Omission of Psalms
#1
Here's a very interesting post from Rorate Caeli. There's probably nothing new for those who are Breviarium geeks and whatnot. I've heard somewhere that in the LOTH one doesn't go through the psalms in one week, but I took it to mean that in one week + some days they would go through the psalms. But no, apparently a bunch of psalms were omitted, and even verses of psalms were omitted.

Also, some verses in the Lectionary were omitted—making the project of the whole bible in three years a mockery. The funny thing is that utterly crucial passages like 1Co. 11,27-29 are omitted, while genealogies, lists, etc., are still there.

Once a friend was praising the new readings, saying how much Bible is in it and how it impressed his Prot friends, and I really couldn't give a proper response except to say there's simply too much reading, making of it a burden (in opposition to the more meditative readings of the old lectionary). Well, turns out that's not the case.
This reminds me an audio of the folks in catholic.com (because a bunch of you guys said they sans the forums were great), one woman called them angry saying some part of Romans that claim homosexuality is the end of other sins was never read. The guy responded that that passage is read in some Tuesday, but not the verse that talks about sodomy—to bring it up is up to the priest.

Now, consider the most basic definition of heresy is to choose a part of the faith in detriment of the whole. What other conclusion is there but that these lectionaries are heretical, at least in this very broad sense? How is this different from Luther, who tailored his own faith?
Of course the Catholic faith is still in, say, Psalm 1 even if one doesn't read Psalm 2. But its not the whole thing, and to actually intend not reading Psalm 2 because it contains “offensive” stuff. Well, that's another thing.

The times of soft lies must end. As things get ugly and people are scandalized and don't know why (like that woman calling those 'apologists' trying to make sense of it), just to pretend the NO is fine won't cut it.

Finally, I leave with this image (also from Rorate) which speaks volume.
Reply
#2
Clipping pieces of scripture out and putting then in the lectionaries to be read at Mass like they do seems a bit odd to me. Adding incipits is fine, but if you start taking things out here and there scripture starts to sound like it means something very different.
Reply
#3
It's interesting this came up. At our NO Mass this past Sunday, the priest (a very good, holy young priest I might add, although not traditional) was explaining the structure of the 3-year lectionary. He was explaining it because it was the transition back to the Gospel of John this past Sunday, after spending the rest of this Ordinary Time is Mark up to this point.

There really is an elegance to the structure in the 3-year cycle. But the criticism of omission is a just one. It's a very happy-go-lucky sort of Bible we read from most of the time. And even the odd time there is a difficult or troubling passage, they are never explained, but glossed over. Such is the NO culture, I suppose.

(07-29-2015, 11:01 PM)Credidi Propter Wrote: Clipping pieces of scripture out and putting then in the lectionaries to be read at Mass like they do seems a bit odd to me. Adding incipits is fine, but if you start taking things out here and there scripture starts to sound like it means something very different.

Sundays are really bad for that, which is a shame because that's the readings the bulk of Catholics hear. I find you get more meat an' potatoes during the weekday readings, and you read large, unedited blocks of scripture over the course of several days. But unless you're attending daily Mass or keeping up on the readings (which is to say, hardly anyone), you're going to miss it.
Reply
#4
I don't think they can be considered heretical--I think one would run into heresy if they were removed from the canonical Scriptures entirely, which is what Luther was up to.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the entire Bible was included in the whole liturgy (Masses and Office) even before Vatican II--therefore, omitting passages would not necessarily be heretical unless the Church was always in heresy.

What's ironic is the reason the imprecatory psalms were excluded is because the Office was supposed to be integrated more into the public life of the parish and it was envisioned that the laity would be routinely included--but of course, that never really ended up happening.  The imprecatory psalms appear to contradict the Gospel imperative to love one's enemies, rather than to call down evil upon them, and so to avoid misunderstanding they were removed.  Of course, in my opinion, they should have instead been explained--that seems more pastoral to me  :shrug:
Reply
#5
We have had a couple of threads or perhaps more on this before. It's kind of bizarre to me that Paul VI thought
these psalms would be a problem for the laity to understand but didn't seem to think catechesis ought to be used to solve the problem.
That makes no sense.

C.
Reply
#6
(07-30-2015, 09:03 AM)Cetil Wrote: We have had a couple of threads or perhaps more on this before. It's kind of bizarre to me that Paul VI thought
these psalms would be a problem for the laity to understand but didn't seem to think catechesis ought to be used to solve the problem.
That makes no sense.

C.

I seem to remember some bishops displaying the same attitude during the recent re-translation of the Mass arguing, for example, that "for many" might be misunderstood as a limited atonement. It literally takes a five seconds, one sentence explanation.
Reply
#7
(07-29-2015, 11:08 PM)PrairieMom Wrote: There really is an elegance to the structure in the 3-year cycle. But the criticism of omission is a just one. It's a very happy-go-lucky sort of Bible we read from most of the time. And even the odd time there is a difficult or troubling passage, they are never explained, but glossed over. Such is the NO culture, I suppose.

It might seem odd to talk about "too much Scripture" being a bad thing, but you bring up a good reason why it can be. Many weekday Masses either don't have homilies or have very short ones, and there really isn't time for one when it's a 30-minute Mass before people have to get to work, or get back from a lunch break. So the more difficult passages go unexplained, and we're just expected to figure them out on our own.

Also, in the TLM, it's the same cycle of readings every year, so you know what to expect and the annual repetition helps the lesson of that Sunday sink in. And if that week has ferias, other than during Lent, you'll hear it again. But with the new cycle, you won't hear that reading again for another three years, and you're expected to remember two more cycles in between, each of which you also won't hear again for three years.

Then the priest has to explain why St Matthew said one thing last year and St Mark said something else this year, and then you'll near a third version next year from St Luke. Add in what passes for modern biblical scholarship, and you've got a real mess.
Reply
#8
(07-30-2015, 09:32 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(07-30-2015, 09:03 AM)Cetil Wrote: We have had a couple of threads or perhaps more on this before. It's kind of bizarre to me that Paul VI thought
these psalms would be a problem for the laity to understand but didn't seem to think catechesis ought to be used to solve the problem.
That makes no sense.

C.

I seem to remember some bishops displaying the same attitude during the recent re-translation of the Mass arguing, for example, that "for many" might be misunderstood as a limited atonement. It literally takes a five seconds, one sentence explanation.

Underlying that explanation and all the other attacks of the clergy on the new translation is "our laity are too stupid to understand anything even with catechesis".
Here is the thread we had on this from last year: http://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.p...=3463646.0

There was also a thread from 2013 with a classic response by our late friend Tim (may he rest in peace):
"The Psalms were written by David, inspired by the Holy Ghost, and he expressed himself within the limits of his understanding of God to be. God when we praise him in reciting the Office, knows now, and then, David's heart, and understands his words completely, unlike us . He sees our hearts, and those words expressed within the limits of human language and our very limited understanding of God Almighty, are accepted. This notion that it must be "cleaned up" and that we must meditate on them understanding the meaning is phoney baloney, and that is what has landed us in the world of profane worship of God. This is not about being PC and for our understanding. It's about praising God with the very words He inspired. Remember David was a man after His own heart. A short passage from Psalm 44 captures exactly what we are doing; "Eructavit cor meum verbum bonum". We are regurgitating (David's) good words with our heart.

http://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.p...3452670.30
C.
Reply
#9
I was thinking about the "too much Bible cannot be a bad thing". Well, yes, but I guess it feels weird at the NOM because its disproportionate. There's so much reading its hard to focus. The Scripture at the TLM doesn't stand out too much, but is rather integrate. Two readings is enough to ponder for hours, and you have the Introit and Gradual to meditate while they sing it.
I don't know, the NOM with the readings feel a bit fake to me. I don't know how else to explain it but to speculate its a proportion thing.
Reply
#10
(07-30-2015, 03:52 PM)Paul Wrote:
(07-29-2015, 11:08 PM)PrairieMom Wrote: There really is an elegance to the structure in the 3-year cycle. But the criticism of omission is a just one. It's a very happy-go-lucky sort of Bible we read from most of the time. And even the odd time there is a difficult or troubling passage, they are never explained, but glossed over. Such is the NO culture, I suppose.

It might seem odd to talk about "too much Scripture" being a bad thing, but you bring up a good reason why it can be. Many weekday Masses either don't have homilies or have very short ones, and there really isn't time for one when it's a 30-minute Mass before people have to get to work, or get back from a lunch break. So the more difficult passages go unexplained, and we're just expected to figure them out on our own.

Also, in the TLM, it's the same cycle of readings every year, so you know what to expect and the annual repetition helps the lesson of that Sunday sink in. And if that week has ferias, other than during Lent, you'll hear it again. But with the new cycle, you won't hear that reading again for another three years, and you're expected to remember two more cycles in between, each of which you also won't hear again for three years.

Then the priest has to explain why St Matthew said one thing last year and St Mark said something else this year, and then you'll near a third version next year from St Luke. Add in what passes for modern biblical scholarship, and you've got a real mess.

Those are very good points. Oddly enough, I often find the troubling, unexplained passages are often on Sundays. Or if it falls on the weekday, and I'm actually at Mass, the homily often has nothing to do with the readings, which annoys me.

As for the discord, I think the passages as selected to minimize that, because I actually see very little.

(07-30-2015, 11:38 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: I was thinking about the "too much Bible cannot be a bad thing". Well, yes, but I guess it feels weird at the NOM because its disproportionate. There's so much reading its hard to focus. The Scripture at the TLM doesn't stand out too much, but is rather integrate. Two readings is enough to ponder for hours, and you have the Introit and Gradual to meditate while they sing it.
I don't know, the NOM with the readings feel a bit fake to me. I don't know how else to explain it but to speculate its a proportion thing.

That's also a valid observation. Now, the OT is usually chosen thematically to correspond with the Gospel, but the Epistle is usually very random, and follows it's own sequence independent of that. I usually have to choose to ignore one or the other.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)