Psalm 104 for Pentecost Sunday in the Lectionary
  • CatholicZ09
    Posts: 329
    When I was the cantor this past weekend, I felt that Psalm 104’s verses seemed out of order.

    Bless the LORD, O my soul!
    O LORD, my God, you are great indeed!
    How manifold are your works, O LORD!
    the earth is full of your creatures;

    May the glory of the LORD endure forever;
    may the LORD be glad in his works!
    Pleasing to him be my theme;
    I will be glad in the LORD.

    If you take away their breath, they perish
    and return to their dust.
    When you send forth your spirit, they are created,
    and you renew the face of the earth.


    Seems that verse two should be the final verse. I went to the actual psalm in the Bible, and yup, it should be. It’s interesting that the Lectionary has it notated in the correct order, but clearly it’s not laid out as such. UGH.

    I know this is not a stunning revelation, but these types of mistakes just irk me in a liturgical publication. I hope the new Lectionary fixes this issue. We also have the Franken-psalm this year on the 18th Sunday where the antiphon is from Psalm 95 and the verses from 90. Sigh.
  • drforjc
    Posts: 39
    My hand missal had it laid out correctly and it took my by surprise when the "music ministry" jumped right to the final verse.
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,464
    What publisher/edition of the Lectionary do you use? I imagine they should offer a free copy of a corrected edition by now . At a minimum, someone should print out a corrected page (in similar size and style) and insert it into the erroneous edition.
  • CatholicZ09
    Posts: 329
    Wait! I was wrong - USCCB’s website has it laid out incorrectly! https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/060825-Day.cfm

    I wonder if it’s like that in the actual hard-copy Lectionary?
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,464
    Respond & Acclaim had it right at least 3 years ago (I have a pdf of the 2022 edition, shhhh), and my other sources have it correct.
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,464
    I sent a message to the USCCB about it, for what good that might do....
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,627
    for what good that might do >>
    Well looking at the link to the USCCB website now ¡it appears to be corrected!
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,212
    We also have the Franken-psalm this year on the 18th Sunday where the antiphon is from Psalm 95 and the verses from 90. Sigh.


    Given the constructed nature of the NO, fixing an obvious mistake seems right to me. Either use the GS psalm options (perfectly licit) or swap the psalm and people will have to deal with it. (I think that most won’t notice or care.)
    Thanked by 1Liam
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,464
    AFH

    Not corrected as far as I can see it yet. https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/060825-Day.cfm
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 1,076
    There are other errors in the US Lectionary, as listed inter alia at this page.
    Thanked by 3Liam smvanroode ServiamScores
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,212
    The Hebrews change in the 1998 lectionary is weird because the 2011 missal includes Paul as the author, and the chant formula says blessed in the text.
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 1,089
    The Hebrews change in the 1998 lectionary is weird because the 2011 missal includes Paul as the author, and the chant formula says blessed in the text.


    Indeed, The Roman Missal has ‘A reading from the Letter of the blessed Apostle Paul to the Hebrews’ on page 1431. However, the change in the 1998 Lectionary isn’t weird, as the Latin editio typica has ‘Epistola ad Hebræos’ in the 1982 Ordo Lectionum Missæ, page LIII, and the 2008 Missale Romanum doesn’t give it as a worked out example of the epistle tone. The 1998 Lectionary was corrected in the right way.

    So, it is the change in The Roman Missal that is weird, and probably an error that slipped through. Given the layout, I can sympathize with the proofreaders. In general, it is accepted that Paul didn’t author the letter to the Hebrews.
    Thanked by 1Roborgelmeister
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,212
    Yes well,Paul wrote Hebrews per the tradition. I do not care what a discipline stuffed with practical atheists says about anything.

    And there shouldn’t have been such a mistake but there you go. Once again, changing the whole liturgy was a mistake.
  • CantorCole
    Posts: 83
    @MatthewRoth

    Many church fathers thought it was someone other than Paul. It wasn't a set and commanding tradition as are other books.
    Thanked by 4Andrew_Malton smvanroode Liam Roborgelmeister
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,212
    Luckily the liturgy said that it was this way, and of course the underlying point is we clown ourselves when we make these changes based on the whims of scholars and that creating a whole liturgy from scratch is bound to produce all sorts of stupid errors that put intro relief the fact that it’s based on scholarly fads.
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,403
    Get off it. These are not "whims" of scholars.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,212
    The entire NO is based on scholarly whims. Get off it.
    Thanked by 1davido
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,464
    Btw, I did receive a response from the USCCB, acknowledging differences in the published editions of the Lectionary and that the USCCB posts the version most likely to match what the faithful will encounter in parishes.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,212
    Lame. They should publish it acknowledging the error.
    Thanked by 2ServiamScores davido
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,464
    I agree 100%.
    Thanked by 3ServiamScores davido MatthewRoth
  • Diapason84
    Posts: 140
    .
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,212
    I'm not sure that Bouyer ever made those claims, although others did, only to be embarrassed within a decade.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,627
    It's clear that Bouyer did not accept the 'Hippolytan' theory. Thus Bouyer (1966) in EUCHARIST, THEOLOGY AND SPIRITUALITY OF THE EUCHARISTIC PRAYER
    LOUIS BOUYER Translated, by CHARLES UNDERHILL QUINN
    the intrinsic reasons that are present for so thinking—...—are so flimsy, not to say non-existent, that it seems that this alone ought to be enough to dispel the curious illusion to which the majority of modern scholars have succumbed
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 3,181
    Next week for Peter and Paul we have an error too. The refrain is v8, not 5, as indicated on the usccb website. To make matters more confusing, the Latin incipit in one of my hand missals gives v5 (a completely different text), even though that is not the English antiphon. Whether the error is the citation, or the antiphon, I don’t know. The error is also mimicked in the lectionary.
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 1,089
    According to the Ordo Lectionum Missæ, the refrain ad missam in die is Psalm 34(33),5: ‘Ex omnibus terroribus meis eripuit me Dominus.’

    ‘The angel of the Lord will rescue those who fear him’ is indeed verse 8, not 5.
  • GerardH
    Posts: 620
    FWIW where I am, the response is 'The Lord set me free from all my fears.'
Add a Comment