Omitting v. 25 from the Lectionary

[ICTHUS]

Disclaimer: I asked this question in the Q/A forum, but Pio Nono sidestepped giving a decent answer. So, I decided to ask it here.
--------------------------------------------------

My bible has a copy of the lectionaries for the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Common (i.e. Anglican) churches in the back of it. The lectionary for the Lutherans and we Anglicans includes v. 25, the Roman Catholic lectionary does not. My question is this.

It seems awfully convenient that you believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and you omit from public reading verse 25 of the first chapter of Matthews Gospel, which says

"25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS"

Now, I have heard the arguments for the Perpetual Virginity based on the word 'heos hou', and quite extensive ones, to boot. I am willing to admit that the usage of the words 'heous hou', at the time the New Testament, do not necessitate the conclusion that St. Josephs abstinence continued up until Christ was born, and he had relations with the Blessed Virgin after that point. However, I find it incredibly suspicious that you omit verse 25, as, on surface inspection, it contradicts your teachings. Why not just instruct your priests to teach a lesson on the linguistic intricacies of New Testament koine Greek, in addition to the homily for the day? Sure, it might be a bit longer, but the people would be instructed in the truth, no? Wouldn't this be preferable to omitting the public reading of a portion of God's Holy Word?

[Mateo el Feo]

I think Pio Nono gave a fine answer, and I hope you read his links. I'm just curious if you could state your position clearly: do you believe that Mary had other children? Answers: yes/no/maybe. I think it's important for you to make clear your own view of this verse.

[quote]Why not just instruct your priests to teach a lesson on the linguistic intricacies of New Testament koine Greek, in addition to the homily for the day?[/quote]

Unfortunately, many Protestants don't understand the significance of the Catholic Mass. Various Protestant sects view Sunday services as either an opportunity to sing a bunch of songs or to be a sort of Bible study.

The Catholic Mass is not a mere Bible study; it is focused on the worship of God. We worship His eternal Word--Jesus Christ. So if it isn't fitting one of the Protestant Sunday service molds (e.g. Bible Study Service, Musical Concert Service, or even Pentacostal yelling-and-screaming service) that's not the fault of Catholics.

I'm not surprised that you can find a conspiracy theory out of something so trivial. You may want to re-direct the same skepticism to your Reformation hereos who were so busy tearing out whole books from the Bible (both New and Old Testament) in order to re-work Christianity into their own image.

Ahh, but then you'd see a log in your own eye...

[Apotheoun]

I think you're making too much out of this, and you're trying to read some sinister plot into the choice of the Gospel reading for the day. Nevertheless, in the Byzantine (Ruthenian) rite the Gospel reading for the Sunday of the Holy Fathers (the Sunday of the Geneaology of Christ) is Matthew 1:1-25; and since both Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, like the members of the Roman rite, accept the perpetual virginity of Mary, I doubt there is any reason to see some underhanded activity on the part of the Latin Catholic Church.

God bless,
Todd

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Dec 24 2004, 01:28 PM']





[/quote]
[quote]I think Pio Nono gave a fine answer, and I hope you read his links.  I'm just curious if you could state your position clearly: do you believe that Mary had other children?  Answers: yes/no/maybe.  I think it's important for you to make clear your own view of this verse.[/quote] Maybe. As I said, I believe it is entirely possible that, at the time the Gospel of Matthew was written, 'heous hou' need not have meant that St. Joseph began having marital relations with the Blessed Virgin after Christ was born.

The main issue I had with Pio Nono's answer was "Holy Church, in her wisdom" - what I was, in fact, questioning was the wisdom of the Roman Church in omitting a verse from the reading of the Holy Gospel.

[quote]Unfortunately, many Protestants don't understand the significance of the Catholic Mass.  Various Protestant sects view Sunday services as either an opportunity to sing a bunch of songs or to be a sort of Bible study. 

The Catholic Mass is not a mere Bible study; it is focused on the worship of God.  We worship His eternal Word--Jesus Christ.  So if it isn't fitting one of the Protestant Sunday service molds (e.g. Bible Study Service, Musical Concert Service, or even Pentacostal yelling-and-screaming service) that's not the fault of Catholics.[/quote] You're forgetting something. I'm an Anglican. As such, I fully agree that the Eucharist, and the worship of the Father thereby, is the central part of our worship as Christians. Yet, as, so often I found in the Church of Rome, proper, indepth exposition of the Word of God was lacking. God is brought glory not only through our worship of Him through His Son, but when the Bible is preached, Biblically (to coin J.I. Packer's phrase), so that souls hear the Holy Gospel and come to faith through the enlivening of the Holy Spirit. Not only is our worship to be catholic, it is to be evangelical to boot. The Ministry of the Word exists to teach the faithful something that they do not already know, or need to understand more fully. As such, I dont see how it would be inappropriate to study the linguistic roots of the word 'heos hou', at least cursorally - and then the faithful exhorted to research the topic on their own.

[quote]I'm not surprised that you can find a conspiracy theory out of something so trivial.  You may want to re-direct the same skepticism to your Reformation hereos who were so busy tearing out whole books from the Bible (both New and Old Testament) in order to re-work Christianity into their own image.[/quote] Martin Luther doubted the canonicty of several New Testament books, yes, but his objections were answere to by his partner, Phillip Melancthon. As for the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books, you only really formalized your canon at the Council of Trent. The Councils of Hippo, Carthage, et al, were merely provincial councils, and did not have authority over the whole Church.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Dec 24 2004, 02:08 PM'] I think you're making too much out of this, and you're trying to read some sinister plot into the choice of the Gospel reading for the day. Nevertheless, in the Byzantine (Ruthenian) rite the Gospel reading for the Sunday of the Holy Fathers (the Sunday of the Geneaology of Christ) is Matthew 1:1-25; and since both Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, like the members of the Roman rite, accept the perpetual virginity of Mary, I doubt there is any reason to see some underhanded activity on the part of the Latin Catholic Church.

God bless,
Todd [/quote]
That's interesting...is there anywhere I can see your lectionary online? I'm actually really interested in this - how different is your lectionary from that of your Roman bretheren?

[Benedict]

An Anglican is occupied with pointing out problems in the Catholic Church?

Isn't this a beam and mote situation?

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote]You're forgetting something. I'm an Anglican.[/quote]

Just a quick response: actually, I thought you had embraced Calvinism. I don't know how close Anglicanism is to Calvinism. Do Anglicans necessarily believe in or reject Calvinism, or is an individual Anglican free to accept or reject some or all of Calvinism?

Sorry for jumping off topic, but I'm just trying to understand the perspective you are coming from.

Merry Christmas!

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Benedict' date='Dec 24 2004, 03:41 PM'] An Anglican is occupied with pointing out problems in the Catholic Church?

Isn't this a beam and mote situation? [/quote]
Huh?

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Dec 24 2004, 04:12 PM']
Just a quick response:  actually, I thought you had embraced Calvinism.  I don't know how close Anglicanism is to Calvinism.  Do Anglicans necessarily believe in or reject Calvinism, or is an individual Anglican free to accept or reject some or all of Calvinism?

Sorry for jumping off topic, but I'm just trying to understand the perspective you are coming from.

Merry Christmas! [/quote]
I am a Reformed Anglican. Actually, one of the earliest Archbishops of Canterbury after the split was a Calvinist - maybe you've heard of him - Thomas Cranmer?

We are a creedal church, not a confessional one. As such, we define orthodoxy by adherance to the Creeds of the Church (Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian), and not to any confession. (The closest thing in Anglicanism to a confession is the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, which are a VERY inherently Calvinist document. I believe they should be made binding on the whole Church, however, it's not going to happen)

One of the priests at my church (there are two on permanent staff, our Rector, and his assistant) is extremely Anglo-Catholic in his belief system, however. (I was actually considering asking him to hear my confession - God has recently convicted me of a certain sin regarding neglecting a relationship that has really troubled my conscience since He did so, and I feel the need to do so as a fresh start - having God's forgiveness declared to me by someone authorised to do so, and formally repenting of that sin)

I borrow some definitions from the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith when I want to define some things in debates and such, because in general (I take issues with its Ecclesiology and Eucharistic sacramentology) I consider the theology it expresses very sound.

Edited December 24, 2004 by ICTHUS

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
12/24 - Fourth Friday of Christmas

[quote]Disclaimer: I asked this question in the Q/A forum, but Pio Nono sidestepped giving a decent answer. So, I decided to ask it here. [/quote]

I don't mind if you disagree with my answers; I offer them "for what they're worth", and if they're not worth much, then that's the truth of the matter and I need to learn to deal with it. However, it's usually polite to let someone know before you ridicule them in public. It's a subsidiarity thing.

[quote]The main issue I had with Pio Nono's answer was "Holy Church, in her wisdom" - what I was, in fact, questioning was the wisdom of the Roman Church in omitting a verse from the reading of the Holy Gospel. [/quote]

I said Holy [b][i]Mother[/i][/b] Church - don't misquote me. Your objections lose authority when you misquote your sources. If you don't agree with the title "Mother", fine, but don't misquote me.

You're asking me to do the impossible - delve into the mind of the Vatican as to why they assign certain readings for certain days. I did the responsible thing and said, in a high-falootin' way, "I don't know." If anyone attempted to give an answer in the Q&A phorum that, in any way, attempted to give an answer other than "I don't know", they would be acting irresponsibly and the answer would be built, not on rock, but on sand.

Also, did you read the footnote which I gave you from the NAB? It essentially says that the Greek does not indicate whether Mary was a perpetual virgin - as a result, I had to lean upon our Fathers in the Faith. If you don't accept the authority of the Fathers as interpreters of the Bible, that's fine, but then we can't have a cogent conversation.

Merry Christmas.

[conservativecatholic]

ICTHUS, The Catholic Church has no fear of being doctrinally wrong. 100% of Catholic Church teaching is from Jesus Christ himself, not schismatic reformers such as Luther and Calvin. Although a heretic, Luther even agreed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Here are some of his recorded sermons regarding Mary's everlasting virginity.

[quote]Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. [/quote]

{Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

[quote] Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. [/quote]

{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .

Martin Luther does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Edited December 24, 2004 by conservativecatholic

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='conservativecatholic' date='Dec 24 2004, 04:39 PM'] ICTHUS, The Catholic Church has no fear of being doctrinally wrong. 100% of Catholic Church teaching is from Jesus Christ himself, not schismatic reformers such as Luther and Calvin. Although a heretic, Luther even agreed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Here are some of his recorded sermons regarding Mary's everlasting virginity.



{Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }



{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .

Martin Luther does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary. [/quote]
I never disagreed with the perpetual virginity of Mary...I said it may be true. Whether or not Mary was a perpetual virgin or not is really a side-issue, irrelevant to the Christian faith.

[Pio Nono]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 24 2004, 04:48 PM'] I never disagreed with the perpetual virginity of Mary...I said it may be true. Whether or not Mary was a perpetual virgin or not is really a side-issue, irrelevant to the Christian faith. [/quote]
JMJ
12/24 - Fourth Friday of Advent

Perhaps, sir, it's a side-issue to YOU, but for Catholics it is hardly so. The perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary has been upheld by the Church through the centuries; if she turned out not to be a virgin, then that calls into question the very authority that says she was.

No, any part of the deposit of faith is not a side-issue, for if the Church can be wrong about issues within the deposit of faith, then I cannot be sure that I'm believing what is True.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 24 2004, 02:48 PM'] I never disagreed with the perpetual virginity of Mary...I said it may be true. Whether or not Mary was a perpetual virgin or not is really a side-issue, irrelevant to the Christian faith. [/quote]
It is a dogma of the faith, accepted by both Eastern and Western Christians, and only rejected by modern day Protestants.

[conservativecatholic]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 24 2004, 04:48 PM'] I never disagreed with the perpetual virginity of Mary...I said it may be true. Whether or not Mary was a perpetual virgin or not is really a side-issue, irrelevant to the Christian faith. [/quote]
Irrelevant to the Christian faith? Typical Protestant response to Sacred Tradition and to Catholic biblical interpretation. I'm sorry the Protestant Church lacks a 2000 year history of glorious factual tradition and I'm sorry that the Protestant Church lacks the original and true interpretations of Sacred Scripture as well. Irrelevance? ha!

Nothing about the Mother of God is irrelevant.