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.
Elizium23 said:
What reliable sources can you cite to back up this assertion?
Click to expand...
I think this could be applied to just about everyone and remove the bible from the equation and simply state reading in general.

Considering over 90% of the worlds population was illiterate for literally all of human existence is one factor and that can be seen still today. I believe were still over a 50% illiteracy rate.

If your talking about reading the bible id say that its probably a true statement that protestants have a one up on Catholics on reading scripture since its the only thing they have (but not by much). We have Mass to get our scripture. They have only the book so it would follow logic that they would use it more.

Are there Catholics that could put a Baptist minister to shame Sure and vice versa.

The point is while the bible is important it was never intended to be “THE WAY” Christians pass on the faith.
 
HelenRose said:
I realize now that I was thinking of the Torah. I did not know that the Talmud was developed before the destruction of Jerusalem.
Click to expand...
The Talmud came with Moses. When the people asked for rulers. It was orally transmitted until the destruction of the temple when they decided to write it down.
 
Elizium23 said:
What reliable sources can you cite to back up this assertion?
Click to expand...
Mea Culpa. I relied upon my own experience growing up as a Protestant (before converting to Catholicism) the emphasis my teachers had on how important it is to read the Bible daily on my own

And my experience talking with Catholics who did not have that same experience. I am sure that this really depends on the teachers that each individual had. Do you know of real good Bible Study Resources that were available for lay Catholic 40 or 50 years ago?

I know that there are many now.
 
HelenRose said:
I am not sure just what you are driving at but…
Click to expand...
I think what the op was getting at is that God’s Word comes to us in written and oral form and that ‘Bible alone’ is not taught in the Bible?

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter. 2 Thess 2:15

Anyway the more Catholics read Scripture and come to understand that the Catholic Faith at it’s core is biblical but not ‘bible alone’, the better.
 
AKDee said:
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.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I’m probably a great example of “depending on the Mass for all of [my] exposure to the Word.” (I have been hit-or-miss throughout my life but I am working on it!) and that doesn’t make our discussions and Bible studies any easier. “I think Paul said something about this… maybe…” Or, as Jeff Cavins has put it, a big heap of Catholicism, and the answers are in there… somewhere.

Even so, as those of you who are familiar with Protestantism know and I have been finding out, their services are basically some songs and a Bible study ranging from one verse to a couple chapters. While we probably proclaim Scripture more, as AKDee says, there’s a sense, at least, that we aren’t really studying it. Our emphasis on something other than only the Bible is strange to them and bridging that gap is a challenge! At her church, they go more-or-less sequentially through a given book (e.g., Acts, Isaiah, etc.). She said that eventually they cover the entire (short) Bible over several years.

Thank you all for your (name removed by moderator)ut (and keep it up!). Some potential responses from her: verses out of context (i.e., “proof text”); no actual study/instruction/understanding of the Scriptural bases for Mass elements; little-to-no emphasis on outside study.
 
HelenRose said:
I realize now that I was thinking of the Torah. I did not know that the Talmud was developed before the destruction of Jerusalem.
Click to expand...
If you actually research it a little bit and listen to some Jewish converts it will really open your eyes to Catholicism and its direct lineage as the new people of God.

Just as the OT foretells the coming of Christ and literally spells out much of the NT so don’t many of the Old rituals and transmission of the faith. Why would God change his method.

OT + Talmud = NT and Sacred Tradition
they keep each other honest just as the Jews used the Talmud, one is oral and the other written.

Passover meal = The Eucharist the new covenant
Passover was the literal retelling of entering into the covenant with God and the Jews didn’t just eat a meal symbolically they entered into the suffering at each one. The Eucharist is the new Passover where we enter in to the suffering of Jesus and into the new covenant.

Tabernacle = Mary
The OT tabernacle held the word of god and the bread of life (Mana which rained from heaven) Mary is the new tabernacle carrying the word of God (Jesus) THE bread of life.
 
eightydeuce82 said:
If you actually research it a little bit and listen to some Jewish converts it will really open your eyes to Catholicism and its direct lineage as the new people of God.

Just as the OT foretells the coming of Christ and literally spells out much of the NT so don’t many of the Old rituals and transmission of the faith. Why would God change his method.

OT + Talmud = NT and Sacred Tradition
they keep each other honest just as the Jews used the Talmud, one is oral and the other written.

Passover meal = The Eucharist the new covenant
Passover was the literal retelling of entering into the covenant with God and the Jews didn’t just eat a meal symbolically they entered into the suffering at each one. The Eucharist is the new Passover where we enter in to the suffering of Jesus and into the new covenant.

Tabernacle = Mary
The OT tabernacle held the word of god and the bread of life (Mana which rained from heaven) Mary is the new tabernacle carrying the word of God (Jesus) THE bread of life.
Click to expand...
Much of that I do know. But I did miss out on the Tulmud. And I did have the word mixed up somewhat with the Torah.
 
HelenRose said:
Much of that I do know. But I did miss out on the Tulmud. And I did have the word mixed up somewhat with the Torah.
Click to expand...
Let me get you a few talks from a notable Jewish convert. I consider myself a pretty knowledgeable catholic but after I watched a few of his talks lots really came together…him and Scott Haun and his stuff on the 7th cup and the Eucharist.
 
eightydeuce82 said:
If you actually research it a little bit and listen to some Jewish converts it will really open your eyes to Catholicism and its direct lineage as the new people of God.

Just as the OT foretells the coming of Christ and literally spells out much of the NT so don’t many of the Old rituals and transmission of the faith. Why would God change his method.

OT + Talmud = NT and Sacred Tradition
they keep each other honest just as the Jews used the Talmud, one is oral and the other written.

Passover meal = The Eucharist the new covenant
Passover was the literal retelling of entering into the covenant with God and the Jews didn’t just eat a meal symbolically they entered into the suffering at each one. The Eucharist is the new Passover where we enter in to the suffering of Jesus and into the new covenant.

Tabernacle = Mary
The OT tabernacle held the word of god and the bread of life (Mana which rained from heaven) Mary is the new tabernacle carrying the word of God (Jesus) THE bread of life.
Click to expand...
Actually eightdeuce82, you will probably be instrumental in keeping me on the straight and narrow. Yes, sir, I will endeavor to state the sources for my assertions and research all my thoughts. I need to proof read better as well. I am not being sarcastic. I know that I write off the wall and need to improve.
 
eightydeuce82 said:
Let me get you a few talks from a notable Jewish convert. I consider myself a pretty knowledgeable catholic but after I watched a few of his talks lots really came together…him and Scott Haun and his stuff on the 7th cup and the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
There is so much to learn it is overwhelming.
 
THE TALMUD gets its name from the word LAMUD — taught, and means The Teaching. By metonymy it is taken to mean the book which contains the Teaching, which teaching is called Talmud, that is, the doctrinal book which alone fully expounds and explains all the knowledge and teaching of the Jewish people.

As to the origin of the Talmud, the Rabbis(6) regard Moses as its first author. They hold that, besides the written law which Moses received from God on Mount Sinai on tables of stone, which is called Torah Schebiktab, he also received interpretations of it, or the oral law, which is called Torah Shebeal Peh. They say that this is the reason why Moses remained so long on the mountain, as God could have given him the written law in one day.(7)

(6) cf. Rabbi Levi in Berakhoth, fol. 5a; Rabbi Iochanan in Megillah, f.19b.

(7) To prove this they appeal to Exodus Ch. XXIV, 12: “And the Lord God said to Moses, come up to me into the mountain, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.” They assert that in this passage the words “tables of stone” mean the ten commandments, that “a law” means the Pentateuch, “commandments” mean the Mischnah; “which I have written” the Prophets and the Hagiographers; and “that thou mayest teach them” the Gemarah. cf. Berakhoth, fol. 5a.

Moses is said to have transmitted this oral law to Joshua; Joshua in turn to the seventy Elders; the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets to the Great Synagogue. It is held that it was later transmitted successively to certain Rabbis until it was no longer possible to retain it orally.

Whatever may be said about this story of the Rabbis, it is sufficiently known to us that before the birth of Christ, schools existed in Palestine in which sacred literature was taught. The commentaries of the Doctors of the law were noted down on charts and lists as an aid to memory, and these, when collected together, formed the beginnings of the Jewish Talmud.

In the second century after Christ, Rabbi Jehuda who, because of the sanctity of his life, was called The Saint, and The Prince, realizing that the learning of the Jews was diminishing, that their oral law was being lost, and that the Jewish people were being dispersed, was the first to consider ways and means of restoring and preserving their oral law. He collected all the lists and charts and from them he made a book which was called the Sepher Mischnaioth, or Mischnah — a Deuterosis, or secondary law. He divided it into six parts, each of which was divided into many chapters. We shall consider these later.

The Mischnah is the foundation and the principal part of the whole Talmud. This book was accepted by the Jews everywhere and was recognized as their authentic code of law. It was expounded in their Academies in Babylon — at Sura, Pumbaditha and Nehardea — and in their Academies in Palestine — at Tiberias, Iamnia and Lydda.

As the interpretations increased with the passing of time, the disputations and decisions of the doctors of the law concerning the Mischnah were written down, and these writings constituted another part of the Talmud called the Gemarah.

These two parts are so disposed throughout the whole Talmud that the Mischnah serves first as a kind of text of the law, and is followed by the Gemarah as an analysis of its various opinions leading to definite decisions.

All the precepts of the Mischnah, however, were not discussed in the Jewish schools. Those whose use was nullified by the destruction of the Temple, and those whose observation was possible only in the Holy Land were not commented upon. Their explanation was left until the coming of Elias and the Messiah. For this reason some parts of the Mischnah are lacking in the Gemarah.

In interpreting the Mischnah of Rabbi Jehuda, the schools of Palestine and Babylon followed each their own method, and by thus following their own way gave rise to a twofold Gemarah — the Jerusalem and the Babylonian versions. The author of the Jerusalem version was Rabbi Jochanan, who was head of the synagogue in Jerusalem for eighty years. He wrote thirty-nine chapters of commentaries on the Mischnah which he completed in the year 230 A.D.
 
The Babylonian Gemarah, however, was not compiled by any one person, nor at any one time. Rabbi Aschi began it in 327 A.D and labored over it for sixty years. He was followed by Rabbi Maremar about the year 427 A.D., and it was completed by Rabbi Abina about the year 500 A.D. The Babylonian Gemarah has thirty-six chapters of interpretations.

This twofold Gemarah, added to the Mischnah, makes also a twofold Talmud: The Jerusalem version, which, on account of its brevity and obscurity, is not much used; and the Babylonian version, which has been held in the highest esteem by Jews of all times.

The Gemarah is followed by additions called Tosephoth.(8) It was thus that Rabbi Chaia first styled his opinions on the Mischnaioth. He and Rabbi Uschaia were the first to explain this book publicly in the schools. Commentaries on the Mischnah which were made by the doctors outside the schools were called Baraietoth,(9) or extraneous opinions.

(8) From Tosepheth, or Tosiphta, meaning addition.

(9) From Baria, extraneous, or Baraietha, extraneous teaching.

These Commentaries were further supplemented by other decisions called Piske Tosephoth, short theses and simple principles.

For nearly five hundred years after the Babylonian Talmud was completed, the study of literature was greatly hampered partly due to public calamities and partly owing to dissensions among the scholars. But in the eleventh century others wrote further additions to the Talmud. Chief among these were the Tosephoth of Rabbi Ascher.

Besides these there appeared the Perusch of Rabbi Moische ben Maimon, called by the Jews Rambam for short, by the Christians Maimonides, and by Rabbi Schelomo, Iarchi or Raschi.

Thus, the Mischna, Gemarah, Tosephoth, the marginal notes of Rabbi Ascher, the Piske Tosephoth and the Perusch Hamischnaioth of Maimonides, all collected into one, constitute a vast work which is called the Talmud.

talmudunmasked.com/chapter1.htm

It will remain overwhelming forever lol welcome to catholic life…good thing is most of this stuff was hashed out for us.
 
71% of the NT is not “not much,” especially when you consider that 96% of Mark, and at least 85% of each of the other Gospels are read (and the Gospels overlap).

13% of the OT isn’t very much, but there are an awful lot of begats, cubits, and cheweth the cud in there, which probably isn’t the best use of reading time.

Considering the amount of overlap, percentages may not be the best measure. The real question: What does she think should be read that isn’t, and does something else that is read cover the same material?

I personally am very terrible at the chapter and verse style stuff (I can know generally that something is in the bible, but have no idea where - fortunately, we have google), and some of my protestant friends are much better at that than I am.

However, I tend to notice that the actual passages that they cite, if expanded beyond a verse or two, are something that I am familiar with, and at least similar to something that I heard in Mass.

But in any case, we certainly hear nearly all of the Gospels, and a large portion of the rest of the NT, and a fair amount of the OT.
 
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...
I was told by a priest that if I attend Daily Mass for 3 years I will have heard the whole Bible read. But the important part is not how much I have heard or read, but how much I have absorbed into my life correctly. My Mom used to say, “Don’t let it go in one ear and out the other”!! God Bless, Memaw
 
eightydeuce82 said:
Here are the three talks from the Jewish guy he really connects the dots… its a three part talk an hour each.

youtube.com/watch?v=WeDzSfquYcs

youtube.com/watch?v=or-gmyT27I4

youtube.com/watch?v=l9kEXDG3sEg

and one bonus

youtube.com/watch?v=Z3fJhob-pAw
Click to expand...
I was wondering who it would be. 🙂

Are you familiar with the Association of Hebrew Catholics? They have a series of lectures by Lawrence Feingold…

hebrewcatholic.net/studies/mystery-of-israel-church/

And a couple of talks about the Jewish roots of Catholicism by Bob Fishman…

hebrewcatholic.net/category/faith-theology/salvation-history/jewish-roots/

Sorry for going off topic.
 
Memaw said:
I was told by a priest that if I attend Daily Mass for 3 years I will have heard the whole Bible read. But the important part is not how much I have heard or read, but how much I have absorbed into my life correctly. My Mom used to say, “Don’t let it go in one ear and out the other”!! God Bless, Memaw
Click to expand...
It would be more accurate to state that you would have heard the whole cycle of the Lectionary read in those three years (and you would need to attend Sundays as well.)

But even those who attend Daily Mass are seeing the tip of the iceberg. As OraLabora pointed out helpfully at the beginning of this thread, the Liturgy of the Hours is where the rubber hits the road in Catholic liturgy. Plus, this is something that can be done in private recitation, rather than getting yourself to Mass on time every morning (mine’s at 8am, and I’m not a morning person!)

Moreover, if you participate in the Office of Readings, you get good homilies and other tracts from extra-Scriptural sources such as the ECFs, Popes, Saints, and Vatican II. So anyone who’s serious about incorporating Scripture into liturgy will always take LOTH into account, because the Mass is only (the more important) part of the picture.
 
johnnyc176 said:
I was wondering who it would be. 🙂

Are you familiar with the Association of Hebrew Catholics? They have a series of lectures by Lawrence Feingold…

hebrewcatholic.net/studies/mystery-of-israel-church/

And a couple of talks about the Jewish roots of Catholicism by Bob Fishman…

hebrewcatholic.net/category/faith-theology/salvation-history/jewish-roots/

Sorry for going off topic.
Click to expand...
Nope I will check it out thou I seem to be drawn to the Jewish roots of the faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top