Why is 1 Corinthians 11:27 not in the lectionary?

[Jen95]

So, why is 1 Cor 11:27 not in our OF lectionary?
It’s quoted all the time in Church teaching and apologetics, right?
Or am I wrong here - is it in there somewhere?

EDIT - I see that this question was discussed here, but no one answered it:

Omissions from the new Lectionary Traditional Catholicism

What did I “claim”? I quoted a passage from a doctor of the Church. I noted a passage of Sacred Scripture has been cut from the liturgy, despite an expanded Lectionary. Funny how feverish a reaction one gets to simple facts.

 

[Gorgias]

So, why is 1 Cor 11:27 not in our OF lectionary?

It’s kinda difficult to answer that, don’t you think? I don’t know of any books that have been printed which contain a discussion of how the current lectionary was put together.

The usual question – which is the one that you’re asking, perhaps? – is whether the Church is stepping back from its teaching on being properly disposed in order to receive the Eucharist. It would seem somewhat presumptive to equate the change in readings with that conclusion.

 

[Jen95]

I wonder who would know an answer?
Is it a committee who puts it together?

 

[BartholomewB]

You’ll find information about the lectionary on Fr. Felix Just’s website, though I don’t think he provides such detailed verse-by-verse analysis of which bits are in and which bits are out, and why.
https://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/

 

[Edmundus1581]

EDIT - I see that this question was discussed here, but no one answered it:

Omissions from the new Lectionary - #30 by KMG

Well done with the edit! That’s an interesting thread.

 

[po18guy]

It might be a symptom of the malaise which the Church is undergoing. A culturally-derived softening of the message. Certainly, there is joy and delight in the faith, but the other side of the coin has been neglected or everlooked in certain areas. However, humans must be attracted to the good as well as being repelled by the evil. True also is that admonishing the sinner is a spiritual act of mercy.

The four “Last Things” (death, judgment, heaven, hell) are reality. We are guaranteed three of them. But how to choose wisely unless we have “the rest of the story”? The shorter Gospel reading remains as true as ever - but is it complete? Certainly, hearing a joyful message is a wonderful thing, but what if…? An excellent example of reading the longer version of the gospel at mass is given by Fr. Michael O’Connor:

 

[CRM_Brother]

The primary reason I can think of why 1 Corinthians 11:27 was excluded was because that there is a good amount of debate as to whether this verse was added later as a gloss (a commentary which was added in the margins of the Scripture by a scribe which eventually was accidentally added in the body of Scripture). The verse uses two words which are found nowhere else in Paul’s writings (anaxios - unworthy/without balance; and enochos - guilty) despite using synonyms for the concepts in other instances. Anaxios in particular only begins to be seen in other writings in this context about fifty years after Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, leading to the assumption that it is a gloss.

 

[po18guy]

It does comport, as I see it, with Church teaching from very early. It is not mentioned explicitly in the Didache, but section XIV (14) sentence 1 does say that sins are to be confessed on each Lord’s day prior to receiving the Eucharist, lest the believer’s sacrifice be impure.

1. On the Lord’s Day of the Lord come together, break bread and hold Eucharist, after confessing your transgressions that your offering may be pure;

 

[Gorgias]

ection XIV (14) sentence 1 does say that sins are to be confessed on each Lord’s day prior to receiving the Eucharist, lest the believer’s sacrifice be impure.

Wouldn’t you say that the Penitential Act meets that description, though? So, can we assert that the author is talking about sacramental reconciliation?

Moreover, I would suggest that it’s the most reasonable reading of that text that they’re not talking about confession of mortal sin, since “go to confession and then receive communion” wasn’t the practice of the day, vis-a-vis mortal sin. So, it makes sense that this really is discussing the confession of venial sins (in prayer, or to each other).

 

[po18guy]

With hand copying being the method of scripture transmission before the 15th century, it was inevitable that human hands would make perfectly normal human errors. Marginal notes and glosses were inevitable and may indeed have been based, in some cases, on copyist variations lost to antiquity, or possibly even by oral transmission.

The great blessing is that we have a Church which tested every jot and tittle and found no moral or doctrinal error. The verse in question comports with Church teaching.

 

[mythbuster1]

Actually, while all will be judged, not all will die. We do well to hope to live to see the Second Coming, for those who long for Christ’s Coming purify themselves thereby, and their reward is in no way diminished if they die waiting.

 

[MNathaniel]

po18guy:

XIV (14) sentence 1 does say that sins are to be confessed on each Lord’s day prior to receiving the Eucharist, lest the believer’s sacrifice be impure.

1. On the Lord’s Day of the Lord come together, break bread and hold Eucharist, after confessing your transgressions that your offering may be pure;

Wouldn’t you say that the Penitential Act meets that description, though? So, can we assert that the author is talking about sacramental reconciliation?

I’ve noticed that on multiple threads, you talk about the Penitential Act as if performing it properly disposes one to receive the Eucharist. If I recall, you expressed ambivalence and continued disagreement when multiple people chimed in to clarify that even if we perform a sincere Act of Penitence, we are still supposed to abstain from the Eucharist until we have gone to actual, sacramental Reconciliation.

May I ask why in this case, you read the words “after confessing your transgressions” and jump to the conclusion that not only could silent interior prayer count, but you propose that silent interior prayer is specifically what “the author is talking about”?

Why, as a Catholic whose Church has strong teachings about Confession as a sacrament requiring a priest and absolution offered by that priest acting in persona Christi, do you read the word “confess” and then suggest it means simple private repentance and silent interior prayer?

I’m mostly staying off CAF now because I’ve overall found it a counter productive place (for my own spiritual health). But I glanced back in here and found what I noticed strange. Can you explain to me what I’m missing? Do you have access to formal Church teaching you can share for me that says we can receive the Eucharist without sacramental absolution if we interiorly pray with repentance and intend to Confess properly later? Or am I misreading what you write?

 

[Maximian]

good amount of debate

Scholars can debate as much as they like. They have no authority to overturn the canon of scripture.

I would have expected that to be a given, for someone in discernment for the priesthood.

 

[Maximian]

Why, as a Catholic whose Church has strong teachings about Confession as a sacrament requiring a priest and absolution offered by that priest acting in persona Christi, do you read the word “confess” and then suggest it means simple private repentance and silent interior prayer?

I was wondering exactly the same thing.

Nice to see you commenting btw.

 

[MNathaniel]

The primary reason I can think of why 1 Corinthians 11:27 was excluded was because that there is a good amount of debate as to whether this verse was added later as a gloss (a commentary which was added in the margins of the Scripture by a scribe which eventually was accidentally added in the body of Scripture). The verse uses two words which are found nowhere else in Paul’s writings (anaxios - unworthy/without balance; and enochos - guilty) despite using synonyms for the concepts in other instances. Anaxios in particular only begins to be seen in other writings in this context about fifty years after Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, leading to the assumption that it is a gloss.

Sorry, can you clarify:

Are you saying that if something turns out to be a “gloss”, we should remove it from the defined canon of Scripture?

Also, wasn’t the canon defined a few hundred years after Paul? So why would it matter if the Holy Spirit chose to use a person 50 years after Paul (and a “gloss”) to make sure certain important words were included before the canon was defined?

Incidentally, Catholic Answers’ own Tim Staples calls 1 Cor 11:27-29 “the most straightforward verse about the Eucharist in the Bible”.

The Most Straightforward Verse About the Eucharist in the Bible | Catholic Answers Magazine

“There is much that is remarkably clear in Scripture about the Blessed Sacrament… in this post, I would like to deal with what may well be the plainest text of all: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29…”

He goes on to consistently speak as if St. Paul is indeed the author of the text, and the text is authoritative. No mention of any significant ‘gloss’ controversy. And again, even if there were a ‘gloss’ I struggle to think what significance that would have for the practical purpose of reading a text at Mass. Surely we can affirm that everything that made it into the canon of Scripture, was meant by the Holy Spirit to make it into the canon of Scripture, whether the Holy Spirit used one single human author per book or several.

 

[Jen95]

Exactly - are you folks advocating the “gloss” theory saying that the compilers of the lectionary are doing some kind of “progressive” Biblical analysis and leaving out the parts that are questionable (to them)? Are they going to change Catholic dogma while they’re at it?

 

[Jen95]

While we’re at it, I think that often during the Sunday readings little chunks of the Biblical texts are omitted.
That also seems to me like these mysterious compilers of the lectionary, whoever they are, are bowdlerizing the Bible, and I’m not sure that that’s a good idea.
If I were a blogger I’d comment on the texts that were cut out of the readings (although that doesn’t happen every week).

 

[ralfyman]

Dr. Hahn gives several helpful points here:

Scott Hahn - We cannot explain away the judgment we bring...

That is, the verse is of “no small matter,” and in some places kept people from taking Communion. But the important point isn’t only that verse but also the one that follows it.

Because everyone is a sinner, then no one is worthy. But that doesn’t mean one must not stop to strive to be so.

I think the implication is that in our drive to refer to verse 27, we keep forgetting verse 28.

 

[Jen95]

Well, agreed, if 1 Cor 11:27 were in the lectionary, I would hope verses 28-34 would be as well.

 

[MNathaniel]

I think the implication is that in our drive to refer to verse 27, we keep forgetting verse 28.

Do you really think that’s the direction modern people are driving in?

Paying too much attention to verse 27, and forgetting verse 28?

Certainly historical Christians went through a phase that culminated in the Church having to explicitly make a rule that Communion must be received at least once a year.

But that, er, doesn’t seem to be the direction most modern westerners are currently choosing to err in.