Why are verses of the bible skipped during readings?

[Mrs_87]

I am new to the site and I had a questions and wanted to give this a try. Im going through the RCIA program right now and am very shy and dont like asking many questions but I was hoping someone could tell me why during the daily readings verses are skipped? Like 1-3,7-9 why dont we also read 4,5 and 6? This might be a stupid question but just thought I would ask anyway. Im sure the answer is something really simple like its not relevant at that time or something but wanted to know for sure.
Thank You for reading my post

 

[IesumPerMariam]

I am new to the site and I had a questions and wanted to give this a try. Im going through the RCIA program right now and am very shy and dont like asking many questions but I was hoping someone could tell me why during the daily readings verses are skipped? Like 1-3,7-9 why dont we also read 4,5 and 6? This might be a stupid question but just thought I would ask anyway. Im sure the answer is something really simple like its not relevant at that time or something but wanted to know for sure.
Thank You for reading my post

Yeah, that pretty much explains it. They simply don’t tie in to the lesson the Church is trying to teach on that particular day. Often these verses are irrelevant extra narration, and rather than a 10 minute long Gospel reading, half of which is “fluff” in the current context, the Church cuts them out and gives us a shorter Gospel reading that gets straight to the point.

 

[Mrs_87]

Thank you for answering that’s what I figured.

 

[Windmill]

I disagree with the answer given above.

Oftentimes, the verses that are skipped or made optional are “hard” verses. You see this all the time when there is a “longer” version and “shorter” version of the readings. I challenge people to compare the versions and see what is being left out. It is usually not fluff, but rather the key controversial issue at stake.

I understand that there may not be a great homilist in the parish, and so touching on these issues from the pulpit might spell disaster, but I think that is changing among the younger clergy. My problem is that we are not trusted to be able to handle the Word of God if it is proclaimed to us. IOW, the laity would revolt or fall away because they misunderstood the text or because they properly understood the text but could not accept it.

Examples of what I mean: On the feast of Corpus Christi, the readings skip over Paul’s warning not to receive the Eucharist unworthily. In centuries past, the reading went straight through the chapter to the end. It provided the homilist an opportunity to remind people to go to confession before receiving. In the revision of the lectionary, they get to those verses and skip over them to get to the end.

Example: In the Second Reading for the Twenty-First Sunday in Ordinary Time, Cycle B, the reading is from Ephesians 5:21-32, not a long reading, where St. Paul says, “Wives should be subordinate to their husbands…,” and then states the reasons for that (vv. 22-24). But the Shorter Form omits those unfashionable verses and only tells us about a husband’s duty to his wife.

Example: In the Gospel Reading for the Twenty-Eighth Sunday in Ordinary Time, Cycle A, which is the Parable of the Marriage Feast (Mt. 22:1-14). Again, the reading isn’t long. Here Jesus tells us that the Kingdom of Heaven may be likened to a king who gives a wedding feast for his son. The king sends his servants to bring guests to the feast, but the guests refuse to come. So the king sends his servants out a second time. This time those invited ignore the invitation or kill the servants. So the king burns down their city. Then the king sends out other servants to invite others, “bad and good alike,” with the result that “the hall was filled with guests.” Thus ends the Shorter Form, and on a cheery note. Everyone lives happily ever after. But the Shorter Form omits the rest of the story, a mere four verses (vv. 11-14), and those four verses are crucial: At the feast, the king discovers a man who is not dressed in a proper wedding garment. The king interrogates the man, who has no response. So the king says to his attendants, “Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.” And Jesus, after telling the parable, concludes: “Many are invited, but few are chosen.” So the parable doesn’t have a happy ending after all. The wedding garment symbolizes the proper response to grace. And of course when Jesus says “few are chosen,” He is referring to Judgment Day.

I could go on, but you get my drift.

 

[IesumPerMariam]

I disagree with the answer given above.

Oftentimes, the verses that are skipped or made optional are “hard” verses. You see this all the time when there is a “longer” version and “shorter” version of the readings. I challenge people to compare the versions and see what is being left out. It is usually not fluff, but rather the key controversial issue at stake.

Yes, sometimes that is true, and it is a horrible, horrible shame that did not exist in the Catholic liturgical tradition until 1970, and needs to be corrected. In those cases, we deserve to hear the Truth, not a washed-over half-truth.

I am far more familiar with the TLM Lectionary, and in that, when verses are omitted it is always because they are just “fluff.”

 

[YoungTradCath]

I disagree with the answer given above.

Oftentimes, the verses that are skipped or made optional are “hard” verses. [usually] You see this all the time when there is a “longer” version and “shorter” version of the readings. I challenge people to compare the versions and see what is being left out. It is usually not fluff, but rather the key controversial issue at stake.

I could go on, but you get my drift.

Ah, the Lectionary version of the conspiracy theorist’s dream! I’ve noticed that too, and it is uber upsetting when everything of meaning is skipped over and we get the “be a good boy” homily.

 

[Windmill]

I guess I just get a little cynical when people start glorifying the revised lectionary because we are hearing so many more scripture verses. I’d rather hear the harder verses of the traditional lectionary instead of ridiculously boring genealogies of the OT readings in the new lectionary read at daily Mass in the summertime.

More is not necessarily better.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I guess I just get a little cynical when people start glorifying the revised lectionary because we are hearing so many more scripture verses. I’d rather hear the harder verses of the traditional lectionary instead of ridiculously boring genealogies of the OT readings in the new lectionary read at daily Mass in the summertime.

More is not necessarily better.

Same. More Scripture does not automatically mean better. I’ve made a case for melding the two Lectionary models, because I do see value in both. The EF’s model can be used for what I call “theme days:” Solemnities, Feasts, Memorials, days of Advent, days of Lent, days of Pentecost and Easter, votive Masses, etc.* Basically, the EF’s model is, I believe, superior when dealing with liturgies whose theme, thrust, central celebratory act/event/person stays the same each year. IE, why should we use different readings each year for St. ___'s Optional Memorial? Kind of silly, yes? The OF’s model, the cycle, can be used for non theme days, basically ferias. I believe this is good because I do see a value in a cycle, just not for every day and celebration.

*There can also be a set of “Saints’ Commons” that can be used whenever a new saint is added to the calendar, until such a time that the Mass is added to the Missal itself with its own readings.

 

[thistle]

Yes, sometimes that is true, and it is a horrible, horrible shame that did not exist in the Catholic liturgical tradition until 1970, and needs to be corrected.** In those cases, we deserve to hear the Truth, not a washed-over half-truth.**

I am far more familiar with the TLM Lectionary, and in that, when verses are omitted it is always because they are just “fluff.”

You are allowed to read the Bible on your own!

 

[YoungTradCath]

You are allowed to read the Bible on your own!

Unfortunately, we can’t homilize ourselves!

 

[IesumPerMariam]

You are allowed to read the Bible on your own!

Then perhaps we should skip Scripture entirely at Mass. Walk in, priest prays the Canon, receive Communion, walk out, eh?

Remember that for the first 1400 years of Catholicism there were no printing presses, and thus most Catholics could not obtain their own copy of a Bible manuscript. The Mass is traditionally the main means for becoming acquainted with Scripture, and it shouldn’t be dumbed-down or watered-down to appeal to modern society’s taste!

 

[Mrs_Sally]

We may think like a conspiracist about the shorter versions the the Lectionary, but that doesn’t mean the conspiracy is true.

The shorter versions are not mandatory either - priests can and do read all the verses. Priests can also talk in their homilies about the topics left out of the shorter versions - or use the readings as a place to start and than branch off into the issue they feel their parish needs to hear about.

Take a look at the short versioons vs long versions over the next month or so. Sometimes it is “fluff” (ie, some descriptive passage, or a second version of the same parable (lost coin, lost sheep, etc.)). Sometimes it is indeed “hard sayings”. The question then is, does this message get covered in another place? Does the priest have the long version read/or reads it himself if it is the gospel? Does the priest preach on that topic despite the shortened reading?

Many times the priests at my parish speak on hard topics even if the verses themselves don’t explicitly state it. We regularly hear homilies on sin, repentance, confession, and forgivness. On the Eucharist. On all kinds of good topics!

To the OP, maybe ask your priest or deacon - both why the Church offers short versions and why they might chose or not chose to use them. Let us know what you hear!

 

[HelenRose]

I am new to the site and I had a questions and wanted to give this a try. Im going through the RCIA program right now and am very shy and dont like asking many questions but I was hoping someone could tell me why during the daily readings verses are skipped? Like 1-3,7-9 why dont we also read 4,5 and 6? This might be a stupid question but just thought I would ask anyway. Im sure the answer is something really simple like its not relevant at that time or something but wanted to know for sure.
Thank You for reading my post

There is always the Liturgy of the Hours to fill in some more of the Bible. There are many studies that are written by faithful Catholics to answer questions and there is the Catechism of the Catholic Church and many other sources for knowledge. In addition to that, one can always attend Mass daily. I have been reading Pope Benedicts books about Jesus.

My answer will simply be that the entire Bible is to be read. Even if the Church took the whole hour each week it could not be read all of it. So it is left to us to study it with all the available help mentioned.

I am very fortunate to have a priest who is very knowledgeable and gives very good sermons.

 

[Zekariya]

Yeah, that pretty much explains it. They simply don’t tie in to the lesson the Church is trying to teach on that particular day. Often these verses are irrelevant extra narration, and rather than a 10 minute long Gospel reading, half of which is “fluff” in the current context, the Church cuts them out and gives us a shorter Gospel reading that gets straight to the point.

I see what you are saying but, here is one correction. It may not be seen as relevant to the message being put across that particular day but, no passage in the Bible is fluff. St Paul say in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.”

 

[OraLabora]

I see what you are saying but, here is one correction. It may not be seen as relevant to the message being put across that particular day but, no passage in the Bible is fluff. St Paul say in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.”

Except that when he wrote that, what he was writing wasn’t yet scripture. The Protestants often like to take that verse out of context.

When he wrote that, he was referring only to the Old Testament.

So in fact this verse works against traditionalists who say we should leave the Old Testament out of the Mass readings… just sayin’…

Perhaps the Church does think these things through a bit more than a bunch of people on an Internet forum…

 

[Zekariya]

Except that when he wrote that, what he was writing wasn’t yet scripture. The Protestants often like to take that verse out of context.

When he wrote that, he was referring only to the Old Testament.

So in fact this verse works against traditionalists who say we should leave the Old Testament out of the Mass readings… just sayin’…

Perhaps the Church does think these things through a bit more than a bunch of people on an Internet forum…

Traditionally, for the first 1,000 years of the Church, on Sundays the New Testament was read alone (besides Psalms). The Old Testament was part of weekday and (especially) Saturday morning Mass. The Church has defined Scripture and 2 Timothy 3:16-17 was included. So, St Paul said “all Scripture” and, the Church has told us what is Scripture. It is not “fluff” be it Old or New Testament verses. See how the Byzantines used the OT:

“The reading of the Old Testament occurs during ecclesiastical periods, great feast days, and on a daily basis in certain services. During all these services, biblical representation is exclusively from the Old Testament.”
Source: orthodoxchristian.info/pages/old_testament.html

 

[OraLabora]

Traditionally, for the first 1,000 years of the Church, on Sundays the New Testament was read alone (besides Psalms). The Old Testament was part of weekday and (especially) Saturday morning Mass. The Church has defined Scripture and 2 Timothy 3:16-17 was included. So, St Paul said “all Scripture” and, the Church has told us what is Scripture. It is not “fluff” be it Old or New Testament verses. See how the Byzantines used the OT:

“The reading of the Old Testament occurs during ecclesiastical periods, great feast days, and on a daily basis in certain services. During all these services, biblical representation is exclusively from the Old Testament.”
Source: orthodoxchristian.info/pages/old_testament.html

It doesn’t matter where “traditionally” the OT was read. The Church has decided it its now, ordinarily to be read on Sundays as well.

That’s good enough for me. We live in a new reality where few can make it to daily Mass.

While I agree with you that the entire NT is now canonical and what St. Paul said is applicable to it as well, I think it’s important to also read his verse in the context with which it was written. In that context, it says that the New Covenant does not mean that the scripture of the Old Covenant is to somehow be tossed overboard. In particular, I think, because of its prophetic elements. If St. Paul thought it was useful for teaching, then that too is good enough for me.

I’m certainly not going to place myself above the magisterium of the Holy Church by trying to second-guess where the OT readings should be placed.

 

[IesumPerMariam]

I see what you are saying but, here is one correction. It may not be seen as relevant to the message being put across that particular day but, no passage in the Bible is fluff. St Paul say in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.”

I agree with you, but I meant “fluff” in the sense that it’s not exactly relevant to the particular lesson the Church is teaching on a given day, not in the sense of being totally unworthy and useless. Of course every verse of Sacred Scripture can and should be read and revered by everyone who is able to.

 

[Zekariya]

It doesn’t matter where “traditionally” the OT was read. The Church has decided it its now, ordinarily to be read on Sundays as well.

That’s good enough for me. We live in a new reality where few can make it to daily Mass.

While I agree with you that the entire NT is now canonical and what St. Paul said is applicable to it as well, I think it’s important to also read his verse in the context with which it was written. In that context, it says that the New Covenant does not mean that the scripture of the Old Covenant is to somehow be tossed overboard. In particular, I think, because of its prophetic elements. If St. Paul thought it was useful for teaching, then that too is good enough for me.

I’m certainly not going to place myself above the magisterium of the Holy Church by trying to second-guess where the OT readings should be placed.

I think that you have misunderstood me. I have no problem with Old and New Testaments readings. My response was concerning IesumPerMariam saying:
“Often these verses are irrelevant extra narration, and rather than a 10 minute long Gospel reading, half of which is “fluff” in the current context, the Church cuts them out and gives us a shorter Gospel reading that gets straight to the point.”
[emphasis mine]

My point was everything in the Bible is useful and should not be called “fluff”. St Paul says, “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable…” and this refers to both the Old and New Testaments. I love the Old Testament and would never toss it overboard.

I agree with you, but I meant “fluff” in the sense that it’s not exactly relevant to the particular lesson the Church is teaching on a given day, not in the sense of being totally unworthy and useless. Of course every verse of Sacred Scripture can and should be read and revered by everyone who is able to.

Thanks for clarifying that.

 

[OraLabora]

I think that you have misunderstood me. I have no problem with Old and New Testaments readings. My response was concerning IesumPerMariam saying:
“Often these verses are irrelevant extra narration, and rather than a 10 minute long Gospel reading, half of which is “fluff” in the current context, the Church cuts them out and gives us a shorter Gospel reading that gets straight to the point.”
[emphasis mine]

My point was everything in the Bible is useful and should not be called “fluff”. St Paul says, “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable…” and this refers to both the Old and New Testaments. I love the Old Testament and would never toss it overboard.

On that we agree. In re-reading myself I think I was directing my comment more towards those who don’t agree with OT readings at Sunday Mass.

Interestingly, at the abbey where I attend Sunday Mass, they never take the shorter option. They always do the full reading.