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

[Bernoulli]

From what I understand, there is no protestant denomination that can match the systematic diversity of readings in the Catholic lectionary.

I heard some Protestant denominations just preach through the Scriptures in order.

 

[MikeInVA]

If so, that would be an impressive achievement!

 

[Gorgias]

Woah woah woah.
Is that a totally acknowledged normal thing? We know that the Church cuts verses out of the lectionary that “they” think are too “difficult”?

Yes. In the “Introduction to the Lectionary”, we see the following:

1. Difficult Texts

1. In readings for Sundays and solemnities, texts that present real difficulties are avoided for pastoral reasons. The difficulties may be objective, in that the texts themselves raise profound literary, critical, or exegetical problems; or the difficulties may lie, at least to a certain extent, in the ability of the faithful to understand the texts. But there could be no justification for concealing from the faithful the spiritual riches of certain texts on the grounds of difficulty if the problem arises from the inadequacy either of the religious education that every Christian should have or of the biblical formation that every pastor of souls should have. Often a difficult reading is clarified by its correlation with another in the same Mass.

Does everyone know this? It’s openly known and acknowledged? Is everyone supposed to know this?

Doubtful. Yes. Good question.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I have also heard at least one priest say in a homily that there are concepts he will speak about at daily Mass that he wouldn’t speak about at Sunday Mass.
The reason being that daily Mass goers are thought to be stronger in their faith and probably better catechized/ more familiar with Scripture and thus more comfortable with Catholic teachings thought to be difficult or confusing.

For Sunday Mass, apparently the priests are concerned that someone might be attending for the first time, or be a sporadic attender, or otherwise not be very well versed in the Catholic faith, and they don’t want to scare them away with discussion of some difficult concept.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

For Sunday Mass, apparently the priests are concerned that someone might be attending for the first time, or be a sporadic attender, or otherwise not be very well versed in the Catholic faith, and they don’t want to scare them away with discussion of some difficult concept.

That is the opposite of the Jesus route.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Well, in fairness, Jesus did wait awhile before he sprung the “you must eat my flesh and drink my blood” on his audience. He spent a lot of time curing the sick and handing out free food first.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

He spent a lot of time curing the sick and handing out free food first.

The first thing He ever said was, “Repent and believe in the Gospel.” He always started with the hard stuff.

 

[CRM_Brother]

Sorry that it has taken a little bit to get back to you.

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

The question is not so much that we should remove it from the canon, but that it was never part of the canon in the first place. This is precisely what the Sisto-Clementine Vulgate did after the Council of Trent. The original formulation at a Western council was at the Council of Rome in 281. The vast majority of ancient manuscripts of the Bible date from a very specific region to a very specific time (Alexandria; late 4th - early 5th century). It is only from these manuscripts 300+ years removed from Christ that we get this verse. One of the requirements for acceptance into the canon was direct apostolic influence. It is through this requirement that we receive Mark, Luke, the arrangement and last chapter of the Gospel of John, Acts, Hebrews, 3 John and Revelation. If the gloss wasn’t inserted into the text by a direct disciple of an Apostle, it falls outside of the realm of this authoritative requirement.

This is not to say that the verse is incorrect. It does, indeed, emphasize the meaning of the immediate preceding and proceeding texts. This is why it is used by Tim Staples within the context of apologetics. It is a good tool to be used in evangelization, but the jury is still out on whether or not it should be Public Revelation and used in liturgy or should be included with the positive Apocrypha of the Early Church, such as the Didache, the Shephard of Hermas, or the teachings of the Fathers such as the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.

Before the Revised Edition of the New American Bible came out, verses which were debated to be glosses were noted by brackets in the text. The Vatican eventually stepped in and ordered the brackets removed, noting that they had not made a definite ruling upon them. Priests expected the official lectionary readings to be expanded to include 1 Cor 11:27, but the Vatican still withheld the verse. The Vatican explained that the potential glosses were to be included if they fell within the body of a reading but if they were at the beginning or end of a reading, they would remain unused. This could have only affected a few passages but they were already structured outside of the reading cycles after the revamp of the Lectionary post-Vatican II.

 

[MNathaniel]

the jury is still out on whether or not it should be Public Revelation

According to whom is the jury still out? Could you cite the most authoritative example of such a statement, from the most authoritative source that has issued a statement on it?

 

[CRM_Brother]

This debate was described to me during my Biblical Greek course with Fr. Pablo Gadenz at the Immaculate Conception School of Theology (Seminary). I don’t have a specific document which describes this. He was using this example as a point of translation. It is one of the few places in the New Testament where there is only a single occurrence of a word which is not the name of a person, place, or foreign loanword. He noted that it’s presence in Paul, who wrote very plain Greek, was suspicious because he repeatedly uses other words to denote the same idea in other places in his letters. He then explained the debate between scholars and the repurcussions it had on the apportionment of the New Testament into the new cycle of readings after Vatican II.

It was meant to also be a real-life example of how our growing familiarity of Greek Texts and translation in the period following the creation of the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1901 has shaped our approach of the Bible.

 

[MNathaniel]

This debate was described to me during my Biblical Greek course with Fr. Pablo Gadenz at the Immaculate Conception School of Theology (Seminary). I don’t have a specific document which describes this.

Okay, then I will consider this to not exist. At least not in any serious sense. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Maximian]

Isn’t the Mass supposed to be kind of like “Bible study”? T

No! The Mass is the Sacrifice of Jesus’ body, blood, soul and divinity.

The Gospel is to give that sacrifice a liturgical context, relating it to the feasts and the rhythm of the liturgical year.

Only a fraction of scripture is read at Mass. This is not important. What is important is that key verses which the wisdom of the Church established overctime for readings should not (as in this case) be abruptly excised by a committee as part of an attempt to impose a particular (essentially political) view of the Church.

 

[Bernoulli]

The canon of the Scriptures was confirmed at the Council of Trent: “But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.”
This decision applies not only to the enumeration of books but also with respect to included passages. Is this somehow overturned?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The passages in question in this thread aren’t being removed from the Scriptures. They’re still in the Bible and can be read by anyone who wants to read them. They just aren’t being read at Mass.

As shown by the chart linked elsewhere in the thread, large percentages of Scripture aren’t read at Mass. Before Vatican II, even less of Scripture was read at Mass, for centuries. So it’s kind of hard to call anathema just because some portions of Scripture aren’t read at Mass.

 

[Bernoulli]

The passages in question in this thread aren’t being removed from the Scriptures. They’re still in the Bible and can be read by anyone who wants to read them. They just aren’t being read at Mass.

Some people doubted the inspiration of these passages. For example:

The question is not so much that we should remove it from the canon, but that it was never part of the canon in the first place.
— — The jury is still out on whether or not it should be Public Revelation and used in liturgy.

The Catholic encyclopedia interpreted the teaching of Trent, referring to disputed passages:

Since the Council of Trent it is not permitted for a Catholic to question the inspiration of these passages.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The passage in question still hasn’t been excised, so I’m not going to worry about questions as to its provenance being kicked around at the theological discussion level.

It seems like the Vatican has not ordered the removal of the particular passages, and it may be that they haven’t done it because of the Council of Trent that you state.

The interesting part to me is why they ordered that the brackets be removed if they thought the passages were of questionable provenance.

 

[Jen95]

This passage being left out is just another reason I think I will be switching completely to FSSP Mass when I am able to.