Posted on 11/01/2009 3:53:11 AM PST by GonzoII
Yes, the term Deuterocanonicals is fairly modern. No, they weren’t called “apocrypha;” they were called “holy scripture.” The term “deuterocanonicals” was invented to describe the books slanderously, diabolically and deceitfully called, “apocrypha” by Martin Luther, without surrendering to his slander and deceit. Incidentally, the term also includes the Book of Revelations, which Luther declared that no loving God could ever have inspired, Hebrews which he called “an epistle of straw,” James, which he called a “diabolical invention,” 2 and 3 Peter, and 1 and 2 John.
Why on earth would you cite Whittaker as a source for Cardinal Catejan as a source for Jerome, when you can read Jerome’s own words?
Examine Catejan’s words again. Can you picture someone defending the orthodoxy of the Catholic faith counseling advising, “For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome.”
As for your Sundberg article: It’s a fascination mix of admissions (the centrality of the Septuagint to early Christianity) and falsehoods (the absence of the deuterocanonicals from the Qumran.) His description of the contents of the Qumran read like what he’d wish the Qumran included. Five of the Seven dueterocanonicals are in the Qumran scripture. The book of Esther is entirely absent. (So much for the notion that the canon closed before the dueterocanonicals were recorded.) Also, the Book of Daniel, as it appears in the Qumran in fact does include the passages, “Bel and the Dragon” and “Susanna.” It does NOT however, include the last chapter, suggesting the compilation of Daniel’s stories was still a work in progress. (Some have read my assertion as denying the prophetic origin of Daniel, which is ridiculous, since the book is not told in the first-person voice.)
Preach it from the mountain tops!!
We still get a lot of Scripture at Mass. And how much we read at home isn't indicated. I still think the statement is holds true.
12.7% biblical literacy translates to 87.3% biblical illiteracy.
Bump to post 80 and a correct understanding of the article. RCs have nothing to be proud of here.
Can one bound by time control time?
I think the difference is that Mass scripture reading is part of the greater, a supplement to, and the Mass itself is scripture. Also, the homily on the scripture is not the Mass.
When I attended Protestant churches, the homily, sermon, is the crux of the service, and it is mostly Bible study, since they do not have Mass. They’re gathered to hear someone preach - about the Bible. It’s the sola scriptura thing again.
The majority of my scripture reading is outside Mass, often selected by what was included in the Mass. The value of scripture in Mass, to me, is providing the proper context and interpretation - a guide for my reading outside Mass.
Excellent analysis, Alex. So per year then, the faithful Catholic attender will hear less than 2% of the scriptures that Christ taught from. Amazing.
That is, without a doubt, one of the best posts I have ever read on FR.
(Can I put it on my homepage?)
You are correct. The magesterium is a great model of what heresy looks like.
Kind of makes one wonder what "free will" is all about. ;O)
It's not "mystical" significance, but there is significance.
For example, the Sunday readings work through one of the synoptic gospels each year in the three-year cycle, with readings from John interspersed.
The gospel readings basically tell the story of Christ's life from before the beginning to after the end, but there are a couple of parallel "timelines". One starts with the first Sunday of Advent and ends after Easter; the other starts after the Christmas season and continues until Advent.
The first one points to the resurrection of Christ; the second points to the resurrection of all men at the last day.
Each week, the OT reading is the prophetic foreshadowing of the Gospel reading. This is true except during the Easter season, when the first reading tells the story of the infant church from Acts.
Trust me, the selections are "jumbled" and were carefully thought out over years by solid Scripture scholars.
The Jews rejected 2 Macc after the crucifixion. I don't think their rejection should have any authority for Christians. The Christian church accepted 2 Macc with no, or almost no, disagreement from AD 400 to Luther's day.
And I guarantee that whatever Scripture Catholics hear is more than the congregants of most Baptist or similar churches hear at church. There are Baptist preachers (I've heard them) who preach from Romans, then Galatians, then Romans again. Wow, that's really something to be proud of.
And don't forget, "the Gospels don't apply to us in the church age". Ever heard that? I have.
Now, does listening at Mass replacing personal Bible study? No, and Rome says it doesn't, and has said so repeatedly.
***Kind of makes one wonder what “free will” is all about***
I just spewed Diet Mountain Dew all over my monitor.
False, not to mention silly.
What they aren't allowed to do is draw conclusions that contradict the teachings of the church. Big difference between "you can't draw any conclusions" and "you can't draw conclusions that contradict the following teachings Catholics are required to believe".
(Mind you, if they draw conclusions which contradict dogma, they're simply not reading the Scriptures correctly, or not understanding the dogma, or both.)
Should have been: Trust me, the selections are not "jumbled"
The fact that Catholics state which portions of the Bible will be read at mass, and read them on a schedule, enables protestants to state: “Catholics only read 12% of the Bible, excluding Psalms, and that’s pathetic.” The statistic, of course, does not include any private readings that individual Catholics may do on their own.
Protestants, with a couple of exceptions, do not have any set schedule of readings, so how does anyone know how much of the Bible they read? I am positive that there are extremely few pastors who assign one book of the Bible per week to be read by their congregation, and who then preach a sermon on that book. Even so, a full year would not get through the Bible. And they certainly don’t read a full book per week aloud to their congregations.
Protestants, on the other hand, concentrate on a very few books of the Bible, and preach them till their congregation THINKS it is getting the Bible, when in reality they are not. Instead, Protestants preach Bible stories, on the level of a 12 yo, for the main part.
Before I became Catholic, I attended Protestant churches each for half a year at least. I did not hear as much of the Bible in them, as I did in the Catholic church. Of course, I was interested in the Bible, and read it several times before making a decision. I still read it, in several versions.
Oh, and NO ONE told me what to believe, or if they tried, I ignored them. I guess you’d have to say I was led by the Holy Spirit, because that has always been my prayer before reading.
I am using the table. It says that Catholics who attend on Sundays and Holy Days hear 40.8% of the New Testament and 3.7% of the Old Testament.
I am not saying throw the other parts of the Bible out. I’m saying that the numbers would obviously change if we computed them without the chapters/books in the Old Testament about Jewish lineage, battles, and intricate Jewish ritual.
My point is that a nominal Catholic, who does nothing but attend Mass weekly, is hearing almost half of the New Testament. We read along in the missals. We study what was said in the homily at Mass. We are encouraged to read the Bible on our own. And, if we attend daily Mass and do nothing else, we hear two thirds. This is part of our mandatory participation in the Mass, which is critical to our faith.
I stand by my statement that the old saw “Catholics don’t read the Bible” is untrue and anyone who has told you that is pushing their own, questionable agenda.
I guess it's a good thing I'm not a Baptist then, isn't it?And you offer a guarantee? Where can my Baptist friends turn in their receipts?
Calvin's preaching was of one kind from beginning to end: he preached steadily through book after book of the Bible. He never wavered from this approach to preaching for almost twenty-five years of ministry in St. Peter's church of Geneva - with the exception of a few high festivals and special occasions. "On Sunday he took always the New Testament, except for a few Psalms on Sunday afternoons. During the week . . . it was always the Old Testament". The records show fewer than half a dozen exceptions for the sake of the Christian year. He almost entirely ignored Christmas and Easter in the selection of his text.And don't forget, "the Gospels don't apply to us in the church age". Ever heard that? I have.To give you some idea of the scope of the Calvin's pulpit, he began his series on the book of Acts on August 25, 1549, and ended it in March of 1554. After Acts he went on to the epistles to the Thessalonians (46 sermons), Corinthians (186 sermons), pastorals (86 sermons), Galatians (43 sermons), Ephesians (48 sermons) - till May 1558. Then there is a gap when he is ill. In the spring of 1559 he began the Harmony of the Gospels and was not finished when he died in May, 1564. During the week of that season he preached 159 sermons on Job, 200 on Deuteronomy, 353 on Isaiah, 123 on Genesis and so on.
One of the clearest illustrations that this was a self-conscious choice on Calvin's part was the fact that on Easter Day, 1538, after preaching, he left the pulpit of St. Peter's, banished by the City Council. He returned in September, 1541 - over three years later - and picked up the exposition in the next verse.
-- excerpted from John Piper's The Divine Majesty Of The Word
I guess it's a good thing I'm not a radical dispensationalist, either.
Now, does listening at Mass replacing personal Bible study? No, and Rome says it doesn't, and has said so repeatedly.
Yes, I'm well aware that "Rome" has advocated regular, private Bible study - since at least 2005, in fact. However, several of your fellow FRCatholics have posted to me recently that listening at Mass constitutes reading the entire Bible. IMO those conversations led to this very thread being posted.
BTW, several other FRCatholics are ignorant as to who this "Rome" you speak of is. You might need to take them aside and give them an education.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.