Catholic Mass Lectionary Omits Anti-Homosexualism Verses from Romans 1
#1
Slowly but surly, truth is quietly eroded and eventually displaced...
:comp:


Quote:http://taylormarshall.com/2015/10/catholic-mass-lectionary-omits-anti-homosexual-verses-from-romans-1.html?utm_source=Taylor+Marshall%27s+Updates&utm_campaign=508b1de09c-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_64accbc3c7-508b1de09c-41389309&ct=t%28Re

Catholic Mass Lectionary Omits Anti-Homosexualism Verses from Romans 1

Why do Catholics in America support homosexuality proportionately more than the general population?

Two reasons: lack of authentic Catholic teaching regarding homosexuality…and the Church removed one of the clearest Bible verses on homosexuality from the lectionary:


One of the very unfortunate results of the New Lectionary is that verses that might be deemed offensive have been removed from our liturgical celebrations. (I’ve written about how three “offensive” Psalms were removed from the Liturgy of the Hours after 1971 here.)
Verses against Homosexuality Removed from Current Lectionary

An example of the removal of offensive passages is from the readings of last week, where the reading of Saint Paul against homosexuality (including female lesbianism) in Romans 1:26-32 is notably removed from the cycle. Below are the readings for the 28th Week in Ordinary Time (Lectionary 468 and 469):

Tuesday of the Twenty-eighth Week in Ordinary Time
Lectionary: 468
Reading 1 ROM 1:16-25

Wednesday of the Twenty-eighth Week in Ordinary Time
Lectionary: 469
Reading 1 ROM 2:1-11

So what’s missing? Romans 1:26-32 is clipped out. Yet this passage at the end of Romans 1 is the locus classicus for Paul’s theology against homosexual behavior and it also forms the cited passage in the Catechism of the Catholic Church for its teaching:

    CCC Para. 2357. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law.”

In the footnotes in the CCC for this passage, you’ll find the citation for Romans 1:26-32. So if this passage is important for the Saint John Paul II’s Catechism, why is it skipped over in the Lectionary?
The Missing Romans 1:26-32

Here is the skipped passage in full:

    26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural [Paul calls lesbianism is “unnatural”], 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men [male homosexual acts are “shameless acts”] and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. [homosexual acts are an “error” with “due penalty”]

    28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. 29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

    32 Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve those who practice them. [those that approve of homosexual acts and any of the sins above deserve to die according to “God’s decree”]

This passage is inspired by the Holy Spirit – by the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity. This is not a politically correct passage of the Bible, but it’s just as true as John 3:16. We may not read it at Mass, but we need to accept it as “inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16).

Why is it omitted from the cycle of Romans for the Catholic Mass?

Is there a bishop out there who will ask the Holy Father to have this verse included in the Mass readings of Roman Rite? In this time of crisis, we need a Saint John the Baptist who defends God’s teaching on human sexuality against the Herod’s that compromise God’s loving law.

Godspeed,
Taylor Marshall, PhD
Reply
#2
One of my big issues with the lectionary is that they've chopped up the readings for use at Mass. Sometimes it appears to have been done to hide doctrines that could offend certain groups. Other times, the extra minute or two it would take to read the whole passage must be too much.  Both reasons are bad. They do not help Catholics know scripture more. They also don't help non-Catholics (particularly evangelical Protestants who have a deep love for scripture) looking into Catholicism come to believe that it is the true Church either.
Reply
#3
(10-23-2015, 06:34 PM)Credidi Propter Wrote: One of my big issues with the lectionary is that they've chopped up the readings for use at Mass. Sometimes it appears to have been done to hide doctrines that could offend certain groups. Other times, the extra minute or two it would take to read the whole passage must be too much.  Both reasons are bad. They do not help Catholics know scripture more. They also don't help non-Catholics (particularly evangelical Protestants who have a deep love for scripture) looking into Catholicism come to believe that it is the true Church either.

The whole thing is indicative of a Church that is fumbling in the dark, a Church that doesn't know what,if anything it believes or stands for anymore. This whole thing reminds me of this from Homiletic and Pastoral Review:

Quote:Question: At the Easter Vigil, it is sometimes the practice that protestants are received into full ecclesiastical communion, and then receive Communion. Now, neophytes are baptized at the Vigil, with all their sins forgiven, but converts who were validly once baptized now seem to require the sacrament of penance prior to receiving the Eucharist. Am I missing something?
Answer: The Easter Vigil is the normal time the bishops of the United States have designated for the baptism of adults who wish to enter the Church through RCIA. This is fitting because of the nature of the Easter liturgy, and the ancient discipline of receiving catechumens into the Church at that time. For catechumens, the normal preparation time is a year, although for various reasons this can be abbreviated. They would be catechized as to the sacrament of reconciliation though they do not receive it before baptism because baptism forgives all sins, both Original and actual.
As for those already baptized, the statutes for RCIA state: “it is preferable that reception into full communion not take place at the Easter Vigil lest there be any confusion of such baptized Christians with the candidates for baptism, possible misunderstanding of, or even reflection upon, the sacrament of baptism celebrated in another Church or ecclesial community, or any perceived triumphalism in the liturgical welcome into the Catholic Eucharistic community” (RCIA U.S. Statute 33). This is because those who are validly baptized are already related to the Church, although not in full communion with her. Some bishops do permit the profession of faith at the Easter Vigil “for pastoral reasons.” The Church recognizes the baptism they received in these communities as valid.
The recommended practice is that after a fitting period of preparation, they make their profession of faith. They then can join the newly baptized to receive confirmation and the Eucharist. Normally their catechesis should not be as extended as those for the neophytes, who have never been baptized because they have presumably received some Christian formation in the other Christian contexts in which they were raised. This is especially true if they have been active members of these communities.
As to the sacrament of reconciliation, the requirement for these people is the same as that of Catholics. They must first be thoroughly catechized as to the nature of this sacrament, and the various specific sins contrary to the commandments. If they are conscious, after a thorough examination of conscience, of mortal sin, then they must confess before receiving confirmation and the Eucharist (RCIA, 482). Presumably, in the case you are inquiring about, such a confession will have already happened before the Easter Vigil.


It's all about confusion, ecumenism and political correctness these days, and all at the highest levels of the Church,in the OFFICIAL documents and guidelines of the Church.

It's why I pretty much cannot take the popes or the average bishops seriously. Who knows what they believe or don't believe.
Reply
#4


Download the file attached to this post to read "Gutting the Gospels" -- how the entire lectionary was purged of "troublesome" Scripture. Madness!


Attached Files
.doc   gutting_the_gospels.doc (Size: 127.5 KB / Downloads: 1)
Reply
#5
If  you take a closer look (as  some posters noted in the comments to Taylor Marshall's  article) those passages were not included in the EF either.


C.
Reply
#6
(10-23-2015, 07:39 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: Download the file attached to this post to read "Gutting the Gospels" -- how the entire lectionary was purged of "troublesome" Scripture. Madness!

I'm going to start a new thread for this, what I'm thinking is a completely derail.
Reply
#7
(10-23-2015, 08:19 PM)Cetil Wrote: If  you take a closer look (as  some posters noted in the comments to Taylor Marshall's  article) those passages were not included in the EF either.


C.

The EF has no pretension of covering the whole of the Bible like the new lectionary. But it does't, as far as I know, hide one aspect of the catholic (yes, minor c in this case) faith.
Reply
#8
(10-23-2015, 08:49 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote:
(10-23-2015, 08:19 PM)Cetil Wrote: If  you take a closer look (as  some posters noted in the comments to Taylor Marshall's  article) those passages were not included in the EF either.


C.

The EF has no pretension of covering the whole of the Bible like the new lectionary. But it does't, as far as I know, hide one aspect of the catholic (yes, minor c in this case) faith.

True about the EF. But the "new" lectionary we have now is from 1981. Before that is the 1969 edition.  Father Lawrence Love says in the comments section that the 1969 lectionary did not have them either. I am just wondering how it is we have not noticed this before now. I don't doubt there was an effort to remove or avoid various passages but it's odd this has not come up before.

C.
Reply
#9
Well, I, for one, wasn't born in either of those two years :P

But it has come up before. I made a thread about it a couple of months ago and you yourself said there were plenty other threads about it along the years.  :P
Reply
#10
.  I'd agree that the old rite never intended to showcase the whole Bible.

The old rite readings had largely been in place for centuries, if not millenia. Those were the readings that our ancestors in the Faith saw fit to use to hallow time and explain the mysteries of the Faith. The new stuff was ideologically driven and committee created whether it was concocted in 1969, 1981 or whenever.

The new Lectionary has its points where it's really quite good,but it's totally novel,it's got no roots deeper than probably some committee in the sixties.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)