How much of the Bible is read at Mass? (Not much?)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eruorto
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Eruorto

Guest
According to the stats on this website (by a Jesuit priest), 13.5% of the OT and 71.5% of the NT are read over the two-year Sunday/weekday cycle, and only 3.7% of the OT and 40.8% of the NT over the three-year Sunday/Feast cycle.

Is this accurate?

This was sent to me by my girlfriend after a fairly fumbling discussion about how much of the Bible is typically read by Catholics. I asserted that most, if not all, is covered during Mass (although I did add the caveat that I could be wrong as I hadn’t ever really researched it). Then the above link appeared in my Inbox this morning. It appears that I was wrong, and I don’t think she’s very impressed. Of course, Bible study is basically what they do at her church’s services and they are really very good about exhorting the congregation to read the Bible (even just giving Bibles to people who don’t have one).

Now I have all sorts of questions myself: How are the readings determined? Why isn’t the entire Bible covered? Why are some books totally left out of the reading cycles?

Any insight?
 
Eruorto said:
According to the stats on this website (by a Jesuit priest), 13.5% of the OT and 71.5% of the NT are read over the two-year Sunday/weekday cycle, and only 3.7% of the OT and 40.8% of the NT over the three-year Sunday/Feast cycle.

Is this accurate?

This was sent to me by my girlfriend after a fairly fumbling discussion about how much of the Bible is typically read by Catholics. I asserted that most, if not all, is covered during Mass (although I did add the caveat that I could be wrong as I hadn’t ever really researched it). Then the above link appeared in my Inbox this morning. It appears that I was wrong, and I don’t think she’s very impressed. Of course, Bible study is basically what they do at her church’s services and they are really very good about exhorting the congregation to read the Bible (even just giving Bibles to people who don’t have one).

Now I have all sorts of questions myself: How are the readings determined? Why isn’t the entire Bible covered? Why are some books totally left out of the reading cycles?

Any insight?
Click to expand...
Here are some thoughts.

I have no idea whether the numbers are right or not, but let’s assume that they are.
  1. From a practical sense, it is not possible to read the whole Bible during Mass over any reasonable time frame.
  2. Much of the Bible is not applicable in any way to our current lives - Leviticus for example.
  3. How much of the Bible do typical Protestants read over a 2 or 3 year period? It seems to me that a lot of them focus on a few verses here and there that taken out of context, tend to support their protestations against the Catholic Church.
  4. Catholics are free as they wish to read more of the Bible.
  5. Since the Catholic Church “created” the Bible, in the sense of assembling texts that were deemed divinely inspired vs. those that were not, doesn’t it make sense to trust the church about what must be necessarily read versus those optional things?
 
You’re focusing only on the readings.

When the propers are recited/sung, you can add:

The introit (Psalm or other Bible verse)
The gradual (same)
The Offertory (same)
The communion antiphon (same)

Plus many of the prayers are biblical or biblically derived, for example the Sanctus and the consecration.

Then there are of course the readings.

Lastly, if you pray the Liturgy of the Hours as well as attend Mass… well the LOTH is almost entirely from the Bible except the hymns, intercessions and collects.
 
Not sure on the statistics…but I think the Word is proclaimed more in Mass than in the typical protestant sermon between the three readings, the Psalm that is sung, the commentary in the Homily and then the Eucharist.

And just as with protestants, there is nothing prohibiting Catholics from reading scripture on their own, and we should be reading scripture daily. I think many protestants are under the impression that Catholics don’t read the Bible on their own and depend on the Mass for all of their exposure to the Word.
 
We, as Catholics, should not only be required to hear scripture on Sundays but we should be hearing the daily readings as well. IMHO
 
Yes, the lectionary does omit a lot, but it’s still a pretty good lectionary. If you look at the link in the OP, you’ll see that more of the Bible is being read in mass now than before Vatican II. While there is a little less read from the OT than the NT, the gap look larger if put into percents because the OT is four times longer than the NT. Also, having more readings from the NT than the OT can be expected given that the way readings are distributed through the mass. On Sundays, there is one OT reading and two OT readings (the second reading and the Gospel).

While the OT is important, let’s face it, there are some parts are not really relevant or interesting. Imagine going to mass and having the first reading be Ex 25:23-40. What would you take away from that? Absolutely nothing except that God enjoys decorating.

It’s also worth pointing out that many Protestants in America, Canada and a few other places use the Common Lectionary which is based on the Catholic lectionary and will run into many of the same bare spots as Catholics.
 
I would like to know how much of the Bible her congregation or the typical congregation reads over the course of three years - especially considering they have seven fewer books and have excised parts thereof.

Some books strike me as obvious choices for selective reading. Such as Leviticus. The dry laws of Leviticus can be chalk full of symbolism and prophecy, I think. But I somehow suspect most of it will fly over most people’s heads because most of it is dry, boring law.

Then there are 1 and 2 Chronicles - which are basically rehashing of 1-4 Kings with a few novel tidbits in between.

Job is basically 40 chapters of Job and his friends complaining between each other until God steps in in the last chapter or two. The Reader’s Digest version suffices for a congregation.

All of the Wisdom literature - Proverbs, Ecclesiasticus, Ecclesiastes, etc - and the Prophets - Isaias, Jeremias, Osee, Abdias, etc - are usually either massive books which themselves would take 2 months to get through - if then (Sirach is over 50 chapters long, Isaias is over 60), or consist of disconnected wisdom or prophecies which don’t exactly hit home if you try to read them all at once.

The Apocalypse of St. John is prophecy. I would rather not know the prophecy than to hear about it and misunderstand it. And guess how many people think the Revelation of St. John is about how Catholics are the Whore of Babylon? Which, considering Protestants came from the Catholic Church (as a matter of historical fact, as you probably know) is more ridiculous than Dawkins claiming that God doesn’t exist because He’s immoral, vile, and cruel.

All that said, some choices don’t make sense - such as Judith being entirely excluded - it’s a fantastic story! - the Song of Songs and the Prophets and the Old Testament in general not getting a bigger role.

I chalk it up to the New Testament being more relevant to out Christian heritage (or being perceived as such, which is a mistake - and I say this despite being largely OT illiterate, because the Old Testament is Scripture whether you read it or not), there simply not being enough time or patience to hear every single verse of the Bible from the pulpit.

I dare your girl-friend to find out how much of the Bible her pastor uses in his sermons. I dare her to seriously analyse it. I bet you she will also come up a bit short. 😉 And even if she doesn’t (which would greatly surprise me), there’s something more important at the root of this. Are we transmitting the faith?

Well, what is the faith? That’s the big question. 😉
 
ricmat said:
  1. From a practical sense, it is not possible to read the whole Bible during Mass over any reasonable time frame.
Click to expand...
It’s certainly possible and has been done for years on end, though not in the Catholic Church. The question is whether it’s desirable.

In an old Anglican Book of Common Prayer, dating from some time in the nineteenth century, I have seen the arrangement for the reading of the Lessons for the whole year, from Jan. 1 to Dec. 31. The Old Testament was simply split up into 365 passages of roughly equal length. They started at Genesis 1.1 on Jan. 1 and worked their way through the whole of the (Protestant) OT in the year, reaching Malachi 4.6 on Dec. 31.

The New Testament was treated differently. It was divided into about 121 passages, give or take, and was read all the way through, day by day, three times in the course of the year.

At some later date, however, the Church of England switched to a different system, based—at least notionally—on the Catholic lectionary. The idea was to choose appropriate readings for the date in the Church calendar, which of course never happened, or may have happened only by coincidence, under the old Anglican system.
 
Eruorto said:
According to the stats on this website (by a Jesuit priest), 13.5% of the OT and 71.5% of the NT are read over the two-year Sunday/weekday cycle, and only 3.7% of the OT and 40.8% of the NT over the three-year Sunday/Feast cycle.

Is this accurate?

This was sent to me by my girlfriend after a fairly fumbling discussion about how much of the Bible is typically read by Catholics. I asserted that most, if not all, is covered during Mass (although I did add the caveat that I could be wrong as I hadn’t ever really researched it). Then the above link appeared in my Inbox this morning. It appears that I was wrong, and I don’t think she’s very impressed. Of course, Bible study is basically what they do at her church’s services and they are really very good about exhorting the congregation to read the Bible (even just giving Bibles to people who don’t have one).

Now I have all sorts of questions myself: How are the readings determined? Why isn’t the entire Bible covered? Why are some books totally left out of the reading cycles?

Any insight?
Click to expand...
Reading the bible certainly is a great thing but 4 centuries of Christianity did fine with out it. Considering the majority of the worlds population was and still is illiterate one could make the argument that the bible isn’t the rule of faith. The bible doesn’t even tell us to read the bible so there is that too.
 
eightydeuce82 said:
Reading the bible certainly is a great thing but 4 centuries of Christianity did fine with out it. Considering the majority of the worlds population was and still is illiterate one could make the argument that the bible isn’t the rule of faith. The bible doesn’t even tell us to read the bible so there is that too.
Click to expand...
I would submit that the Bible itself makes this argument:

1 Timothy 3:15New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
Click to expand...
 
eightydeuce82 said:
Reading the bible certainly is a great thing but 4 centuries of Christianity did fine with out it. Considering the majority of the worlds population was and still is illiterate one could make the argument that the bible isn’t the rule of faith. The bible doesn’t even tell us to read the bible so there is that too.
Click to expand...
I am not sure just what you are driving at but…

Although New Testament was not compiled into one book until about 325, the letters and the Gospels were the rule of faith as letters and manuscripts were sent and passed around to the various Churches. These were read to the congregations and studied each week much like the Jews read and studied the Old Testament each week in the Synagogues on the Sabbath.

The Old Testament was certainly the rule of faith for the Jews.

The letters and manuscripts of the New Testament were certainly the rule of faith for Christians.
 
If a close study of the Mass and Scripture is made one would find that the New Testament Scripture came out of the Mass. It was the readings that were used in the Early Church that became the books of the New Testament.
 
Mass is about an hour on Sundays. How long would you prefer it to last?
 
Eruorto said:
According to the stats on this website (by a Jesuit priest), 13.5% of the OT and 71.5% of the NT are read over the two-year Sunday/weekday cycle, and only 3.7% of the OT and 40.8% of the NT over the three-year Sunday/Feast cycle.

Is this accurate?

This was sent to me by my girlfriend after a fairly fumbling discussion about how much of the Bible is typically read by Catholics. I asserted that most, if not all, is covered during Mass (although I did add the caveat that I could be wrong as I hadn’t ever really researched it). Then the above link appeared in my Inbox this morning. It appears that I was wrong, and I don’t think she’s very impressed. Of course, Bible study is basically what they do at her church’s services and they are really very good about exhorting the congregation to read the Bible (even just giving Bibles to people who don’t have one).

Now I have all sorts of questions myself: How are the readings determined? Why isn’t the entire Bible covered? Why are some books totally left out of the reading cycles?

Any insight?
Click to expand...
It is true that individual Catholics don’t have a long history of reading the Bible outside of Church. This mistake is being addressed as priests and bishops are encouraging lay members to read the Liturgy of the Hours and also take advantage of the Catholic Bible Studies that have come out in recent years. There are several very good ones to explore.

However, as far as reading the Bible each Sunday, The Church is somewhat more systematic than many Protestant Churches. Catholic readings follow a certain pattern from week to week and from month to month.

It was my experience that when I was a Protestant, readings were somewhat hit and miss depending on which passages the Minister would decide read and preach for any given week. Both methods have their strong and week points.

For Protestants it would depend on each Minister to decide how much of the Bible was covered in a given year.

You might have her ask her Minister what system he or she uses and give her an estimate of how much of the Bible is covered for the year during that hour of service she attends.
 
HelenRose said:
I am not sure just what you are driving at but…

Although New Testament was not compiled into one book until about 325, the letters and the Gospels were the rule of faith as letters and manuscripts were sent and passed around to the various Churches. These were read to the congregations and studied each week much like the Jews read and studied the Old Testament each week in the Synagogues on the Sabbath.

The Old Testament was certainly the rule of faith for the Jews.

The letters and manuscripts of the New Testament were certainly the rule of faith for Christians.
Click to expand...
You’re quite wrong about that. the Jews certainly had the OT but they also had the Talmud (tradition) which they relied on to keep interpreting honest among other things.
 
eightydeuce82 said:
You’re quite wrong about that. the Jews certainly had the OT but they also had the Talmud (tradition) which they relied on to keep interpreting honest among other things.
Click to expand...
I apparently did not make myself clear. I know that the Jews had the Old Testament which I have understood includes the Talmud. Isn’t the Talmud the first five books of the Old Testament?

My point was that although the New Testament was not completely compiled until around 325 AD. The letter and writings were very much the rule for Christians.
 
eightydeuce82 said:
You’re quite wrong about that. the Jews certainly had the OT but they also had the Talmud (tradition) which they relied on to keep interpreting honest among other things.
Click to expand...
I realize now that I was thinking of the Torah. I did not know that the Talmud was developed before the destruction of Jerusalem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top