Deleted Psalms in the new Liturgy of the Hours

  • Thread starter Thread starter RomanoAmerio
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RomanoAmerio

Guest
The General Instruction for the revised (post - Vatican II) Liturgy of the Hours omits Psalms 58, 83 and 109 (57, 82 and 108 in the old numbering) for “psychological difficulties”.

What are your thoughts on this?

I find it quite strange, especially since Ps. 109 is quoted in the New Testament by St. Peter (Acts 1) to refer to Judas.
 
It was clearly the will of the Holy Father Paul VI according to the historical record. That is my thought.

If it’s an issue for some people, the monastic breviary including the post-conciliar versions, do include them. They can be used or omitted ad libitum in the monastic schemas.
 
The calls for the destruction of one’s enemies in those psalms, though certainly justified, seems contrary to Jesus’ teaching, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…” (Matthew 5:43-44a)
 
RomanoAmerio said:
The General Instruction for the revised (post - Vatican II) Liturgy of the Hours omits Psalms 58, 83 and 109 (57, 82 and 108 in the old numbering) for “psychological difficulties”.

What are your thoughts on this?

I find it quite strange, especially since Ps. 109 is quoted in the New Testament by St. Peter (Acts 1) to refer to Judas.
Click to expand...
While debating the structure of the new Liturgy of the Hours, some members of the Consilium for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy (Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia) drew attention to certain so-called imprecatory psalms1 that contained material they deemed problematic for the modern person of prayer, describing the passages as “offensive to modern sensibilities”2 and arguing that the “spiritual discomfort caused by expressions of anger and revenge . . . is felt especially by the younger people and by those who say the Office in the vernacular.”3 After a great deal of debate about whether these concerns justified the removal of certain psalms from the Liturgy of the Hours,4 Pope Paul VI decreed that “a selection be made of psalms better suited to Christian prayer and that the imprecatory and historical psalms be omitted,” without further [End Page 23] specification.5 To this end, 120 verses were omitted from the Liturgy of the Hours text,6 comprising three whole psalms and additional verses from nineteen others.7

Rediscovering the Imprecatory Psalms: A Thomistic Approach by Gabriel Torretta O.P.
From: The Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review Volume 80, Number 1, January 2016 pp. 23-48 | 10.1353/tho.2016.0001
 
Todd977 said:
The calls for the destruction of one’s enemies in those psalms, though certainly justified, seems contrary to Jesus’ teaching, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…” (Matthew 5:43-44a)
Click to expand...
Yeah, they’re all rather uncharitable psalms. I’d sooner not be praying them as part of my LIturgy of the Hours.
 
This is a nice, one might say heroic, effort to defend these Psalms, but I get a little tired of having to bend over backwards to explain parts of the OT that seem to be extremely inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ. The OT seems to have as its foremost concern the struggle of the Chosen People to survive all kinds of hardships while at the same time asking God why they get so many problems and asking him to destroy their enemies, or being glad when He does destroy their enemies. I can totally understand how for people with this kind of mindset, having Jesus killed would probably fit right in. I’m not blaming them for thinking this way; when you’re struggling to survive and keep your culture from dying out it’s a pretty natural, human way to think, but I have difficulty relating to much of it today, even spiritually.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Yeah, they’re all rather uncharitable psalms. I’d sooner not be praying them as part of my LIturgy of the Hours.
Click to expand...
Paul VI, wanting to make the LOTH more freely available to the laity, no doubt had this in the back of his mind. A great book, “From Breviary to Liturgy of the Hours” by Stanislaus Campbell, explains the whole process that went into making the LOTH, and the Holy Father’s thinking on these psalms. In brief he was quite firm that the psalms, and troubling verses in some other psalms, be omitted.

As it is the pope’s prerogative and under his authority to regulate the liturgy, it truly becomes a case of Roma locuta est, causa finita est.

FWIW, the monastic breviary I use includes them but marks them as omitted in the Liturgy of the Hours, and for other psalms pulls out the imprecatory verses and puts them in footnotes. Some communities omit them, the abbey I’m associated with does pray them on the grounds that they were legitimate prayers to God and represent very human sentiments under trying circumstances. As one oblate brother says, “better to offer up our anger as prayer than acting on it!”
 
There are different recollections of the whole process that went into the decision to cut not only three entire psalms, but many verses from others. Bugnini credits the whole decision to Paul VI’s express wish/will/idea; Bouyer credits it to Bugnini. According to Bouyer, Bugnini would regularly dismiss all question and criticism of his views with the declaration, “the pope wants it” - and on at least one occasion, Bouyer reports that his own discussion with the pope revealed that this was simply false.

The psalms in question were in the Roman Office since the Roman Office started. The idea that suddenly in 1970 they were somehow no longer appropriate for the Office…well, some people will be just fine with that idea, and others will not. But as for the historical record…it is quite unclear whose idea it was. Certainly Paul VI approved the Liturgia Horarum…that is not to say that he read everything in it in detail before he approved. After all, he also approved the first edition of the Fourth Eucharistic Prayer, which contained the Arian heresy until someone else lower in the hierarchical food chain caught the error.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
I get a little tired of having to bend over backwards to explain parts of the OT that seem to be extremely inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
I’m glad you included the phrase “seem to” as a qualifier. The OT is not inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus. One thing that I find helpful is to have a commentary available that emphasizes how various Scriptures are to be interpreted as a Catholic. The commentary in the New American Bible seems to be very heavily focused on the literal meaning of a text in light of textual criticism, which is fine and I’m not saying that’s bad, but it doesn’t offer the same perspective as some older Catholic commentaries. For example, consider this commentary by Bishop Challoner (from the 1700s) on Psalm 109, one of the imprecatory Psalms: " ‘Psalm 109:6. Set thou the sinner over him: and may the devil stand at his right hand.’ Set thou the sinner over him, etc… Give to the devil, that arch-sinner, power over him: let him enter into him, and possess him. The imprecations, contained in the thirty verses of this psalm, are opposed to the thirty pieces of silver for which Judas betrayed our Lord; and are to be taken as prophetic denunciations of the evils that should befall [Judas] and his accomplices the Jews; and not properly as curses."

Notice that this provides a literal interpretation of the verse that is not inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus. Jesus sometimes prophetically announced the bad things that would happen to wicked men: “woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” (Matt. 26:25) “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.” (Matt. 21:31) We can do the same thing, if we can be sure that the imprecation we pray for is God’s will; and in the Psalms, the imprecations are surely God’s will, because they are God’s Word. So, from a literal perspective, these Psalms are very compatible with Christ’s teaching.

But also, the Challoner commentary recognizes that the Bible is going to be used by some people for devotional reading, not just for historical research (which is what the New American Bible commentary seems to be focused on, not that that’s a bad thing). To facilitate this more devotional usage, the good bishop provided a spiritually relevant way to apply the imprecatory psalms. For example: “Psalm 137:9. ‘Blessed be he that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock.’ Dash thy little ones, etc… In the spiritual sense, we dash the little ones of Babylon against the rock, when we mortify our passions, and stifle the first motions of them, by a speedy recourse to the rock which is Christ.”

In my opinion, this commentary is much more useful (for devotional purposes, as well as, in some cases, for discovering the literal meaning of a passage in light of the principle of non-contradiction) than the New American Bible commentary. I wish it was more well known.
 
“In an autograph note given to Fr. Bugnini on January 3, he (Pope Paul VI) said: 'In my view it is preferable that a selection be made of psalms better suited to Christian prayer and that the imprecatory and historical psalms be omitted (though these last may be suitably used in certain circumstances”. (From Breviary to Liturgy of the Hours, by Stanislaus Campbell).

We can argue about whether the Holy Father’s arm was twisted or not by Fr. Bugnini who also shared this preference, but his stated preference is on the record.

Prior to 1970, the Roman Office was the province of the secular clergy. The laity were not encouraged to pray it, and the only exposure to it, for the main part, was through the celebration of Vespers on Sundays and major feasts. Vespers would have been in Latin with only one imprecatory verse (Ps. 109, verse 6). Or similarly when going on retreats in religious communities where, again, the Office, in the case of monastics the monastic Office, would be prayed entirely in Latin. The three omitted psalms incidentally, are prayed at Matins in the Monastic office, which most laity would not be attending anyway.

Now as the General Instruction of the LOTH make clear, the laity are encourage to participate in public prayer of the Office, and even pray all or part of it privately. This has opened up the rich beauty of the psalms to the laity. In the past, at Mass they would get a couple of individual verses in the Propers, and would not have recited the entire breviary, being generally limited to one of the Little Offices of the BVM for instance, or the Rosary. Moreover the LOTH is available to the laity in the vernacular. So the desire to omit these psalms has some degree of logic, giving the laity difficult psalms/verses to pray without properly preparing them. The liturgy is not the place to find lengthy commentaries about the psalms. The LOTH is a set of prayer books, above all.

Personally I think making the imprecatory psalms/verses optional, as is the case in the monastic breviary I use, is the best option. As the faithful grow in appreciation of these psalms they can be introduced in their observance of the liturgy.

But since nobody elected me pope, I will gladly accept the gift that the Church has given me and other laymen and women, the Liturgy of the Hours as it now stands, which I pray daily in its entirety (more usually these days, one of its monastic variants as used at the abbey to which I’m attached as a Benedictine Oblate).

We could argue all day whether Paul VI really wanted, or not, that they be in the LOTH, he promulgated the new breviary without them, and is now the official liturgical prayer of the Church outside the Mass.
 
Last edited:
Actually, there was plenty of encouragement for the laity to pray the Office before 1970.

As for the mention of Sunday Vespers…despite Vatican II’s insistence on the point (one of the few specifics of SC)…there are far fewer Sunday Vespers celebrations today than there were before the Council.

Lastly, the official prayer of the Church outside the Mass also includes the 1962 BR. The Roman Rite has 2 forms, not 1.
 
Could you cite where there was encouragement for the laity to pray the Roman Breviary before the Council? I have never seen any other than in 3d orders or oblates.

As to your second point, I don’t think it has anything to do with the current form of the LOTH. Our schola does publicly lead the chanting of Vespers a few times per year (and also Lauds on Holy Saturday), but as you note it’s rare. I don’t attribute that to the LOTH, but to a combination of a loss of devotions, but also a reduction in the number of priests who are already stretched to the limit.

Third point: I am fully aware about the 1962 breviary but the Forma Ordinaria is the LOTH, the one used by the vast majority of laity and secular clergy.

As I mentioned to the extent possible I follow a post-conciliar monastic cursus (150 psalms per week), but use the LOTH when time is an issue. So too is the 1962 breviary of the same length, and I find that to be a challenge to follow, especially for working folks with families.
 
I do agree that the NAB commentary is historically focused, that others like Challoner are better for devotional purposes, and that we can indeed find a meaning in just about any OT portion that relates to the teachings of Jesus, though it might require a bit of thought.

The fact remains, however, that even if you seek out Challoner or other commentaries that are better for devotional use, a significant portion (not all) of the OT is violent, vengeful, insular, etc. Given the historical context, this is understandable. And perhaps my inability to appreciate these parts fully is my own failure. But reading these parts invariably makes me very happy Jesus showed up and brought a new covenant with Him.
 
Last edited:
I dug this up concerning whether the laity were encouraged (or not) to pray the Divine Office before the reforms that led to the Liturgy of the Hours:

Pope Pius XII’s 1947 encyclical, Mediator Dei, says, “The divine office is the prayer of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, offered to God in the name and on behalf of all Christians, when recited by priests and other ministers of the Church and by religious who are deputed by the Church for this”
 
“Necessary”? Amazing how quickly this sort of thing turns into a question of “necessity.”

Those three psalms (and the other verses in question) = the inspired Word of God.

It certainly wasn’t “necessary” to delete them from the Liturgia Horarum.
 
OraLabora said:
I dug this up concerning whether the laity were encouraged (or not) to pray the Divine Office before the reforms that led to the Liturgy of the Hours
Click to expand...
That’s a great quote, but it doesn’t say whether the laity were encouraged to pray the Divine Office or not.
 
Do you have something that shows that the laity were encouraged to pray the Divine Office before the Council?
 
Vadne said:
It certainly wasn’t “necessary” to delete them from the Liturgia Horarum.
Click to expand...
Nor were they, from the Monastic schemas. I still pray them weekly as I use, much of the time, a monastic schema (schema B, entire psalter in 1 week), that the abbey I’m associated with as oblate also uses.

When I pray the LOTH at busier times, I use a 2-week schema for the Office of Readings which I pray as Vigils (as recommended in the General Instructions of the Monastic Liturgy of the Hours, for Benedictines who pray the LOTH). I do it by combining weeks I and III (first and second nocturnes) and weeks II and IV (first and second nocturnes). On Thursdays of weeks II and IV, Psalm 43 is used for both. So for the second nocturne, I replace psalm 43 (so it’s not repeated in the same Office) with Psalms 57 and 82 on Week II, and Psalm 108 on Week III.
 
Where can I get the schema for the Office of Readings, especially the Monastic LoTH?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top