The "Never-Mentioned" Psalms

  • Thread starter Thread starter Errham
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Errham

Guest
For those of you who don’t know the background: The Catholic liturgical psalter numbers 147, not 150 psalms. 3 psalms are missing entirely, and an additional 59 verses from 15 other psalms are also make missing. The explanation, is that the liturgical reformers of Vatican II found them to be too “damning” and therefore unsuitable for liturgical use.

My question is, why? Aren’t psalms the inspired word of God? Aren’t the psalms supposed to the best model of prayer that we have (besides the Our Father, obviously)? So why wouldn’t they be fitting for liturgical use? And does anyone here agree with this decision, or is it somewhat unpopular?
 
Errham said:
For those of you who don’t know the background: The Catholic liturgical psalter numbers 147, not 150 psalms. 3 psalms are missing entirely, and an additional 59 verses from 15 other psalms are also make missing. The explanation, is that the liturgical reformers of Vatican II found them to be too “damning” and therefore unsuitable for liturgical use.

My question is, why? Aren’t psalms the inspired word of God? Aren’t the psalms supposed to the best model of prayer that we have (besides the Our Father, obviously)? So why wouldn’t they be fitting for liturgical use? And does anyone here agree with this decision, or is it somewhat unpopular?
Click to expand...
Do you know which Psalms have been left out?
 
Errham said:
The explanation, is that the liturgical reformers of Vatican II found them to be too “damning” and therefore unsuitable for liturgical use.
Click to expand...
And your source for this is . . .?
 
pianistclare said:
Might want to look at this:
jimmyakin.com/2012/06/why-are-the-psalms-numbered-differently.html
Click to expand...
That is not at all what the topic of this thread is about. We’re talking about the imprecatory psalms altogether omitted from liturgy in post-conciliar reforms.

“Three psalms (58, 83, and 109) have been omitted from the psalter cycle because of their curses; in the same way, some verses have been omitted from certain psalms, as noted at the head of each. The reason for the omission is a certain psychological difficulty, even though the psalms of imprecation are in fact used as prayer in the New Testament, for example, Rv 6:10, and in no sense to encourage the use of curses.”
 
Elizium23 said:
That is not at all what the topic of this thread is about. We’re talking about the imprecatory psalms altogether omitted from liturgy in post-conciliar reforms.

“Three psalms (58, 83, and 109) have been omitted from the psalter cycle because of their curses; in the same way, some verses have been omitted from certain psalms, as noted at the head of each. The reason for the omission is a certain psychological difficulty, even though the psalms of imprecation are in fact used as prayer in the New Testament, for example, Rv 6:10, and in no sense to encourage the use of curses.”
Click to expand...
If you’re speaking of the use of Psalms at mass… Most of the Psalms that are used at mass are used in a shortened version – some verses are omitted, more for the length of them than for the content. My favorite Psalm is Psalm 73, and only a tiny bit of it is used in the mass.

If you’re speaking of the Divine Office or the Liturgy of the Hours… Yes, some verses have been omitted. When I was in the monastery, those verses were still in our books, but they were in parentheses. We could see them, but we didn’t sing them as a community. And yes, it was because they were the cursing verses.

I never saw a problem with it 🤷 We were there to praise God and intercede for the world. We weren’t there to curse our enemies.

Gertie
 
How about, they have been used in liturgy and prayer for several millennia, and only in the past fifty years have the faithful been deemed too fragile to understand the deep meanings behind these Psalms?
 
agnes_therese said:
And your source for this is . . .?
Click to expand...
An excellent resource for understanding how the Liturgy of the Hours came about is “From Breviary to Liturgy of the Hours” by Stanislaus Campbell.

According to that source the removal of the imprecatory psalms and verses was done at the insistence of Pope Paul VI.

It is not clear who originated the actual idea, but the Pope’s views on the matter couldn’t have been clearer:
The Pope desires that there be omitted from the ordinary cycle of the psalter in their entirety the “imprecatory” psalms, namely psalms 57, 82 and 108, and those parts [of psalms] which had been proposed as optional were to be included in parentheses. The psalms, however, which are called “historical” may be kept for certain special times
Click to expand...
(“From Breviary to Liturgy of the Hours”, Liturgical Press, Collegeville MN 1995, p. 71; translation of a letter from Cardinal Gut).
Michael_Mayo said:
Psalm 137:9 “dashing children against rocks” is probably one of them
Click to expand...
Only the imprecatory verses have been left out of this otherwise beautiful psalm. In the Liturgy of the Hours it is sung at Vespers on Tuesdays of the 4th week of the psalter (i.e. tomorrow).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top