jump to navigation

For the record: Yes, the Lectionary of the Novus Ordo Missae did deliberately exclude key moral teachings October 21, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Bible, catachesis, different religion, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Liturgy, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church.
trackback

Taylor Marshall has a post examining the fact that the Lectionary – the three year cycle of readings – used for the Novus Ordo Mass, which ostensibly is just so awesome because it “opens the treasures  of Scripture to the faithful” – actually excludes very key bits of Scripture that offended against modernist-progressive sensibilities.  He notes that Romans i:26-32 is not included in the cycle of readings.  Romans i:16-25 is, but then it jumps to Romans ii:1-11.  So, first, Romans i:16-25:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice:  Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things. Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen 

Now, all of the above is a rhetorical set up for Romans i:26-32, without which the above doesn’t have nearly the effect that St. Paul intended.  So, what does Romans i:26-32 say (even in the still far from ideal translation used by the USCCB)?  Check it out:

For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.  And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.

The passages together are extremely powerful denunciations of modern errors, which pretend that new found “rights” somehow change the “old” moral calculus. But as St. Paul makes so clear, what has actually happened is that souls have forgotten, or rejected, the Truth of Jesus Christ as revealed through inspired and inerrant Scripture, and that they did it back then just as people try to do it today.  There is nothing new under the sun. There is either Christ, or chaos.

As Marshall notes, it is little wonder Catholics are so poorly formed on matters related to unnatural lusts, when one of the most clear Scriptural teachings on this subject was deliberately excluded by the 60s modernizers.  In fact, the paragraph of the (still problematic) 1997 Catechism that denounces such unnatural perversions makes reference to this very section of Romans Chapter i!  You can see now why the modernists wanted it excluded, all their rhetoric regarding the benefits of giving the faithful the “treasures of Scripture” notwithstanding.  In fact, the 3 year cycle of readings badly waters down Catholic doctrine by including many unimportant portions of Scripture, while excluding some incredibly important ones.

I say that, because Romans 1:26-32 is not the only excision made to sections of Sacred Scripture that made modernists uncomfortable.  One of the most critical quotes from the New Testament, I Cor xi:27-29 (those who receive the Blessed Sacrament unworthily eat and drink condemnation upon themselves, and commit a great sacrilege), is also found nowhere in the Novus Ordo Missae.  And, as the previous post noted, large portions of I Cor xi and Ephesians v were also not included – one might say excised – because they, too, offend against modernist sensibilities.

The sum effect is that the Novus Ordo readings, far from giving the faithful a greatly expanded catechesis through the various readings, in many respects present a biased and truncated view of Sacred Scripture and, thus, Catholic Doctrine.  This was of course highly desired by the progressive faction in the Church, the better to achieve Catholic acceptance of gravely immoral acts.  It sure worked like a charm, didn’t it?  While it’s not true that “97% of Catholic women use contraception,” contra Pelosi, et., al., but it is true that the vast, vast majority of Catholics do reject at least some dogmatic teaching related to faith and morals.

Don’t think this exclusion was accidental. It was most deliberate.

Comments

1. Woody - October 21, 2015

I am shocked, shocked I tell you! Please, say it isn’t so, Tantum.

2. Murray - October 21, 2015

That’s not to mention the removal of some of the “cursing” psalms or the bowdlerization of others, such as Ps 137 (now only encountered by most Catholics in one of the wretched responsorial psalm ditties). Plus, there are the numerous “optional” Sunday readings, where the priest is given a choice between the full version of the text and another more suited to modern sensibilities–perhaps most notably with Ephesians 5, but there are tons more.

Marguerite - October 22, 2015

Yes, I too notice that rarely is any Responsorial Psalm directed to our begging God to have mercy on us sinners.

3. tg - October 21, 2015

The harder readings always occur during the daily Mass. The readings for the Sunday mass are the more “gentle” ones. I’ve noticed this because I buy Magnificant. It makes me angry and I will have an outburst that this should be read on a Sunday. Another translation that really gets on my nerves is “My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord” instead of “My soul magnifies the Lord…” I’ve changed it in every prayer book I have. Same for “Hail favored one” instead of “Hail full of grace” . I changed that too. (My prayer books contain pen and ink changes.)These people cause me to get angry when I am supposed to be praying. You are so right about I Cor xi:27-29 – not in there at all. It’s all part of the plan that got started way before Vatican II or by those that promoted Vatican II.

Murray - October 21, 2015

Our pastor always uses the complete readings, but I have been to (usually awful) Masses in other parishes where they opt for the censored versions.

My wife and I use the Universalis e-books to do the Liturgy of the Hours and those give you the option of including the daily Mass readings. Almost without exception, when we encounter the EITHER/OR Sunday readings, the shorter version has been abbreviated to omit material that might be troubling to itching modern ears.

huxleyorwell - October 21, 2015

Thanks for mentioning Universalis e-books.

4. michaelpjc - October 22, 2015

As if the Lectionary hasn’t been sufficiently bowdlerised, the Sunday Mass leaflets often leave out the first couple of sentences in ‘Wives obey your husbands…’.

5. Mara319 - October 22, 2015

It’s so sad, really. Those omitted verses would have been great opportunities for the more dramatic lectors to employ their theatrical talents and wake up the congregation. [wink, wink]

6. UUS - October 23, 2015

How dare we criticize the approved lextionary by a POPE and someone who was declared BLESSED on top of that!

It was even used by the greatest Pope AND Saint of all time history (except the Virgin Mary) John Paul the Greatest of All! How DARE you all!!!! SCHISM!!!!!

Murray - October 23, 2015
7. Margaret Costello - October 23, 2015

Of course they took out the passages that pertained to themselves. They didn’t want their conscience’s being pricked. God bless~

8. SSPX - October 24, 2015

SSPX

For the record: Yes, the Lectionary of the Novus Ordo Missae did deliberately exclude key moral teachings | A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: