How Much Scripture Do We REALLY Get in the Liturgy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_Truthinator
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

The_Truthinator

Guest
Okay, this question is mainly concerned with the Lectionary. As a former Protestant, I know too well that we as Catholics get a WAY better broad overview of the Bible than, generally speaking, our Protestant brothers and sisters, and that our Masses are packed and sandwiched with massive amounts of Scripture (though we’re beat as far as devotionals go, I can say that for sure).

But it leaves me wondering, leaving aside private Scripture devotions and study, how much of the Written Word do we really receive in a fully Lectionary cycle?

More importantly, what do the numbers mean? For instance, A LOT of the Old Testament is composed of genealogies, certain parts are repetitions, others are cesuses, etc. We typically (at least I think) don’t hear these parts. We also usually don’t hear letter introductions and closings when it comes to the Prophets. SO … Is there any way to figure out (fairly easily) how much of the OT this stuff composes, and then compare the other parts (the “meat,” so to speak, that we typically get in Mass) to this–AND, finally, to what we hear in the Lectionary?

I think we actually only hear about twenty-something (maybe thirty-something) percent of the Old Testament, and somewhere around eighty of the New, but since so many variables have to be considered, what exactly does this mean???

Any insight?
 
The_Truthinator said:
Okay, this question is mainly concerned with the Lectionary. As a former Protestant, I know too well that we as Catholics get a WAY better broad overview of the Bible than, generally speaking, our Protestant brothers and sisters, and that our Masses are packed and sandwiched with massive amounts of Scripture (though we’re beat as far as devotionals go, I can say that for sure).

But it leaves me wondering, leaving aside private Scripture devotions and study, how much of the Written Word do we really receive in a fully Lectionary cycle?

More importantly, what do the numbers mean? For instance, A LOT of the Old Testament is composed of genealogies, certain parts are repetitions, others are cesuses, etc. We typically (at least I think) don’t hear these parts. We also usually don’t hear letter introductions and closings when it comes to the Prophets. SO … Is there any way to figure out (fairly easily) how much of the OT this stuff composes, and then compare the other parts (the “meat,” so to speak, that we typically get in Mass) to this–AND, finally, to what we hear in the Lectionary?

I think we actually only hear about twenty-something (maybe thirty-something) percent of the Old Testament, and somewhere around eighty of the New, but since so many variables have to be considered, what exactly does this mean???

Any insight?
Click to expand...
Our current lectionary cycle is designed to expose Catholics to a large part of the Bible over a period of three years. I’d argue that we actually hear more of it in church than most protestants, because we have the opportunity to hear the Scriptures proclaimed every day of the week. Whether or not we avail ourselves of that opportunity is a different matter entirely, of course. 😊

Also, remember that the Office has readings and lessons associated with it. I know it isn’t feasible for most of us to attend matins or vespers, but volumes are available for us to pray privately from.

The Church’s liturgy has always been flush with scripture. We just need to take advantage of it.
 
Here’s a link to a page with every statistic you need. It breaks down how much of the Bible, book by book, is read in both the new lectionary AND the old.

catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm

And here’s a summary which includes the basic percentages:
Extraordinary Form of the Mass: (Vigils and Feasts only)
Old Testament 1% used
New Testament 16.5% used

Ordinary Form of the Mass: (Sundays and Weekdays)
Old Testament 13.5% used
New Testament 71.5% used
 
Truthinator,

I offer you this meditation.

Scripture and Tradition

If in a Holy Hour of prayer, perhaps on Holy Thursday, we would like to read the message of the Last Supper in its richest form, we would put the four Biblical accounts beside one another. Neither Matthew nor Mark contain all that we know, nor do Luke or Paul offer all that we seek. The report of the Coena, richest in content, is found in the Consecration text. Here the thre synoptic Gospels and the First Epistle to the Corinthians are merged into and the liturgy has added other special citations from Holy Scripture.

Thus, the liturgy deals so masterfully with the Biblical text that it almost frightens us. But the following considerations will explain this freedom to us.

The first Mass was celebrated before there was any written account of God’s word in the Gospels of the New Testament. This historical priority of the liturgical celebration could be the deep roots of its independence from the written text. Only later did the liturgy exert itself more and more to make her report of the Last Supper like the written text. On the other hand, the origin of the Gospel account could be closely related to the liturgical celebration. From the customary diction of the liturgy, the formulation of the Scriptural account could have been put into writing.

In the beginning of the liturgy there was free formulation by the individual celebrant. Until the time of the martyrs reached its zenith, at the celebration of the holy mysteries every bishop expressed thanks to God in his own words and commemorated the redeeming work of Christ with his own formulation. At the same time, he naturally gave the account of the Last Supper and the institution of the Sacrament as it appeared best to him. He did not let his imagination run free. In his own words, he announced rather what had been handed down to him. This original circumstance of unbound free formulation by the individual celebrant finally formed the independence of the Consecration texts as opposed to Holy Scripture.

Out of the individual drafts, an obligatory text slowly crystallized, at first probably within a diocese, then in the metropolitan province, and in liturgical realms. In this process of unification the Consecration text becomes clearer and clearer. But only in the fourth century could the Consecration text of the Roman liturgy have received the form approximately as we have it today. This form is carefully oriented in Holy Scripture and yet it retains its original free rhythm.

continued
 
The views of the separated brethren since the so-called Reformation have also often unconsciously influenced us. They leave us very much worried about the Scriptural proof and the Scriptural dependence of individual teachings of our faith. It should be so, for the Holy Spirit speaks to us in the inspired word of Holy Scripture. That we cannot value it too highly is impressively brought home to us, especially by the liturgy with its reverence for the Gospels. And yet next to Holy Scripture, and historically before Holy Scripture, there is and there remains the Tradition of the Church as a source of faith. And this is of the greatest import. The living consciousness of the faith, the life of faith in the Church, shows what is to be believed. In the words of the Consecration we see such a thesis of the life of faith in the early Church. Independently the litugical celebration of the primitive Church formed the praise of God through the Eucharistic Christ and thus testified to its belief in Him and thus strengthens our faith.

With this in mind, we approach the account of the Last Supper in the Consecration texts of the primitive Church and are filled with same reverence for Tradition as we are for Holy Scripture. We have the same peace and certainty as is given to us by the inspired divine word of Holy Scripture, for we know that the Holy Spirit breathes also in the Tradition of the Church.

Both gifts of the Holy Spirit, Tradition and Scripture, unite themselves in the Consecration text into one work, one praise of God and one Gospel.
 
PhilotheaZ said:
Wow! What an amazing summary. (I wonder who had the time to put that together?)
Click to expand...
Remembering, of course, that many passages are only heard once every three years now, so perhaps there’s a trade off of hearing a greater variety of scripture less frequently versus hearing a smaller portion more frequently.

The other thing to remember is that the Introit, Gradual, and Communion in the EF were also for the most part scripture verses.
 
The prayers during that we use during the Mass are also scripturally ased, as well.

Along with the Entrance and Communion antiphons, which come from either the pslams or from throughout the bible, the first part of the Gloria comes to us from Luke.

The Sanctus comes to us from the Gospel accounts of the Lord’s entry into Jerusalem. The institution narrative of the Eucharistic prayer comes to us from the synoptic accounts of the Last Supper. One of the memorial acclamations, “when we eat this bread and drink this cup we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in glory” comes from St. Paul.

The Our Father, comes to us from Jesus, himself. The Agnus Dei comes to us from St. John the Baptist, when he tells Andrew and John, “behold the Lamb of God”. The prayer that we recite after the Agnus Dei comes to us from the account of Jesus healing the centurion’s servant “Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof. But only say the word and my soul shall be healed.” I believe this particular version of the prayer will be restored when the new translation of the Roman Missal is approved.

One prayer, in particular, I believe comes directly from the Jewish passover liturgy, the offertory prayers said as the priest offers the bread and wine. “Blessed are you Lord, God of all creation” comes from the Jewish prayer, “Blessed are you, Lord God, King of the universe.” I may be wrong, but that’s how I understood it.

In the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, many of the prayers are also steeped in scripture, such as the one recited by the priest when he goes up to the altar.

I would suggest that you get hold of Scott Hahn’s book, “The Lamb’s Sacrifice”. It is definitely an eye-opener.
 
I’d agree with everything benedictal said, except the title of the book is the Lamb’s Supper.

😉

No biggie, I typo all the time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top