Today's (un)Readings

Today was spectacular, in terms of the readings at Mass. I pass lightly over our local rendition, which was almost incomprehensible due to the ineptitude of the reader (inter alia, we got: 'He sacrificed himself for us in order to set him free from all wickedness' and 'it was for no reason except our own compassion that he saved us'...)

No, what I am referring to is the fact that all three readings in the new lectionary had holes in the middle of them.

So in this post, I will look at what was excised.

The first reading, from Isaiah, omitted:

A voice commands: "Cry!" and I answered: "What shall I cry?" - "All flesh is grass and its beauty like the wild flower's. The grass withers, the flower fades when the breath of the Lord blows on them. (The grass is without doubt the people.) The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of God remains for ever."

The second reading, from St Paul's Letter to Titus omitted:

Now this is what you are to say, whether you are giving instruction or correcting errors; you can do so with full authority, and no one is to question it. Remind them that it is their duty to be obedient to the officials and representatives of the government; to be ready to do good at every opportunity; not to go slandering other people or picking quarrels, but to be courteous and always polite to all kinds of people. Remember there was a time when we too were ignorant, disobedient and misled, and enslaved by different passions and luxuries; we lived then in wickedness and ill-will, hating each other and hateful ourselves. But

The Gospel, from St Luke, omitted:

'His winnowing-fan is in his hand, to clear his threshing-floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn in a fire that will never go out. ' As well as this, there were many other things he said to exhort the people and to announce the Good News to them.

But Herod the tetrarch, whom he criticised for his relations with his brother's wife Herodias and for all the other crimes Herod had committed, added a further crime to all the rest, by shutting John up in prison.

Is it me, or is there a theme here? Could it be that anything that has any suggestion of judgment has been excised? 

'All flesh is grass' is a wonderful, poignant note in the middle of Isaiah's great proclamation. One would have to have a tin ear to cut that (not to mention other deficiencies).

Oddly, I am particularly irritated by the omission of 'But,' which is the first word of Titus 3:4. It was clearly omitted as it would have made no sense. But it would have made no sense, because the whole thrust of St Paul's argument depended on what had preceded it. A shameful cut! But we can't go talking about authority or wickedness...

Cutting the winnowing-fan and fire that will never go out is entirely reprehensible, if predictable.  One might think there is a case for cutting the imprisonment of John the Baptist, as it seems a parenthesis - indeed, at the wrong place in the story, as it precedes his baptising Christ. But I choose to believe that St Luke was more inspired than the compilers of the Lectionary. I think part of the message here is that just as the powers of this World (and the Flesh and the Devil) were putting John out of the way, God's plan was unfolding with greater power still, with the early epiphany of the Blessed Trinity, and the Son being commissioned by the Father and the Holy Ghost. But we lose all that.

Moreover, they have not only cut it on this occasion, but from the two other passages in the synoptic Gospels when it should be read.

Attentive readers will remember that I examined all the Sunday Gospels for the three year cycle some time ago, noting what had been cut and seeing if there was a pattern. St John's imprisonment, for example, is omitted from all the Sunday Gospels through the three year cycle. I posted my conclusions of that analysis here. Today, the shortening (I had almost said censoring) of all three readings seems to support my hypothesis.

Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Happy Feast Day to all my readers, on the 160th anniversary of the solemn dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX.

The Immaculate Conception, of course, was not 'invented' then; indeed it was celebrated here in England before the Norman Conquest; and has been the subject of some of the most beautiful writings of the Fathers of the Church.

I was interested to see the differences between the old Lectionary and the New for today's Feast; and they were rather suggestive. However, I have insufficient time to write about them now, so that must wait for another occasion - perhaps next year (don't hold your breath).  Or you could always go and look them up yourself!

A great resource re the Lectionary

Yesterday, the indomitable Fr Z asked if anyone knew of a site that listed the readings on Sundays in the EF alongside those for the OF.

A couple of people kindly pointed him at my series of posts on the Lectionary (follow the Lectionary tag in the sidebar...), but that was not what he was looking for.

So I felt, I suppose, a sense of obligation, and started to compile what he wanted.  However, fortunately, the excellent Matthew Hazell got on with the job rather more quickly, which saved me a lot of time!

The results may be seen here, and are a valuable contribution to the growing resources available to those interested in understanding the liturgical changes.

Bugnini on the Lectionary (3)

This is the final post* in my series, which began here, looking at the Gospel passages missing from the new Lectionary.  In the most recent post, I summarised what Bugnini said he (and the Consilium) were doing, and promised a final post assessing what they actually did against those claims.

It feels as though the series, which has taken some months (and many hours of work) to publish should reach a great climax here.

However (and perhaps this is appropriate) it is not going to.  By and large, Bugnini's intentions were so large and imprecise that it is hard to evaluate his achievements against them.

In fairness, he did deploy more reading from holy Scripture... more varied, though whether more apposite is up for discussion.

On the other hand, one could make a strong case for saying that he failed in making clear:  that the entire Old Testament is presupposed in the Lord’s preaching, his actions and his passion; by the omission of so much of the story of St John the Baptist, who is surely the great bridge between the Old and the New.

But for the rest...

However,  I think what one can say is that he did more than he claims.  Whether deliberately or not, he (or the process he ran) was selective in what was included in ways that are not laid out in Sacrosanctum Concilium, nor described in his apologia.

As noted here, there are several themes that seem to have been deemed appropriate to omit (or substantially under-present) in the Lectionary, and none of these are explained in the rationale given for the revision.

Bugnini also did something else: he put into effect (though certainly did not invent) a particular interpretation of the purpose of Scripture reading in the Mass.

That is, he treats the readings as solely there for the education of the Faithful.

It may seem obvious to us today that that is precisely why the readings are there; but it may be obvious because we have been used to the approach Bugnini championed for so long.

I am not saying the readings are not there for our edification; but I dispute that that is their only function, and I think the assumption that it is typifies the rather thin, logical way of viewing liturgy that Bugnini exemplified.

I see the liturgy primarily as prayer, not schooling.  If we read God's word, we are, at least in part, reading it to Him.  It is as though my kids come rushing up to me, asking some favour, or for the honouring of some promise, and pull out their phones and read back a text I'd sent to me: 'But Father, you said:...' They are reminding me of promises, not refreshing their own memory or understanding, though it may be doing that too.  

This may be poor theology, and is almost certainly laughable in the eyes of liturgists, but I think that it has some merit as an analogy.  We are children approaching our Father, imploring and entreating Him for forgiveness, for mercy, for graces; and thanking Him, too for all these; and offering Him, as He has commanded, the supreme Sacrifice.  The Mass is not a community gathering, so much as a family one.

But I think such pious sentimentality, and such multi-stranded (and not always schematic) understanding,  is very much what the reformers had in their sights; and it was accompanied  both with that contempt for popular piety and tradition that is so evident in Bugnini's writing, and a tremendous sense of their own worthiness for the task they were undertaking.  That applies to their approach to the whole of the liturgy, not just the Lectionary.

And we continue to pay the price for that.

--

*Post Script: actually, almost certainly not the last. I continue to think about this and feel at least one more post brewing...

New Blog on the Lectionary

Matthew Hazell has just launched a new blog : Lectionary Study Aids.  The clue is in the name.  The  first aid he has produced is a comprehensive table of the Biblical texts used in the 1962 Propers of the Mass: not only the Epistle and Gospel, but the Introit, Gradual, Offertory and Communion; and not only on Sundays, but on weekdays, feast days, votive Masses - the lot.

Here's a taster:

Do go over and have a look - and maybe leave him a note of encouragement: this is a rich resource indeed!

Bugnini on Lectionary (2)

For anyone who has not been assiduously following  my series of posts on the revision of the Lectionary (shame on you), the journey started here, and may be followed by clicking on the tag Lectionary.

Over the last week, I have been reading (thanks to Thirsty Gargoyle and Ttony) the chapter on The Lectionary from Bugnini’s triumphant apologia.  

I had intended to summarise what he said, than compare what he said with what he did, and see what conclusions one might draw.

That is still the plan, but I realise now that it will take longer than one afternoon, and longer than one post.  So this is part one (somewhat confusingly, it is labelled (2) as I have already posted on this topic a while back: link later in this post).

Despite his book being rather like (as Ttony eloquently put it) a guide to the Cathedral of Hell, a few things struck me as interesting.

One is that the new Lectionary did not spring from Vatican 2.  Experiments were underway before the Council: in Germany, for example, ‘it had become the custom at Mass that while the celebrant was reading the appointed pericopes in Latin, a lector read in German other pericopes on which the homily was then preached.‘  (pp 406 - 407)  These were based on multi-year cycles. Similar practices were in place in Switzerland and Holland. It is clear from Bugnini that these experiments, pre-dating the Council’s deliberations, were foundational in the preparation of the New Lectionary.

So when the text for Sacrosanctum Concilium (hereafter SC) was prepared, some bishops had a much better insight than others into what was really intended.  I suspect (though I have more research to do here) that the same was true of a lot of the texts of the Council.  Hence, I think, what Michael Davies referred to as Liturgical Time Bombs were only surprising to some, but by no means all, of the Council Fathers, when they were later detonated.

Moving on to what Bugnini said about reforming the Lectionary, he starts by stating the goal of the Consilium (the committee established to revise the Liturgy in the wake of SC)

He quotes  SC: ‘more reading from holy Scripture... more varied and more apposite’ (SC 35.1) ‘a more representative portion’ (SC 51)   From this, he concludes that the goal is: ‘A new system of readings had therefore to be designed that would take into account the existing cycle, the findings of comparative liturgy, and the needs of today’s faithful.’ (p410)  

Where those three criteria came from, he does not say. But the second and third were very much of their time.

He then goes onto list the Principles which the Consilium would adopt. The basic principle is that:

‘the mystery of Christ and the history of salvation’ must be presented in the readings.  Therefore the new system of readings must contain the whole nucleus of the apostolic preaching about Jesus as ‘Lord and Christ’ (Acts 2:36) who fulfilled the scriptures by his life, his preaching and above all his paschal mystery and who gives life to the Church until his glorious return.

The new Lectionary must make clear:

- that the Church is today living out the mystery of salvation in its entirety, the mystery that found its complete form in Christ and that must also be completed in us;
- the mysteries of faith and the principles governing Christian life, which are then to be explained in the homily;
- that the entire Old Testament is presupposed in the Lord’s preaching, his actions and his passion;
- that attention to the central theme, the Lord’s Pasch, must not lead to forgetfulness of other themes, for example the coming of God’s reign;
- finally that the liturgical year provides the ideal setting for proclaiming the message of salvation to the faithful in an organized way.’ (pp410 - 411)

Again, how they arrived at these principles is not explained. They are, I suppose, fairly unexceptionable in a bland kind of way: how they could be used to inform any decisions is not clear to me, though that was presumably their purpose.  I am mildly surprised to see no reference to the other Persons of the Trinity.

To undertake this project, they seem to have done four things:

1 make ‘a systematic collection of the biblical passages used in the various liturgies, ancient and modern, Western and Eastern, both in the Catholic Church and in the non-Catholic ecclesial communities’... ‘to show how the Bible had been used in the Eucharistic celebration over the course of eighteen centuries... to identify constants and variants,  and thus point(ed) out a sure path that the new organization of readings might follow.’

2 ‘Thirty-one Bible scholars were given the tasks of selecting from all the books of the Old and new Testaments the passages that they regarded as best suited for liturgical use.’ But the footnote makes clear that in fact, either one or two people were asked to look at each book of the Bible. The list they produced was sent to 100 other experts for comment.

3 Individual members of the Commissio  were asked to lead studies and draw up plans for different parts of the Lectionary, or notes on (eg) the Byzantine, Anglican Lectionaries etc.

4 Finally four members were asked to draw up schemas for seven sub-divisions of the Lectionary (eg Sundays of Advent etc).

This seems to me a process devised by a bureaucrat. The first step is interesting: the effect, of course, is to dilute consideration of the existing liturgical practice by making it one of very many practices studied, some of them Protestant (!)  Looking to Protestanism to inform Catholic Liturgy was certainly a novelty, to say the least. But the sixties were heady days. 

Steps two to four then bow to the cult of the expert: and their results will of course depend on which experts are chosen. But again, that was typical of the time: the Holy Father, cardinals and bishops were devolving responsibilities in a rather drastic fashion.  And the experts seem to have been those who had an interest in reforming the liturgy, so...  It is also odd how few experts were consulted and involved.

Of particular interest (to me at any rate) in the subsequent discussions is Bugnini’s account of the question: should the present (ie the traditional) cycle be kept or abandoned?  He writes: ‘Some members suggested that the Lectionary presently in use be kept intact and serve as one of the cycles, out of respect for tradition and for ecumenical reasons, since most of the Churches (sic) issuing from the Reformation use the traditional Lectionary.’  Referring to the Protestant denominations as ‘Churches’ is indicative, too... 

He continues: ‘the ecumenical argument was given great weight in the discussion,’ and relates something of that discussion in depth. He then deals with the argument for tradition (which, I infer, was not ‘given great weight’). He writes:  ‘The members of the group and the relators are of the opinion that the Consilium must not without good reason consider itself bound to the old Lectionary.’  Clearly, centuries of use and the weight of tradition do not constitute ‘good reason.’

He continues: ‘(a) this is the first time in the history of the Church that the opportunity has arisen of revising it, and this in hitherto unparalleled favourable circumstances and with hitherto unavailable tools.’  That is an extraordinary statement. It acknowledges the fact that they are doing something never before attempted, but instead of that reflection causing them to approach the task with some humility, it is followed by an enormously confident, one might say brash, statement of their readines for the task.

He goes on: ‘(b) if the old Lectionary, whose defects everyone knows, is retained as one of the annual cycles, there will be major differences between that cycle and the others;’  I find this very revealing of Bugnini’s attitude and presumably that of his colleagues.  We can do this job, because we are wiser than our forefathers who left us this legacy: a legacy whose defects we don’t need to articulate, but can merely assert to be agreed by everyone...

This mixture of (as I see it) arrogance and disdain for tradition is evident again in his concluding paragraph of this section : ‘The result was that the faithful could recover an understanding and taste for the word of God, after centuries of neglect and abandonment had caused the fresh and authentic stream of that word to be lost in rivulets and ravines.’ (p 417)

I find it hard to reconcile my knowledge of the saints of yore with that amazing metaphor; and I think it betrays an extraordinary prejudice, or even, one might say, ideology.

There was then a report to the Holy Father, which I have already quoted in full here, along with the Holy Father’s astonishing note authorising the changes.

In the next post in this series, I will try to look at how what Bugnini’s team actually did relates to what he wrote. But this feels quite long enough for one post!

Fascinating resource for further Lectionary studies

I forgot to mention in my previous post this fascinating resource which Joseph Shaw pointed me at.

Here you can see all the readings in the Old Missal, along with an analysis of the proportions from the different Gospels, OT v. NT and so on.  On a linked page, you can also see the stats for the EF Missal and the New Lectionary compared.

All very interesting, and certainly demonstrates how much more of theBible we have read in the new system.

Never let it be said I take a wholly one-sided approach to this issue (though in fact, I will argue later, as I have before, that more is not necessarily better in this particular instance).

Sunday Gospel Readings in EF Omitted from OF

So here's the next post on the subject of the New Lectionary.  For previous posts, follow the Lectionary tag.

Joseph Shaw suggested that I should add to my data collection a list of all the Gospel passages that feature in the EF Missal to be read on Sundays, which do not feature in the new Lectionary for Sunday reading.

I demurred, initially, saying that wasn't my project, but he said: 'Well, for one thing the omission of passages which were in the historic cycle (Anglican and Lutheran too) is a bigger statement.'

I thought about this for a bit: clearly Bugnini wasn't thinking about amending the cycle of readings but replacing it.  I doubted that he even did the comparison with the old Missal.

And the more I thought about that, the more the enormity of it struck me.  The hubris of dumping the heritage of the Church's traditional cycle of Gospel readings without a second glance...

I will write more on that, when I consider what Bugnini said he was about.

But in the meantime, I decided to take up Joseph Shaw's suggestion, and here is the result: all the passages from the Gospels which were read on Sundays according to the Old Missal and are omitted from the New Lectionary Sunday Cycle.  As before, I have put in bold those passages which are omitted, without a parallel passage from one of the other Gospels being read.

St Matthew:

6:16-21 Fasting: when you fast... Do not store up treasures on earth...

8:1-13 Leper healed; Centurion’s servant. (St Mark’s and St Luke’s accounts, respectively, used)

8:23-27 Calming of the storm (St Mark’s account used)

26: 1- 13 Caiaphas plotting; the precious ointment; [St Mark's account used]

St Mark:

16:14  Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen. [only in St Mark]

St Luke:

8: 4 - 15 Parable of the sower (St Matthew’s account used)

11: 14- 23 But if it is through the finger of God that I cast out devils... (St Mark’s account used)

24 - 26 The return of the Unclean Spirit (the corresponding passage from St Matthew is also cut)

27 - 28 Happy the womb that bore you... (St Luke only)

14: 15- 24 The banquet and guests who refuse to come... (St Matthew’s account used)

18: 31- 34 The Son of Man to be handed over... (cut from St Matthew and St Mark as well)

35 - 43 Healing of the blind man at Jericho (St Mark’s account used)

21: 29 - 33 The fig tree (St Mark’s account used)

St John:

6: 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. (Only in St John) 

8:46-59 you are a Samaritan, and possessed... Abraham saw my day and rejoiced, Before Abraham was, I AM. (Only in St John) 

14: 30 -31 The prince of this world is on his way... I am doing exactly what the Father told me. (Only in St John)

16:1-4 They will put you out of the Synagogue.  (Only in St John)

16: 5 - 11  None of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ ...because the prince of this world now stands condemned.  (Only in St John)

16 - 22 What does he mean: you will no longer see me, then you will see me?... You are sad now... your hearts will be full of joy...  (Only in St John)

16: 23-30 Ask and you will receive... the Father loves you...Now you are speaking plainly... the time will come when you are scattered...  (Only in St John)

--

In broad terms I think this is consonant with my earlier musings about patterns...

The Unread Gospels

It was before Easter that I started to look at the Lectionary, to see which passages are omitted from the Gospels read on Sundays over the three year cycle. It all started because I had frequently noticed that my missal showed some verses were omitted, and I wondered why that was.

I first looked at St Matthew’s Gospel, here and here, then at St Mark's, here and here, then at St Luke’s, here and here, and finally at St John’s here. (You can tell I am traditionally inclined, can’t you!)

It has been quite a long process, conducted mainly in the evenings: so it may be that there are errors in my checking (I have noticed errors in the cross-references in the Bibles I was using for checking parallel passages; it may be there were other errors that I did not notice.) So I am not claiming 100% accuracy for the analysis, but I think it sufficiently accurate that one may start to look for patterns.

In this post, I will simply note my first attempt at spotting patterns.  In a subsequent post, I will consider Bugnini’s account of how the new Lectionary was compiled.

I will be most interested in others’ comments: you now have all the information about the omitted passages that I do, and may well see things differently.  I am quite aware that I am coming at this from a particular critical angle; for that reason I am especially keen to hear others’ perceptions.

I do, however, think that there are some discernible patterns in the passages that were not selected to be read.  That is particularly clear, of course, when the same incident or passage  is de-selected from several Gospels.

I was particularly shocked at how much of Our Lord's discourse about His relationship with the Father is omitted from the reading of St John's Gospel.

Anyway, here is my first attempt at discerning some patterns.

1 Bad news stories: eg The Massacre of the Innocents; The prince of this world is on his way;  They will expel you from the synagogues;

2 Many Miracles: eg the  Gadarene swine; Healing  the lame, the blind, the deaf, the crippled and many besides, and the feeding of the four thousand; Cures at Gennesaret; The return of the Unclean Spirit.

3 Many Criticisms of the Pharisees and Jewish Leaders: Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees...; If a man swears by the temple...; Straining for the gnat...;  Whitened sepulchres...; Fathers slew the prophets...; Brood of vipers...; ... as a hen gathers chickens... By what authority? You have defeated God’s commandment to establish your own tradition: Corban, Pharisees and lawyers rebuked: filled with wickedness; unmarked tombs; unendurable burdens; prophets murdered between altar and sanctuary; will not let others enter... Yeast of the Pharisees.

4 Much of the story of St John the Baptist eg the circumstances of his birth, much of his mission, his death; his fulfilling the prophecy: the one who was to precede the Christ.

5 Many sayings of Our Lord

5.1  Negative ones (?)

If you do not forgive, you will not be forgiven; Not parading good deeds, praying in private; Fasting in secret; Do not profane sacred things; False prophets.

5.2 Difficult ones (?)

In truth I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming with his kingdom; If anyone is ashamed of me... Who rejects you, rejects me... Happy the womb that bore you... Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit;

5.3 Sayings about the Son and the Father, and the Divine Claim eg The light of the world, the Father is my witness, I am not of this world, I preach what the Father has taught me, if you were Abraham’s children, the devil is your father... you are a Samaritan, and possessed, Abraham saw my day and rejoiced, Before Abraham was, I AM.    What the Father has told me is what I speak.  Be brave: I have conquered the world.

6 Prophesies:  eg Jesus as Servant of the Lord and quotation from Isaiah; The Sign of Jonah; Prophecy of Death and Resurrection, The Son of Man to be handed over... Weeping for Jerusalem: not one stone left... Nathaniel under the tree; you will see heaven laid open; Caiaphas: it is better that one man die: a high priestly prophesy.

7 Some link passages: eg When Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he moved on from there to teach and preach in their towns.

8 Then there are some oddities: 

8.1 St Luke’s version of the Our Father is used - why, when St Matthew’s longer text is closer to the one we pray?

8.1  The Magnificat is not read as a Gospel, but as a Responsorial Psalm - why?

So my initial analysis is, firstly, that there is a pattern of avoiding negative passages (1, 3, 5.1, 5.2), and in particular, negative passages about the Jewish Leaders.  

Whilst I can understand that, and the sensitivities that might drive it, I think it betrays an odd way to read the Gospel.  Perhaps if we had had more readings about Whitened Sepulchres, Catholics, (bishops and others) would have examined their consciences a little more rigorously, a little more regularly.  Reading the Gospel as about 'them long ago' is missing rather a lot of the point...

I also wonder whether there is something about prophecy which worried the selectors? I know some critics claim that passages which prophesy (for example) the fall of Jerusalem must obviously be later than the fall of Jerusalem... I hope that is not part of the thinking here.  

I further wonder if there is an attempt to sanitise Our Lord a bit, by (let us say) de-emphasising negative/difficult bits...

I suspect that St Luke's version of the Our Father is used to shock us out of familiarity: I rather hope not, but as I say, I suspect it to be the case.

I think the whole process is very much of its time (1960s) and will say more about this in a subsequent post, with reference to Bugnini's declared modus operandi. 

I am completely baffled by the omission of St John the Baptist, and troubled by that and by the omission of so much about the Son and the Father, and the Divine Claim.  I will ponder further on that.

And as I say, I will welcome others' comments, reflections, disputations, and so on.

St John Omitted Down to Size...

At last, I have completed my analysis of the Gospels read (or to be more accurate,  not read) at Sunday Masses in the three year cycle of the New Lectionary.

I have to say that I was somewhat shocked as I went through the Lectionary looking at how St John's Gospel is treated.

I had assumed, I suppose, that because it was not one of the synoptics, and therefore had a higher proportion of unique material, that less of it would be cut omitted.  However, that was not what I found. 

I will now reflect on all the information I have collated, read Bugnini's account of the changes (which I have in full thanks to the  the Thirsty Gargoyle ) and will post my initial reflections over the next day or two.  I will be most interested in other peoples' views, too.


Here I list all the passages that are omitted (my friend the Gargoyle thinks the word cut is too prejudicial, so I bow to his judgement) from St John's Gospel.

Where they are not featured in another Gospel read during the three years, they are in bold.



Chapter 1 

43 ff Calling of Phillip, Nathaniel under the tree; you will see heaven laid open. (St Mark’s account of the calling of the 12 used: very different and omits Nathaniel etc) 

Chapter 2

12 Stayed with his mother and his brethren (Only in St John)

Chapter 3

1-13 Nicodemus (Only in St John)

22ff St John the Baptist He must increase and I must decrease (Only in St John)

Chapter 4

1-4 Disciples baptising more than John (Only in St John)

43ff Healing of the official’s son at Cana (Only in St John)

Chapter 5

1 - 18 Cure of the man by the Pool (Only in St John)

19 - 47 The Son and the Father; John the Baptist as witness; If you believed in Moses... (Only in St John)

Chapter 6

16-23 Walking on the water (St Matthew’s account used)

36 - 40 The will of the Father; whoever believes I will raise up on the last day (Only in St John)

59 He taught this doctrine at Capernaum, in the synagogue (Only in St John)

70 - 71 Yet one of you is a devil... (Only in St John)

Chapter 7

1-36 The feast of Tabernacles; Our Lord teaches in the temple; why do you want to kill me? There is one who sent me... where I am, you cannot come. (Only in St John)

40 - 53 Would the Christ be from Galilee; have any of the authorities believed? Nicodemus: we cannot pass judgement without a hearing. (Only in St John)

Chapter 8

12 ff The light of the world, the Father is my witness, I am not of this world, I preach what the Father has taught me, if you were Abraham’s children, the devil is your father... you are a Samaritan, and possessed, Abraham saw my day and rejoiced, Before Abraham was, I AM. (Only in St John) 

Chapter 10

19-26 He is possessed... If you are the Christ, tell us plainly... I have told you, but you do not believe. (Only in St John)

31 - 42 They fetched stones to stone him.... Is it not written: I said you are gods?  The Father is in me, and I am in the Father. John gave no signs, but all he said about this man was true. (Only in St John)

Chapter 11

46 The Jewish leaders plot: Caiaphas: it is better that one man die; a high priestly prophesy. (Only in St John)

Chapter 12

1-11 Anointing  by Mary (St Mark’s account used) 

17-19 The crowd bear witness to raising of Lazarus: the pharisees: ‘all the people are following him’ (Only in St John)

34 Walk in the light, Isaiah’s prophecy: he has blinded their eyes; whoever believe in me believes in the one who sent me  What the Father has told me is what I speak. (Only in St John)


Chapter 13

16 No servant is greater than his Master  (St Luke’s account used)

17 -30 Judas’ betrayal foretold (St Matthew’s account used) 

33b ...and as I told the Jews, where I am going, you cannot come.  (Only in St John)

36 - 38 Peter’s denial foretold. (St Matthew’s account used)

Chapter 14

13-14 Whatever you ask for in my name...(Only in St John)

22 Judas (not Iscariot): do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world? (Only in St John)

30 -31 The prince of this world is on his way... I am doing exactly what the Father told me. (Only in St John)

Chapter 15

18-25 ...if the world hates you... if they persecuted me, they will persecute you... still they hate both me and my Father...(Only in St John)

Chapter 16

1-11 They will expel you from the synagogues... because they have never known either the Father or myself...unless I go, the Advocate will not come to you... the prince of this world already condemned. (Only in St John)

17 - 33 What does he mean: you will no longer see me, then you will see me?... You are sad now... your hearts will be full of joy... Ask and you will receive... the Father loves you...Now you are speaking plainly... the time will come when you are scattered... be brave: I have conquered the world. (Only in St John)

Chapter 20

10-18 The appearance to Mary Magdalene (Also omitted from St Mark)

Chapter 21

20 Peter: What about him, Lord? ... the rumour that John would not die...  John testifies to the truth of his Gospel, and to the fact that Our Lord did much more than is recorded therein. (Only in St John)

By What Authority?

Here is the next stage in my analysis of the passages cut from the Sunday Gospels over the three year cycle.

For an explanation, see the first post in the series.

Today, I look at the second half of St Luke's Gospel. Once I have finished St John's, we can start to look at why some passages may have been cut...

As always, passages that have been cut and are not covered by one of the other Gospels are in bold.

The title of this post is doubly relevant (you can work that one out for yourself...)

**

Chapter 13 

10 - 17  Healing of Woman on Sabbath: Hypocrites: is there one of you who does not untie his ass on the Sabbath?   (St Luke only)

18 - 21 Kingdom of Heaven: Mustard seed; yeast. (St Matthew’s account used)

31 - 33 Herod: that fox...   (St Luke only)

34 - 35 Jerusalem: you kill the prophets...(St Matthew’s account used)

Chapter 14

2-6 Cure of man with dropsy on the Sabbath: is it lawful...? St Luke only

15- 24 The banquet and guests who refuse to come... (St Matthew’s account used)

34- 35 If salt loses its taste... (St Matthew’s account used)

Chapter 16

14 - 15 Pharisees love of money... (St Luke only)

16 Kingdom of heaven stormed... (corresponding passage from St Matthew also cut)

17 It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away... (St Matthew’s account used)

18 Whoever divorces his wife: adultery. (St Mark’s account used)

Chapter17

1 - 4 It were better a millstone... (St Matthew’s account used)

20 - 25 The coming of the Kingdom (corresponding passage from St Matthew also cut)

26 - 30 As in Noah’s day... (St Matthew’s account used)

31 - 37 Remember Lot’s wife... (St Luke only)

Chapter 18

15 - 17 Let the children come...  (St Mark’s account used)

18 - 27 How hard for the rich... (St Mark’s account used)

28 - 30 What of us, who left all...? (corresponding passage from St Matthew also cut)

31- 34 The Son of Man to be handed over... (cut from St Matthew and St Mark as well)

35 - 43 Healing of the blind man at Jericho (St Mark’s account used)

Chapter 19

11 - 27     Parable for the ten pounds (St Matthew’s account is used)

41 - 44 Weeping for Jerusalem: not one stone left... St Luke only

45 - 48 Expulsion of moneychangers (St John’s account used)

Chapter 20

1 - 8 By what authority? (Also cut from St Matthew and St Mark)

9- 19 The Vineyard (St Matthew’s account is used)

20 -26 Tribute to Caesar (St Matthew’s account is used)

39 - 44 Christ the Son of David? (Cut from St Matthew, too)

45 - 47 Beware of the Scribes... (St Matthew’s account is used)

Chapter 21

1-4 The Widow’s mite (St Mark’s account used)

20 - 25 Siege of Jerusalem  (Also cut from St Matthew and St Mark)

29 - 33 The fig tree (St Mark’s account used)

Chapter 22

1 - 13 Betrayal by Judas; the preparation for the Passover. (St Mark’s account used)