How many Bible readings?

[babylonsfalling]

I’ve heard those terms Bible Church and Bible Christian used by non Catholics to differentiate themselves from the Catholic Church. The implication seems to be that the Catholic Church is not a “Bible Church” or doesn’t use or go by the Bible as much as those who self identify with that term.

I’ve been to some of those Churches though and they have LESS Bible readings (only one) than does the Catholic Church, which would seem to make those who gravitate toward that term LESS of a Bible Church/Bible Christian than the Catholics who they juxtapose themselves against.

Every Catholic service I go to has at least two Bible readings. Every non Catholic Church has only one and that includes the churches that self identify as Bible Churches.

How many Bible readings in your church each service?

 

[followingtheway]

Three for me . And plus we canonized it so…

 

[babylonsfalling]

Three for me . And plus we canonized it so…

We have three on Saturday Vigil and two on the weekdays.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

If Catholics attend Mass every Sunday, we will have heard all of the Bible proclaimed (except the parts about weather, and Paul’s cloak left in Troas, and other non-essentials) in three years. If we attend Mass daily, we’ll hear the Bible proclaimed in its entirety (with the same exceptions) in two years.

As a Protestant, I heard only the pastor’s favorite Bible verses, preached every Sunday, over and over and over and . . . Much of the Bible was ignored.

Jim Dandy

 

[Bran_Stark]

Like in most mainline denominations, my church follows the Revised Common Lectionary, which is pretty close to what Catholics use. It offer three for each Sunday, but we only use two readings, one from each Testament. Unfortunately, we sometimes downsize it to one.

But I must protest (like a good Protestant) that this isn’t near as bad as it might seem. Firstly, recall that our sermons tend to be considerably longer than yours, so the Scripture we do hear stands a better chance of being understood. Secondly, I think having three readings is just too much for the fellow in the pew to take in and digest at one service. And finally, remember that in the Old Mass there were only two readings, the Epistle and the Gospel. So feel superior about your three lessons if you like, but don’t pretend it’s an ancient Catholic tradition.

If Catholics attend Mass every Sunday, we will have heard all of the Bible proclaimed (except the parts about weather, and Paul’s cloak left in Troas, and other non-essentials) in three years. If we attend Mass daily, we’ll hear the Bible proclaimed in its entirety (with the same exceptions) in two years.

I’ve heard this claim often, but it’s a grand exaggeration. I believe the real number is something like 70% of the NT and 14% of the OT.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If Catholics attend Mass every Sunday, we will have heard all of the Bible proclaimed (except the parts about weather, and Paul’s cloak left in Troas, and other non-essentials) in three years. If we attend Mass daily, we’ll hear the Bible proclaimed in its entirety (with the same exceptions) in two years.

As a Protestant, I heard only the pastor’s favorite Bible verses, preached every Sunday, over and over and over and . . . Much of the Bible was ignored.

Jim Dandy

Not that I’m trying to side with Protestants here, but this is not true. First, in the Ordinary Form in the Latin Rite, there is a 3-year cycle of readings, which means simply you cannot even cover all the Gospels in 2 years even if you attend Mass everyday. There are many repetitions of reading through weekdays.

 

[Izdaari]

It isn’t any set number of readings, but the number of times passages of scripture are referred to and read in context (not just isolated verses). In my church, that’s way more than three per sermon, which are generally expository teaching of the Bible.

 

[wwolverine]

I’ve heard those terms Bible Church and Bible Christian used by non Catholics to differentiate themselves from the Catholic Church. The implication seems to be that the Catholic Church is not a “Bible Church” or doesn’t use or go by the Bible as much as those who self identify with that term.

I’ve been to some of those Churches though and they have LESS Bible readings (only one) than does the Catholic Church, which would seem to make those who gravitate toward that term LESS of a Bible Church/Bible Christian than the Catholics who they juxtapose themselves against.

Every Catholic service I go to has at least two Bible readings. Every non Catholic Church has only one and that includes the churches that self identify as Bible Churches.

How many Bible readings in your church each service?

Babylonsfalling,

I belive that there are three readings on week days and four on Sundays, as most forget the psalms read after the first reading.

God Bless

 

[Publisher]

There wasn’t a choice for “0”. Unless someone is led to offer vocal ministry…there are no Bible readings.

 

[IrishRush]

I think having three readings is just too much for the fellow in the pew to take in and digest at one service.

At mass, the three different readings support each other so it’s not trying to digest three different lessons. Each confirms or endorses, if you like, the others. So I think you missed the mark here.

 

[Cat]

I converted to Catholicism after 47 years of evangelical Christianity.

OP, I think you need to be careful with this line of thought.

Yes, the Catholic Church has more “readings” of the Bible in the Mass each day and on weekends.

But when the Protestants says “we’re a Bible church,” they aren’t talking about quantity of readings.

In most of the churches that I attended while I was Protestant, the pastor would read a portion of the Bible, and then develop that portion in his sermon, which usually lasted around 45 minutes or longer.

He would take each verse, and each word in each verse, and dissect it and explain it, and eventually talk about how we can make it real in our lives and apply it. Often the pastor would go back the original language, either Hebrew for the Old Testament or Greek for the New Testament, and tell us what each word meant in the original language and how it translates into our language (which for me is English).

Also, many Protestant churches, especially the evangelical denominations, have several midweek Bible studies, in which still more Bible is read and studied with great care.

Finally, all evangelical Christians are expected to read and study the Bible on their own, in private (in their “prayer closet” or during their “Morning Watch” or “Daily Devotions.”) I usually had at least two such private studies going on all the time, usually an Old Testament book and a New Testament book.

So it’s not just a question of how many verses, but how many do you study and learn and apply to your daily life. That’s what Protestants are talking about when they say, “Bible church.” These Protestants would not be impressed with all the readings in the Catholic Church unless you personally can open your Bible and explain to them the meanings of the readings and how they apply to your life. What they would tell you is that even Satan can read and quote the Bible. The important thing is, do you KNOW the Bible?

 

[Poco]

In the Episcopal church in which I was born and raised, there were three. One from the OT, one from the Epistles and one from the Gospels. Also, in my youth (probably 4th or 5th grade) I attended a Baptist service. I’m not sure how many “readings” were done. I just saw a guy in a suit and tie walking around talking a lot. (Note to my Baptist brothers and sisters in Christ: Please do not be offended! Those are just the views of a youth who was used to seeing a Priest in vestments when going church.)

 

[babylonsfalling]

Babylonsfalling,

I belive that there are three readings on week days and four on Sundays, as most forget the psalms read after the first reading.

God Bless

You’re right…I wasn’t counting that…sorry.

 

[babylonsfalling]

Like in most mainline denominations, my church follows the Revised Common Lectionary, which is pretty close to what Catholics use. It offer three for each Sunday, but we only use two readings, one from each Testament. Unfortunately, we sometimes downsize it to one.

But I must protest (like a good Protestant) that this isn’t near as bad as it might seem.*** <— The point isn’t that it’s bad.Firstly, recall that our sermons tend to be considerably longer than yours, so the Scripture we do hear stands a better chance of being understood.<—Some of the sermons are longer but that doesn’t actually mean people are learning anything more.*** Secondly, I think having three readings is just too much for the fellow in the pew to take in and digest at one service***.<—That’s not true. It’s actually very easy and it doesn’t a theological giant to keep up.*** And finally, remember that in the Old Mass there were only two readings, the Epistle and the Gospel. So feel superior*** <—It’s not about feeling superior.*** about your three lessons if you like, but don’t pretend it’s an ancient Catholic tradition.

I’ve heard this claim often, but it’s a grand exaggeration. I believe the real number is something like 70% of the NT and 14% of the OT.

It’s not about feeling superior and it’s not about a non Catholic church being bad. This post is about the hypocrisy of those who think they need to differentiate themselves from Catholics (or others) by self identifying as Bible Christians or being in a Bible Church…as if the Catholic Church or other churches in general aren’t Bible oriented…when in reality…the Catholic Church more Bible oriented than any non I’ve been to which called itself a Bible Church.

Although the real difference in non Catholic Churches that I’ve been to is the amount of time spent on music, it is true that some of the sermons are longer. It’s not true that this necessarily makes for more learning though. A lot of the extra length is because preachers will often start of with jokes about family, staff, current events, etc. They also tend to talk much more about themselves than you ever hear from a Catholic priest. Catholic sermons are much more to the point.

Three readings are not too much for the average person. I’m not some theological genius…if I can deal with three readings, so can the average guy.

 

[Bran_Stark]

At mass, the three different readings support each other so it’s not trying to digest three different lessons. Each confirms or endorses, if you like, the others. So I think you missed the mark here.

No matter how much three readings may be related and supporting and intertwined, I find the act of mentally tying them together to be bothersome. It lacks the simple clobbering force of First Lesson, Second Lesson. I suppose this could just be because I grew up hearing two each Sunday. But whenever I visit a triple-decker church, be it Catholic or Protestant, I feel bowled over by passage after passage without time to reflect and absorb.

It’s not about feeling superior and it’s not about a non Catholic church being bad. This post is about the hypocrisy of those who think they need to differentiate themselves from Catholics (or others) by self identifying as Bible Christians or being in a Bible Church…as if the Catholic Church or other churches in general aren’t Bible oriented…when in reality…the Catholic Church more Bible oriented than any non I’ve been to which called itself a Bible Church.

I know, I find the “Bible Christian” attitude annoying.

Although the real difference in non Catholic Churches that I’ve been to is the amount of time spent on music, it is true that some of the sermons are longer. It’s not true that this necessarily makes for more learning though. A lot of the extra length is because preachers will often start of with jokes about family, staff, current events, etc. They also tend to talk much more about themselves than you ever hear from a Catholic priest. Catholic sermons are much more to the point.

I’m not saying it’s always helpful - it can be done quite tritely and awkwardly - but I’d say anecdotes and news references certainly aid in expounding the text at times.

Three readings are not too much for the average person. I’m not some theological genius…if I can deal with three readings, so can the average guy.

Oh well, I guess I’m below average. Haha.

 

[Cat]

It’s not about feeling superior and it’s not about a non Catholic church being bad. This post is about the hypocrisy of those who think they need to differentiate themselves from Catholics (or others) by self identifying as Bible Christians or being in a Bible Church…as if the Catholic Church or other churches in general aren’t Bible oriented…when in reality…the Catholic Church more Bible oriented than any non I’ve been to which called itself a Bible Church.

Although the real difference in non Catholic Churches that I’ve been to is the amount of time spent on music, it is true that some of the sermons are longer. It’s not true that this necessarily makes for more learning though. A lot of the extra length is because preachers will often start of with jokes about family, staff, current events, etc. They also tend to talk much more about themselves than you ever hear from a Catholic priest. Catholic sermons are much more to the point.

Three readings are not too much for the average person. I’m not some theological genius…if I can deal with three readings, so can the average guy.

I think that you need to hear a lot more Protestant sermons before making these kinds of comments.

Yes, many sermons start out with a joke or a personal anecdote, but this is just good basic public speaking technique that helps to hook the listeners.

I listened to many decades of Protestant sermons, and I can testify truthfully that even if the pastor tells a joke or relates an anecdote, most of the sermon is Bible exegesis. When a pastor spends 5 minutes on greetings, a joke, and an anecdote, and then spends 40 minutes on Biblical exegesis, I would say that most of the sermon is a “learning experience” for the listeners.

It occurred to me that perhaps you are listening to preachers like Joel Osteen. Television preachers are not like regular pastors. Television preachers tend to be a lot more entertainment-oriented, because they have to attract and KEEP a viewing audience who will send in contributions. So there will be more jokes and stories about themselves. Real-life church pastors tend to be a lot less entertaining, and more about teaching and exhorting their congregations, whom they know personally. If real-life pastors spent so much time on entertaining, many congregations will dismiss them. (Remember that in many evangelical churches, the pastors are chosen and dismissed by congregation vote, not by assignment.)

And again, as I said in my other thread, a Protestant is not just in church on Sunday for one worship service. Protestants have many other opportunities during the week to saturate themselves with the Bible, and there is an expectation that they WILL take advantage of those opportunities.

I forgot to mention that many Protestants, especially evangelicals, are involved regularly with memorization of Scripture, too. There are some really good methods for memorizing that Protestants use. Some memorize entire books of the Bible and recite them for their own personal edification, or as a prayer.

And that’s another thing–a lot of Protestants will pray the Scriptures.

So all-in-all, evangelical Protestants are spend a lot of time learning the Bible. When I first converted to Catholicism, I still doing this, and spent hours reading the Catholic Bible and doing various Catholic Bible studies. I admit that I have slipped away from doing this. I’m not sure if that’s a good thing or a bad thing. I think I should probably be more disciplined about reading and studying the Scriptures and the Catechism. Probably I should spend less time online and more time in Scripture!