TO SAVE US, in the sacraments and in His holy sacrifice. By means of them HE IS CONSTANTLY ATONING for the sins of mankind, CONSTANTLY CONSECRATING it to God. Sacraments and sacrifice do, then, possess that “objective” power to make us really and personally sharers in the divine life of Jesus Christ. Not from any ability of our own, but by the power of God, are they endowed with the capacity to unite the piety of members with that of the head, and to make this, in a sense, the action of the whole community”

 

[SyroMalankara]

I guess in my experience, conversations with Catholic apologists on this issue frequently devolve to a sort of: “Nah, nah, our Bible is better than yours.”

Well, if the standard of better is “more relevant content” then it may be.

What I’m wondering with this thread is whether these books are really, in terms of *real praxis * for Catholics, all that important so as to treat them as such an object of extreme division.

This standard makes no sense. The division lies in the authority behind those Books - accepting the Church’s authority means accepting those books, rejecting that authority means rejecting those books. A simple “division” is practice of prayers for the dead and the Communion of Saints. Most practicing Catholics pray for their dead and ask Saints intercession. Protestants don’t and say they don’t because it’s unBiblical - well of course it’s unBiblical for protestants, since you removed it. Just as a Samaritan would say the same about rejecting the canonicity of the Books of Kings - which means they are not Jewish.

Does the average Catholic know/care about the content of 1 & 2 Maccabees? Do the books make a bit difference in their lives other than one or two prooftexts?

Considering when I die or my loved one does I would want someone to pray for me/them - yes.

Would ignorance of Maccabees for Catholics be the same as ignorance of the Gospel of John. Or, in plain, stark terms, if they’re aren’t read that much anyway, why make such a big deal out of them?

Because rejecting the Books = rejecting the Church = rejecting important teachings that we believe necessary for Salvation and True Worship.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Well, if the standard of better is “more relevant content” then it may be.

This standard makes no sense. The division lies in the authority behind those Books - accepting the Church’s authority means accepting those books, rejecting that authority means rejecting those books. A simple “division” is practice of prayers for the dead and the Communion of Saints. Most practicing Catholics pray for their dead and ask Saints intercession. Protestants don’t and say they don’t because it’s unBiblical - well of course it’s unBiblical for protestants, since you removed it. Just as a Samaritan would say the same about rejecting the canonicity of the Books of Kings - which means they are not Jewish.

Considering when I die or my loved one does I would want someone to pray for me/them - yes.

Because rejecting the Books = rejecting the Church = rejecting important teachings that we believe necessary for Salvation and True Worship.

How would you account for Protestants who do pray for the dead (say, Episcopalians), but who don’t in general think of 2 Maccabees as canonical?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

You are wrong. Every single mass is on the same plane. It’s Christ’s same sacrifice being offered and made present to us at every single mass, his same atonement. I think that for you to promulgate the thought that the church teaches that the Sunday sacrifice of the mass is on a different superior plane than let’s say a Tuesday morning mass, is falling pretty close to superstition. The reason why Sunday mass is a Holy Day of Obligation is because that is the day we commemorate the resurrection. In your short response to me in effect what you have suggested, is that a daily mass, is a less effective mass, a less effective sacrifice, a lesser gift of Christ made present, a lesser amount of grace, on a lesser plane than a Sunday mass…The church teaches nothing of the sort. That is ludicrous and superstitious. I suggest you read Mediator Dei. w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei.html

"In obedience, therefore, to her Founder’s behest, the Church prolongs the priestly mission of Jesus Christ mainly by means of the sacred liturgy. She does this in the first place at the altar, WHERE CONSTANTLY the sacrifice of the cross is represented[5] and with a single difference in the manner of its offering, renewed.[6] She does it next by means of the sacraments, those special channels through which men are made partakers in the supernatural life. She does it, finally, by offering to God, all Good and Great,THE DAILY TRIBUTE OF HER PRAYER AND PRAISE. “What a spectacle for heaven and earth,” observes Our predecessor of happy memory, Pius XI, “is not the Church at prayer! FOR CENTURIES WITHOUT INTERRUPTION, FROM MIDNIGHT TO MIDNIGHT, the divine psalmody of the inspired canticles is repeated on earth; THERE IS NO HOUR OF THE DAY that is not hallowed by its special liturgy; there is no state of human life that has not its part in the thanksgiving, praise, supplication and reparation of this common prayer of the Mystical Body of Christ which is His Church!”

“This result is, in fact, achieved when Christ lives and thrives, as it were, in the hearts of men, and when men’s hearts in turn are fashioned and expanded as though by Christ. This makes it possible for the sacred temple, where the Divine Majesty receives the acceptable worship which His law prescribes, to increase and prosper DAY BY DAY in this land of exile of earth. Along with the Church, therefore, her Divine Founder is present at EVERY LITURGICAL FUNCTION”

“It is an unquestionable fact that the work of our redemption is continued, and that its fruits are imparted to us, DURING THE CELEBRATION OF THE LITURGY, notable in the august sacrifice of the altar. CHRIST ACTS EACH DAY TO SAVE US, in the sacraments and in His holy sacrifice. By means of them HE IS CONSTANTLY ATONING for the sins of mankind, CONSTANTLY CONSECRATING it to God. Sacraments and sacrifice do, then, possess that “objective” power to make us really and personally sharers in the divine life of Jesus Christ. Not from any ability of our own, but by the power of God, are they endowed with the capacity to unite the piety of members with that of the head, and to make this, in a sense, the action of the whole community”

Which receives the greater emphasis in Sacrosanctum Concilium in your view? Daily Mass or Sunday Mass? Where would more people be likely to experience “…praestantior pars Scripturarum Sanctarum populo legatur” the more important parts of Holy Scripture read to the people? In a lex orandi/lex credendi sense, which do more people attend? The same Eucharist is indeed confected but the liturgies are distinct–I’m sure you’ve realized that.

 

[OraLabora]

In general, I find your condescending, assumptive comments pretty far off the mark and sadly for the faith, not that atypical. I attended Mass twice a week in grad school and morning and/or evening prayer probably once a week on average. As a seminary instructor I attended Mass weekly as did most faculty.

I won’t be responding to further comments such as these.

I apologize for my testiness. It comes from having endured the onslaught of Protestant apologetics for many years from close family and co-workers. Fortunately on the family level we matured. Clearly sometimes my old bad habits come back and there’s no excuse for that.

However I still respectfully submit that your understanding of the Liturgy and sacramental grace is incomplete; otherwise you’d know that the Mass is the Mass, that it is one Jesus and one sacrifice. The notion of degrees of solemnity do not take away from the equivalence of the sacrament from one day to the next. Think of it as your spouse: you love your spouse equally every single day of the week, but on some special days, like anniversaries or birthdays, you spend a bit more effort to celebrate the relevance of that event to your lives. It does not mean that your love for him or her is more important on a birthday than on a grinding workday.

The liturgy also has to take into account that many Catholics can only attend Mass on Sundays so it has to carefully select the readings to ensure that they can get the gist of the story of salvation on Sundays over a reasonable period of time (3 years as it happens).

There is no “degree of importance” between one Mass and the next, simply because a sacrament is always of the same level of importance. But there are differing degrees of solemnity assigned different days of the liturgy, to underline the feast/event we are trying to commemorate or celebrate. The degree of solemnity attaches to the event, not to the sacrament itself. Every Mass must be celebrated with the same degree of reverence due the person actually present on the altar that we are worshipping.

Which receives the greater emphasis in Sacrosanctum Concilium in your view? Daily Mass or Sunday Mass? Where would more people be likely to experience “…praestantior pars Scripturarum Sanctarum populo legatur” the more important parts of Holy Scripture read to the people? In a lex orandi/lex credendi sense, which do more people attend? The same Eucharist is indeed confected but the liturgies are distinct–I’m sure you’ve realized that.

This also may help illustrate that every Mass or liturgical event is of equal importance: in monastic life, for a monk it is of equal importance that he shows up for Lauds or Mass, or whatever today (an optional memorial for Our Lady of Lourdes), yesterday (the feast of St. Scholastica, which is celebrated as a feast on the monastic calendar), tomorrow (an ordinary feria) or Sunday (with the rank of a minor solemnity celebrating the paschal mystery). It’s part of his duty. Missing an Office today for a monk is of equal seriousness as missing it yesterday, or Sunday.

But in terms of how those days are celebrated: tomorrow is an ordinary feria but the Offices will still be sung with care and beauty. Today there will have been some way of recognizing the optional memorial; at our abbey, it’s with the antiphon for the proper or common at the Gospel canticle, and the Mass from the commemoration. A full memorial will have the day’s psalms and antiphons with hymns and the rest of the Office from the propers or common of the saint. The feast of St. Scholastica will have proper antiphons for the psalms, the festive psalms, and the proper hymns with the rest from the common. A solemnity will have first Vespers. Etc. But all will be sung and executed with the same care and reverence, and the presence of the monk is equally important at each Office.

Now we are not monks, so we aren’t obliged to do so much, but we do need to treat each Mass with the same reverence out of respect for Jesus made truly present in the sacrament.

I hope that clears it up and helps you better understand the nuances of the liturgy.

Again sorry for my testy language earlier, it was unbecoming of me, even more so as I’m an oblate.

 

[SyroMalankara]

How would you account for Protestants who do pray for the dead (say, Episcopalians), but who don’t in general think of 2 Maccabees as canonical?

I’d say that the Episcopalian axiom “all may, none must, some should” is accurate to that body and that those who do pray for the dead probably regard Maccabees as canonical or almost canonical.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Then theirs this:
theanglocatholic.com/2010/04/cambridge-university-press-to-reprint-kjv-with-apocrypha/#comments

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I’d say that the Episcopalian axiom “all may, none must, some should” is accurate to that body and that those who do pray for the dead probably regard Maccabees as canonical or almost canonical.

There are always prayers for the dead at Anglican services. That’s my point–everybody does it. The prayers don’t vary based on one’s belief of the canonicity or non-canonicity of Maccabees; the belief simply flows from the prayer of and the faith of the Church. It’s not like an Anglican thinks: “Oh, I believe that Maccabees is canonical, therefore I will pray for the dead.” Or, “I don’t think that Maccabees is canonical, therefore I won’t say ‘Lord, hear our prayer’ in response to prayers for people who have died.”

The faith flows from the Church and the lex orandi, not from the Bible as a prooftext.

As your link somewhat indicates, I would say that the Anglican stance toward the Deuterocanonicals is fairly close to Luther’s.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

What I’m wondering with this thread is whether these books are really, in terms of *real praxis * for Catholics, all that important so as to treat them as such an object of extreme division. Does the average Catholic know/care about the content of 1 & 2 Maccabees? Do the books make a bit difference in their lives other than one or two prooftexts? Would ignorance of Maccabees for Catholics be the same as ignorance of the Gospel of John. Or, in plain, stark terms, if they’re aren’t read that much anyway, why make such a big deal out of them?
That’s a lot to cover, so I started off just by looking at the Sunday Lectionary (primarily), since its revision was set out as a matter of such sharp importance in SC.

A few thoughts.
(1) I don’t think usage statistics should be a gauge of canonicity. As I suggested, how many people read 2-3 Jn, Philemon, and Jude? or Leviticus for that matter? The issue is the determination of the Church that they are inspired and inerrant scripture.

(2) Some of your concerns cut both ways. If the deuterocanonical books aren’t theologically that big a deal anyway, why protest their inclusion in the first place?

(3) I think Wisdom and Sirach are immensely rich and theological works–in some ways more so than Proverbs. I read them often, and they are cited often from the early church on. For the life of me I can’t see how anyone can protest their inclusion in the canon.

It seems to me that several of the posters are saying exactly that. Sort of an “all biblical texts are equal” approach. Do you read their comments differently?

Some seem to. I’d say they are equal in status as canonical; but not equal in their appeal, probative value, or obvious and direct relation to Christ. Some may also mean that, but not express it as clearly.

 

[SyroMalankara]

There are always prayers for the dead at Anglican services. That’s my point–everybody does it. The prayers don’t vary based on one’s belief of the canonicity or non-canonicity of Maccabees; the belief simply flows from the prayer of and the faith of the Church.

Everybody doesn’t do it. The Church of South India and the Church of North India do not pray for the dead, they don’t accept intercession of Saints either. Neither do Sydney Anglicans, or Marthoma Syrian in the Anglican Communion. These all reject the canonicity of Maccabees.

It’s not like an Anglican thinks: “Oh, I believe that Maccabees is canonical, therefore I will pray for the dead.” Or, “I don’t think that Maccabees is canonical, therefore I won’t say ‘Lord, hear our prayer’ in response to prayers for people who have died.”

This scenario is ridiculous. The idea that one can insert a prayer for the dead in the Litany comes from somewhere. Some Anglican bodies don’t do it at all and they say it’s unbiblical.

The faith flows from the Church and the lex orandi, not from the Bible as a prooftext.

Depends on the Anglican.

As your link somewhat indicates, I would say that the Anglican stance toward the Deuterocanonicals is fairly close to Luther’s.

I would say there is no Anglican stance, there are various stances – as GKC repeats… a montley bunch

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Everybody doesn’t do it. The Church of South India and the Church of North India do not pray for the dead, they don’t accept intercession of Saints either. Neither do Sydney Anglicans, or Marthoma Syrian in the Anglican Communion. These all reject the canonicity of Maccabees.

I don’t know anything about these churches so your comments indicate that I certainly should have stuck to my original example of Episcopalians or perhaps the Church of England and not slipped to the word “Anglican”. I will take your word for it however, and my apologies for the generality: “Anglican”.

For prayers for the dead in the Episcopal Church see the Book of Common Prayer, page 330. There are also prayers for the dead in the 1928 BCP so any U.S. Anglican group that uses that text would have them as well.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

A few thoughts.
(1) I don’t think usage statistics should be a gauge of canonicity. As I suggested, how many people read 2-3 Jn, Philemon, and Jude? or Leviticus for that matter? The issue is the determination of the Church that they are inspired and inerrant scripture.

As I said, I’m not looking to remove books from the Bible or say what is or is not the proper canon. All I’m saying is that so much is made of their inclusion in the Catholic canon by Catholic apologists over against the Protestant canon, but that I think it’s fair to say the bulk of the texts are hardly known or used by Catholics. It’s like bragging you have iPhone 6—way better than my iPhone 5—only your iphone 6 actually sits in the drawer and you pretty much only use your old iPhone 5 anyway. That’s probably a poor analogy, but maybe it helps.

(2) Some of your concerns cut both ways. If the deuterocanonical books aren’t theologically that big a deal anyway, why protest their inclusion in the first place?

I’m not protesting their inclusion.

(3) I think Wisdom and Sirach are immensely rich and theological works–in some ways more so than Proverbs. I read them often, and they are cited often from the early church on. For the life of me I can’t see how anyone can protest their inclusion in the canon.

I’m not protesting their inclusion. The Catholic Church can have whatever canon it likes, as can the Greek Orthodox, the Armenian Orthodox, the Ethiopic Orthodox, etc. etc.

Some seem to. I’d say they are equal in status as canonical; but not equal in their appeal, probative value, or obvious and direct relation to Christ. Some may also mean that, but not express it as clearly.

That seems fair and actually not too far off at all from Luther’s views. That’s not what it sounds like others are saying, but hard to tell I suppose.

 

[John_Martin]

Interesting, somehow Dave you have skipped over the post where Sacrosanctum Concilium gave its own answer on the purpose of section 51. So I will repeat, SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM tells in 35 and 92 that quantity of scripture be increased and that this quantity’s relationship to the particular rite be apparent. There are many rites in the Holy Church, and each is required to have more suitable and more abundant and more varied measure of readings, which would mean a move away from thinking there are only special really important texts in the Canon while others are optional to Catholics. They are not. If we could read the whole of scripture at every Mass, we would most definitely.:

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.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Interesting, somehow Dave you have skipped over the post where Sacrosanctum Concilium gave its own answer on the purpose of section 51. So I will repeat, SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM tells in 35 and 92 that quantity of scripture be increased and that this quantity’s relationship to the particular rite be apparent.

I thought the fact that the increasing the quantity of Scripture to be read was obvious from the context–going from a one-year to a three-year lectionary. The question is which texts should be chosen and what the criteria should be.

If we could read the whole of scripture at every Mass, we would most definitely.:

I don’t think anyone would agree with you on that; nobody’s going to want to sit through the first nine chapters of Chronicles. On the other hand, what’s stopping the Catholic Church from reading the entire Bible at Mass? Churches that follow the continuous readings in the Revised Common Lectionary are able to read much more of the Bible in a Eucharistic liturgy than one would find in the Catholic Lectionary (and interestingly and maybe relevant to my question, have even more opportunities to read from the Deuterocanoncal books than does the Catholic Lectionary). I’m not saying that’s necessarily good or bad, just simply that if the Catholic Church wanted to read a greater portion of the Bible at Mass, it could. Other churches are able to pull it off.

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.

The bit about “representative part” was dealt with at length above. The text of SC simply doesn’t mean that; you might want to read about the Catholic Church’s concept of editio typica and how it works. The translation problems in the first two editions of the English Missal highlighted in the issuance of the third edition are good cases in point. Just because an English translation is approved by the Vatican doesn’t mean it’s a good one, or that it’s “official” in the sense that the English text represents what the Latin text, the editio typica, actually says or intends.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

As I said, I’m not looking to remove books from the Bible or say what is or is not the proper canon. All I’m saying is that so much is made of their inclusion in the Catholic canon by Catholic apologists over against the Protestant canon, but that I think it’s fair to say the bulk of the texts are hardly known or used by Catholics. It’s like bragging you have iPhone 6—way better than my iPhone 5—only your iphone 6 actually sits in the drawer and you pretty much only use your old iPhone 5 anyway. That’s probably a poor analogy, but maybe it helps.

Yea, I get it. But what Catholics usually hear from Protestant apologists is the unfounded charge that we added to the Bible. Hence their defense of the Deuterocanonicals. As far as usage goes, there is a lot of truth to what you say.
However, if they are understood to be canonical, they are heard and read in a different way than if they are just historical writings of the Jews, say, like the Letter of Aristeas.

Originally Posted by Fr of Jazz
(3) I think Wisdom and Sirach are immensely rich and theological works–in some ways more so than Proverbs. I read them often, and they are cited often from the early church on. For the life of me I can’t see how anyone can protest their inclusion in the canon.

I’m not protesting their inclusion. The Catholic Church can have whatever canon it likes, as can the Greek Orthodox, the Armenian Orthodox, the Ethiopic Orthodox, etc. etc.

I was wondering more objectively what grounds anyone could have for rejecting them.

Originally Posted by Fr of Jazz
I’d say they are equal in status as canonical; but not equal in their appeal, probative value, or obvious and direct relation to Christ.

That seems fair and actually not too far off at all from Luther’s views. That’s not what it sounds like others are saying, but hard to tell I suppose.

It makes sense to me too. But Luther just plain did not accept them as canonical. That does affect how one reads them. But, functionally speaking, there could be a great deal of similarity between Catholics and Lutherans today re the deuterocanonical books. I gather that is your point.