Omitting v. 25 from the Lectionary

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 25 2004, 08:40 PM'] No, it is not, in fact, clear that all truths are found in sacred scripture combined with 'sacred tradition'.

Tradition is only sacred insofar as it agrees with the written, inspired, and infallible Word of God. The Roman Catholic traditions of men such as purgatory, Mary's immaculate conception, transubstantiation, and a whole host of other blasphemies, are not. As such, no Christian man can be required to believe them under peril of damnation - in fact, I would say that he who does believe them runs the risk of affronting almighty God by engaging in superstitious idolatries and blasphemies, and his soul, if he fails to be disgusted by such aberrations, is probably not regenerate anyway. [/quote]
That is your opinion, but you haven't proven that to be the case.

The Nestorians read the same scriptures as the Catholics, and yet they came to a different conclusion as to the meaning of the texts of scripture dealing with Christology. Sacred Tradition preceded Sacred Scripture in temporal existence, both in the case of the Old Testament people of God, and in the case of the New Covenant as well. Thus, you have not proven the material sufficiency of Sacred Scripture, and I don't see how you can prove it, since the canon of Scripture itself is an extra-biblical tradition.

God bless,
Todd

[Archangel]

[quote]Because if you fail to include it, as the USCCB does on her online lectionary (http://www.uisccb.org) then it shows that you cannot account for it in your belief system.[/quote]

Wrong. You can read about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary in the Catechism of the Catholic Church [url="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt2art3p2.htm"]http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt2art3p2.htm[/url]

499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it." And so [b]the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin."[/b]

As Apotheoun mentioned, the Roman Rite Lectionary for Mass does include the reading of Matthew 1:25 at the Christmas Vigil liturgy.

[Apotheoun]

Here is the link to the USCCB website with the readings for the Vigil Mass for Christmas:

[url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/1224a04.htm"]Christmas Vigil Mass readings - Gospel reading Matthew 1:1-25 or Matthew 1:18-25[/url]

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 26 2004, 12:38 AM']
Because if you fail to include it, as the USCCB does on her online lectionary (http://www.uisccb.org) then it shows that you cannot account for it in your belief system. It shows that you are attempting to supress the Truth, just as you tried to supress the Bible by putting it in the index libororum prohibitorum. The Truth will always shine brighter than the errors of Roman Catholicism, though.
[/quote]
That is about the silliest thing I have ever heard.

We don't include one line of scripture and we are "surpressing " the truth. That is the weakest argument I have ever heard on this topic.
And I thought I had heard them all.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Dec 26 2004, 01:25 AM'] Here is the link to the USCCB website with the readings for the Vigil Mass for Christmas:

[url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/1224a04.htm"]Christmas Vigil Mass readings - Gospel reading Matthew 1:1-25 or Matthew 1:18-25[/url] [/quote]
And that is exactly what was read last night.

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
12/26 - The Holy Family (St. Stephen the Protomartyr)

I just think it's funny that my argument as to whether the perpetual virginity of Mary makes a difference hasn't been addressed...

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Dec 26 2004, 12:43 AM'] And that is exactly what was read last night. [/quote]
Interestingly, I suspect that a lot more people would hear the readings of the vigil mass (including verse 25) than those who heard the fourth Sunday of Advent's readings, because of the "Christmas/Easter Catholics." So, if the Catholic Church wants to hide a verse, the worst time to have the verse read is on Christmas or Easter. There goes another conspiracy theory...darn it!

Anyway, I think that Bro. Adam had a good point:
[quote]Coming to the lowest common denominator is no way to look at the Christian faith.[/quote]
People get in trouble (i.e. error) by over-complicating Truth, and by over-simplifying Truth.

The three steps you wrote (for being saved) were:
[quote]1. Confess with your mouth "Jesus is Lord"
2. Believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead
3. Persevere in this faith until the end, bringing forth the fruits of good works and shunning sin.[/quote]

To the first point, I would respond with:
[quote name='Matthew 7:21']"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.[/quote]

The second is just a single point of faith found in the Creeds.

While theologically sound, the third point begs the question: "How does one determine that their faith is authentic, in light of Divine Revelation?" What matters of faith and morals are essential to believe? If one assents to these three points, accepts the authenticity of the Gospels, but rejects the writings of Saint Paul, does he have a saving faith?

With no recognized infallible religious authority, one relies on his personal opinion to make judgments on the orthodoxy (or heterodoxy) of others.

Merry Christmas!

Edited December 26, 2004 by Mateo el Feo

[Quietfire]

By the way Icthus,
My copy of the Holy Bible HAS verse 25 in it.

You should really check before you assert that it was removed. Yes, it may have been removed from some specific ones due to all the heretical conspiracies that were being spread surrounding Our Blessed Virgin. Even now they still exist, and I would not be surprised at all if that specific verse were still 'missing' from certain copies.
The Church has every right to protect Scripture and I would completely understand your point if that specific verse were obliterated from every copy of Scripture that ever existed with a disclaimer that it never existed, (as to why) but it wasnt.

You need to understand that although a person may be smart( in the case of you...for finding this and in a way bringing it to everyone's attention), it is also true that in general, people can be quite stupid and reckless.

I am glad that you are at least here asking questions, instead of out 'there' spreading heretical conspiracy theories on what you 'think' the reason is.

Believe me, I am in no way insulting you but rather am complimenting and commending you. I am warmed by the fact that you would at least have the common sense to at least ask members of the Church the 'why' as opposed to running off and giving your own personal twist on it.

My reason for why are above, that the Church has a right to protect Scripture. Understand what that verse means is important, only because there are many people out there who would, and have, and continue to use it in a very negative way.



Pax

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 24 2004, 02:50 PM'] 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? [/quote]
It's not left out... I have heard it and read it numerous times during Mass throughout my lifetime.

This is where many who speak English are lost in translation.

Until she bore a son: the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated "until" does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus' birth, nor does it exclude it.

Consider this line: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?

There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave "until this present day" (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either.

The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea—nothing can be proved from the use of the word "till" in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: "He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son" (New American Bible); "He had not known her when she bore a son" (Knox).



The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term "brethren." The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as "brethren." The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity.




[b]The Protoevangelium of James[/b]


"And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there" (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

"And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’" (ibid., 8–9).

"And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’" (ibid., 15).

"And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’" (ibid.).


[b]Origen[/b]


"The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).


[b]Hilary of Poitiers[/b]


"If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).


[b]Athanasius[/b]


"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).


[b]Epiphanius of Salamis[/b]


"We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

"And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).


[b]Jerome[/b]


"[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man" (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

"We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock" (ibid., 21).


[b]Didymus the Blind[/b]


"It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).


[b]Ambrose of Milan[/b]


"Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son" (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).


[b]Pope Siricius I[/b]


"You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king" (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).


[b]Augustine[/b]


"In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave" (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

"It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?" (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).

"Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband" (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).





God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited December 27, 2004 by ironmonk