Omission of Psalms
#11
(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.

Here's an interesting article by a priest that shows that the NO actually has a lot  more Sunday readings about wrath, judgment, and damnation than the TLM. He places most of the blame then, not on the lectionary, but on homiletic bias (and to a lesser extent, the "softening" of some propers).
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt116.html

Reply
#12
The omissions of the cursing Psalms is absolutely ridiculous.  It is actually a part of the documents of Vatican II not some softening made up by liturgists after and in the name of the Council.  As I see it, Jesus prayed those psalms as well and felt them as well.  Because the Psalms are full expressions of the human experience where we are happy, sad, and yes angry, that I am sure Our Lord experienced. 

The lectionary, I have a little less objection to, the problem i have with it is two fold.  First, more isn't better.  Not all scripture should be read from the lector stand, some are better illustrated, some are better reenacted.  I would like to think that the illiterate peasant knew more of the Bible than the modern Church goers does, because the biblical world was ingrained through all the media employed back then.  Not all pages of scripture of equal worth in a certain sense, Moses and other redactors didn't consider Shamgar as important as Ehud or Samson in the Book of Judges which is why we get just a blurp for Shamgar.  I think when it comes to reading we need to hit them with the take home messages to families of what the Faith is, because if you get the basics right, then everything else should fall into place.  I find it is part of the effort to compartmentalize the Faith, where we need to fit everything related to God for just one hour a week.
Reply
#13
(07-31-2015, 09:09 PM)AntoniusMaximus Wrote: The omissions of the cursing Psalms is absolutely ridiculous.  It is actually a part of the documents of Vatican II not some softening made up by liturgists after and in the name of the Council.  As I see it, Jesus prayed those psalms as well and felt them as well.  Because the Psalms are full expressions of the human experience where we are happy, sad, and yes angry, that I am sure Our Lord experienced. 

The lectionary, I have a little less objection to, the problem i have with it is two fold.  First, more isn't better.  Not all scripture should be read from the lector stand, some are better illustrated, some are better reenacted.  I would like to think that the illiterate peasant knew more of the Bible than the modern Church goers does, because the biblical world was ingrained through all the media employed back then.  Not all pages of scripture of equal worth in a certain sense, Moses and other redactors didn't consider Shamgar as important as Ehud or Samson in the Book of Judges which is why we get just a blurp for Shamgar.  I think when it comes to reading we need to hit them with the take home messages to families of what the Faith is, because if you get the basics right, then everything else should fall into place.  I find it is part of the effort to compartmentalize the Faith, where we need to fit everything related to God for just one hour a week.

The bold part is for real, these psalms and parts of psalms that have been omitted and or truncated are actually sanctioned by the official document explaining the Liturgy of the Hours. For " pastoral reasons" prayers faithful Jews and Christians had been offering up for probably 3000 years were deemed too offensive for modern sensibilities.

I can't say it's heretical to do this but it's rash and shows very little respect for venerable Tradition.
Reply
#14
(07-29-2015, 10:13 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: 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.

I guess it depends on whether you consider three to be a "bunch."
Reply
#15
(08-01-2015, 04:59 PM)agnes therese Wrote:
(07-29-2015, 10:13 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: 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.

I guess it depends on whether you consider three to be a "bunch."

Well, three were completely banned. Three others were exiled to Advent, Christmastide, Lent, and Eastertide, and a bunch of verses from 19 others were tailored out. All these cuts with the same pattern, to exclude one aspect of the faith. Again, what is called to choose one aspect of the faith in detriment of another?

But if you think its all fine I guess that's no surprise--NO land was designed that way :P
Reply
#16
Even the omission of one psalm would be too much. The psalms are no less the word of God than any other book in the Bible. In a way omitting psalms as offensive is passing judgment on God Himself. I don't know, as someone who has prayed the whole psalter weekly for several years now I find it offensive that the Church herself would, in the name of political correctness and " pastoral sensitivity", omit even a single verse from any of them.

These psalms were good enough for thousands of years worth of our ancestors in the Faith, why are they not good enough for us?
Reply
#17
Amen, fb!
Reply
#18
It all boils down to the "poor dears" mentality that has gripped the Church for a long time. The "poor dears" in the pew are too stupid to be taught, so let's minimize difficulty. It's why "pro multis" was mistranslated for years, it's why Bp. Trautman was opposed to the word "ineffable," etc., etc. Regarding the lectionary, there are many problems, most of them practical rather than inherent. The biggest is that with the three-year Sunday and two-year Weekday cycles, you really have an overall six-year cycle. As was mentioned, the Sunday Epistle rarely has a connection with the OT and Gospel except by happenstance. Portions of the readings are often marked in brackets, which may freely be omitted at the discretion of the celebrant. These and others are in addition to the inherent problem, the break with the bi-millennial tradition of all the Rites of the Church to use an annual lectionary. Humans mark the passage of a year almost naturally - it is a felt cycle. Interlocking three- and two-year cycles are not.

I think formerbuddhist and others have said it well regarding the psalter. My own thought is either pray the integral psalter, or don't pretend that you are. There is no reason to stretch out the psalter over four weeks if you're not going to pray the whole thing. It would be better to assign fixed psalms appropriate to each unvarying hour - much like the Little Office or the Coptic Agpeya. It could then be basically memorized over time.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)