Posted on 01/03/2016 1:35:35 PM PST by NRx
People who go to church expect to hear readings from Holy Scripture -- which frequently then become the basis for the sermon. Actually, all of the so-called "proper" elements of an Episcopal or Catholic mass -- the collect, the Old Testament reading, the psalm, the epistle, and the gospel passage are theoretically arranged to show forth or illustrate a unifying theme, which then grounds the homily or sermon that follows.
These selections are called the "propers" of the mass because they are chosen for just that particular day of the liturgical year. (The "ordinary" parts of the mass are those that do not change from day to day: the kyrie, the gloria, the credo, sanctus and agnus dei.) Both the Roman Catholic and the Episcopal Church follow a "lectionary" (schedule of readings) by which supposedly the entire Holy Bible is read aloud in the propers, over the course of three liturgical years.
I say "supposedly", because as the Underground Pewster regularly points out, the theologians and clergy who assembled the current lectionary routinely excised certain passages from the ones specified in the lectionary. One can only speculate as to the reasons for omission in some cases, while other cases seem clear: certainly hearing nothing but a whole series of "begats" is not very edifying.
Because the Feast of the Epiphany occurs this week, churches are free to use Matthew's story of the visit of the three wise men in their Sunday readings. We heard, for instance, the first twelve verses of Matthew's second chapter, finishing with the wise men's secret departure in order to avoid having to see King Herod again. For the three had been warned in a dream that Herod sought not to worship the new-born Jesus, but to slay him as soon as he could find him, in order to be certain that Herod and his descendants, not Jesus, would be known as "King of the Jews."
In the Pewster's church, they seem to have heard an expurgated version of the next eleven verses (Mt 2:13-23), with the account of the slaughter of Bethlehem's newborn infants left out. Although (as he says) this may have been because that passage already was used for the Feast of the Holy Innocents, it is all too often the case, as the Pewster's blog chronicles, that the expurgations have to do with leaving out the more "distasteful", or less savory, parts of the Bible.
Such manipulation of the text of Holy Scripture, even so, is small potatoes compared to the wholesale attempts, ever since Marcion, to refashion and rewrite Scripture to make it more "suited" to one's objectives. If anything, those attempts have multiplied today, along with the proliferation of "isms" that seek a Bible more in tune with their respective beliefs. "[Men] wrote the Bible," famously said now-resigned Bishop Charles Bennison, "and so we can rewrite it" (or words to that effect).
The article quoting Bishop Bennison to which I just linked makes this excellent point:
This is a rejection of the Word as a revelation. The liberals who declare their absolute dependence upon the grace of God cannot, or will not, say "Thus saith the Lord." They can, or will, say only "Thus saith the community, most of it anyway, at this point in time, though it has said other things at other times and may change its mind shortly." Not, really, a faith that will change lives.
...
More subtly, at the end of the Lambeth Conference, after seeing the world's Anglican bishops reject his favored moral innovations by a margin of almost eight to one, Bishop Griswold told them that he "encourage[d] our brothers and sisters in different parts of the world to allow God in the full freedom of the Holy Spirit to lead us on," because "the journey of faith is, among others, to follow along the path of dispossession."
It sounds good, this call: humble, patient, open, submissive. But in giving God the freedom to lead us on, he is refusing the Holy Spirit the freedom to speak clearly and finally. He is dispossessing himself, and those who follow him, of God's Word.Exactly right. And let's not forget the very first person who ever tried to rewrite Holy Scripture, in order literally to dispossess us of God's Word.
Inconvenient Truths!
“certainly hearing nothing but a whole series of “begats” is not very edifying.” I heard the begats at a weekday mass last week and the priest used it in his sermon. I was very edified.
The Bible didn't just happen.
God spoke it out over many, many years and to many, many prophets.
Case in point, the Septuagint was translated into Greek by over 70 devout rabbis, yet their interpretations were completely in line with each other.
Impossible but for divine intervention...or because the Bible itself is divinely endowed.
One of the best sermons I have ever heard was based on the "begats".
The Holy Bible has been around a l-o-n-g time, unchanged. It’s the word of God and will always exist.
“Both the Roman Catholic and the Episcopal Church follow a “lectionary” (schedule of readings) by which supposedly the entire Holy Bible is read aloud in the propers, over the course of three liturgical years.”
The person who wrote that is an idiot. No one in the Catholic Church’s hierarchy - nor anyone in leadership in the Anglican Communion either - claimed the lectionaries used cover the “entire” Bible. The Catholic lectionary covers 29% of the Bible.
The Sunday mass readings are covered in three years, Cycle A, B & C. The daily mass readings are covered in a two year cycle. To really hear the majority of scripture at mass you would need to attend daily mass for two years and Sunday mass for three. During that three year period of daily and Sunday mass attendence you would hear about 80-90% (this is my guesstimate based upon the readings covered) of the Bible.
The Sunday mass readings are covered in three years, Cycle A, B & C. The daily mass readings are covered in a two year cycle. To really hear the majority of scripture at mass you would need to attend daily mass for two years and Sunday mass for three. During that three year period of daily and Sunday mass attendence you would hear about 80-90% (this is my guesstimate based upon the readings covered) of the Bible.
which is more than you will ever get in any protestant church.
Lectionary statistics can be found here:
http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm
14% of the Old Testament, 71% of the New.
“which is more than you will ever get in any protestant church.”
No. But thanks for playing. Protestants are not expected to go to church in order to hear the Bible being read. It generally is expected to be something one does at home. Took our pastor 3 months to preach his way through James, so I might get kind of old waiting - IF I didn’t own a Bible and read it on my own.
For a 5 year program covering all of the Bible, try here:
And the catholic church encourages and sponser bible studies and bible reading amongst the faithful, so thank you for playing as well.
the point is that not only do catholics read the bible on their own, but the word is constantly preached each day at mass, a consistent presentation across the whole church....not some preachers own interpretation of james like you can find in any protestant church, which of course will differ down the street from whatever other preacher decides it really says, according to him...
again, thanx for playing.
“And the catholic church encourages and sponser bible studies and bible reading amongst the faithful”
Glad to hear it.
“not some preachers own interpretation of james like you can find in any protestant church”
Sorry. You’ll have a tough time convincing me your priests aren’t putting their own flavor on things like illegal immigration, etc. Seen too many Catholics on FreeRepublic complaining about it to believe otherwise.
There were 3 gifts, but we have no idea how many wise men there were, could have been 2 or 20 or ??
An ironic error, especially given the purpose of this article.
The idea that seventy scholars, each independently, came up with such a Greek translation is a myth, and unprovable.
What is proven is that many passages of the Hebrew/Aramaic Old Testament referred to in the New Testament were rewritten back into the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament by early "Christian" keepers to make the Holy-Ghost-inspired New Testament verbal inspiration position consistent with the Old. Such treatment of the Old Testament was really unacceptable, and makes that Greek translation unreliable.
Centuries later on, other "scholars" in our time frame, not knowing of this manipulation of the Greek OT, began to claim and teach that the Septuagint was in existence in Jesus' time, and that He and the Apostles quoted from it, rather than, or as well as, the Hebrew texts. Those who have carefully examined the researches on the provenance of the Septuagint know otherwise. So don't cling to this myth.
Otherwise, I think that, though the original autographs are not available, that God has caused the words of the originals to be plenarily preserved through all time, and available to His people as verbally inspired, infallible, and when translated by faithful linguists with a literal hermeneutic, sufficient for the transmission and practice of The Faith in successive generations.
Maybe not, unless you are open to what the begats are telling you. Here is an example: Following is the linage from Adam to Noah alongside with what these names mean in English...
| HEBREW | ENGLISH |
| Adam | Man |
| Seth | Appointed |
| Enosh | Mortal |
| Kenan | Sorrow |
| Mahalalel | The Blessed God |
| Jared | Shall Come Down |
| Enoch | Teaching |
| Methuselah | His Death Shall Bring |
| Lamech | The Despairing |
| Noah | Rest, or Comfort |
Reading it all together, it says: Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow; (but) the Blessed God shall come down teaching (that) His death shall bring (the) despairing rest.
Here's the Gospel taught within a genealogy (begats) in Genesis!
Quote-Here’s the Gospel taught within a genealogy (begats) in Genesis!
It is important to have a concordance if one is not a scholar of Hebrew or Greek because we may miss some real Truth.
To be fair, one would never have to read it in His book because before He ever had it placed on parchment, He placed the gospel in His Sky, using His Creation to tell a story- all set to His Feasts..a witness to the believing and unbelieving. Old and New Testament up there..
And we are moving closer and closer to the Lion of the tribe of Judah coming!
Never mentioned in my parish; my pastor would probably cut his tongue out before he would politicize his sermon and take it away from the readings.
The Catholic posters you're thinking of go to a liberal, Amchurch parish and then wonder why they preach liberalism ... instead of Catholicism.
I’ve studied this issue for many years, and know I’m right. Take it or leave it. I’ve been blessed to know that the Bible texts have been verbally preserved, and (though sometimes useful in comparing Hebraisms and word definitions) the Septuagint is NOT a true OT text. And that the seventy (two) scholars translation is a total myth. That is not a hermeneutical discipline that God can bless.
Godly man...and humble too I see.;-)
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.