GIA is the sole American agent for the Psalm translation originally produced by The Grail in England. A special feature of this psalm translation is the roughly even number of major pulses per line, aka “sprung meter”.

The original 1963 version of that translation is the psalm translation used in the current English translation of the Liturgy of the Hours. For that reason, it has always enjoyed at least an “implicit” approval for use in responsorial psalms at Mass, because it’s nonsensical to approve a translation for one part of the liturgy but to forbid it for another.

The 1963 version of the translation predates issues of gender neutering. Psalm 1 is “Happy the man...”, etc. Later versions incorporated it, but they haven’t gained approval.

The “1987, 1998” refers to editions of the Grail/Gelineau Lectionary Psalter, which GIA publishes.

Using the Gelineau psalms is not adding to or changing the liturgy. GIRM 61 permts the use of other approved collections of psalms:

In the dioceses of the United States of America, the following may also be sung in place of the
Psalm assigned in the Lectionary for Mass: either the proper or seasonal antiphon and Psalm
from the Lectionary, as found either in the Roman Gradual or Simple Gradual or in another
musical setting; or an antiphon and Psalm from another collection of the psalms and antiphons,
including psalms arranged in metrical form, providing that they have been approved by the
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop. Songs or hymns may not
be used in place of the responsorial Psalm.

Dear Jules,

Looking at it another way, there is no way GIA could not get in trouble if they issued a collection of “Lectionary psalms” that was not, in fact, licit for use for that purpose.

Notice that nothing in any Gather edition tells you to use, say, “Shepherd Me, O God” as the responsorial psalm at Mass. The Grail/Gelineau psalter is explicitly intended for use for that purpose.

I’m normally as picky as anyone, but here is one case where I am willing to concede “implicit” approval. Douay-Rheims is not approved for any liturgical use, but Grail 1963 is.

Also, Jules, there are at least two additional collections approved by the U.S. Bishops for use as resp. psalms: Psallite, and By Flowing Waters.

My guess is that no one has explicitly condoned Grail 1963 for resp. psalms at Mass.

I am content that, were the bishops opposed to their use for this purpose, GIA wouldn’t publish them in that way.

The kind of consistency and uniformity that many of us know and expect from using computers doesn’t seem to be a strong suit of the USCCB in recent years. The current Lectionary is replete with errors, and even a recent document like “Sing to the Lord” openly contradicts itself.

"Looking at it another way, there is no way GIA could not get in trouble if they issued a collection of 'Lectionary psalms' that was not, in fact, licit for use for that purpose."

I don't think that follows at all.
They have, or at least had, no trouble at all publishing MASSES whose texts are not licit, numerous "psalms" in their psalters use texts credited to and copyrighted by individuals (and that individual is not King David...)

Save the Liturgy, Save the World

The instruction I quoted from the GIRM does not say a psalm must be "approved for use at Mass," only that it must be from an approved collection. Some flexibilty is given here for the singing of psalms. For one, on most days we do not have a choice of readings, but we always have at least two choices (often several more) for a psalm text: the psalm from the Lectionary, the gradual from the Roman Gradual, the common psalm from the SImple Gradual, or a seasonal psalm from the Lectionary. There is also the option of a metrical paraphrase of these psalms. Now, a metrical version is never going to be as close to the original text as a literal word for word translation. Notice these are all provision for singing the psalm, not reciting them. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we can read a hymn version of a psalm during the Liturgy of the Word. But when it comes to singing, I don't think we need to look for implicit permission here. We are already given explicit permission to use psalms from an approved collection, and authority to give such approval is granted not just to the conference of bishops but to the diocesan bishop.

This may be of interest, (or indeed, may already have been mentioned here and I missed it.)
http://adoremus.org/1193-BishopMeetingReport.html

"FOLLOWING IS A TRANSCRIPTION of audio and videotapes of the U. S. bishops' debate on liturgical revisions recorded at the November 1993 meeting of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops [NCCB] in Washington, D.C. The bishops' discussion concerning the proposed liturgical revisions, and was by far the most lengthy and intense - and surely the most important - during the four-day meeting. The entire NCCB meeting was telecast live by EWTN.

The sessions transcribed took place on Monday, November 15, and Wednesday, November 17. On Monday, the bishops considered procedures for approving the first segment of the revised Roman Missal (Sacramentary) presented by the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy [BCL] and prepared by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy [ICEL]; and they opened debate on the Grail Psalter, Inclusive Language Version (by the Ladies of the Grail, England).

The debate continued on Wednesday, November 17. The bishops agreed on a nine-point procedure which will involve review of the ICEL texts by the Doctrine Committee before they are represented to the bishops by the BCL for vote. Although the new Grail Psalter had already been granted an imprimatur by Archbishop Keeler on the advice of the Administrative Committee, and was used for prayer at this NCCB meeting, it was rejected for liturgical use by the bishops after an absentee ballot failed to secure the necessary two-thirds majority required.

The debate on the revisions will resume at the June 1994 meeting of the NCCB, where the bishops will review ICEL's theories and principles used in re-translating and revising liturgical texts, including the doctrinal import of so-called "inclusive language". The June meeting will be closed to the press. Such discussions will recur for several years, not only in the United States, but also in the eleven other English-speaking countries, as ICEL proceeds with its extensive revision of all liturgical texts. (ICEL's annual budget is about $700,000.)

[Women for Faith & Family’s] transcription of the NCCB’s debate on the liturgical texts has been prepared as a service to our bishops, and to those who wish to learn more about the challenges and problems with which our bishops are confronted in the matter of liturgical translations. As concern and confusion about new translations and revisions continues to intensify, readers will be encouraged by the often eloquent and edifying defenses of Catholic liturgical tradition recorded here.

Minimal editorial notes (in brackets) provide clarification and identify the bishops, listing the principal Conference committees on which they serve, if any. These identifications were current in November, but do not reflect all changes since then (e-g. Bishop Wilton Gregory was succeeded as Chairman of the BCL by Bishop Donald Trautman, and Archbishop John Quinn was elected chairman of the Bishops' Committee on Doctrine). Inaudible words are indicated by ellipses or brackets. Otherwise, the text is unedited, and appears just as spoken by the bishops. "
More at the link...

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

Dear Incantu,

You know what?

I think I am a complete idiot.

You are absolutely right. I overlooked something major (in bold below):

In the dioceses of the United States of America, the following may also be sung in place of the
Psalm assigned in the Lectionary for Mass: either the proper or seasonal antiphon and Psalm
from the Lectionary, as found either in the Roman Gradual or Simple Gradual or in another
musical setting; or an antiphon and Psalm from another collection of the psalms and antiphons,
including psalms arranged in metrical form, providing that they have been approved by the
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop .

To my knowledge, the 1963 Grail psalter is still amongst those approved for the Liturgy. It is the 1993 "revised" Grail psalter, which employs so-called 'inclusive language", that is proscribed.

I don't have a direct statement from the Bishops Conference offhand, but this article on the issue of psalm translations (from the lay organization "Adoremus")
http://www.adoremus.org/1108Psalter.html
says that the Bishops Committee for the Liturgy rejected that version for liturgical use in November 1993.

However, it had already been approved for reading, and that permission remains in place.

Incidentally, such a psalm setting could be used at Mass, but not in place of a responsorial psalm. Whether it's a good idea to use it at some other time, e.g., as a communion song, is another matter.

There's a lot of leeway with psalms because of all the reasons discussed in this whole thread.

Also, even if you were to make a cohesive case that the cathedral music director's translation is not allowable, there's always that troublesome line "providing that they have been approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop."

So ... the music director could probably just walk over to the bishop's office, show him the psalm he intends to use, and say "Bishop, is it ok to use this for First Communion?"

By Flowing Waters can be used under "et alius cantus aptus." It's closer to the mark than just singing random hymns.

I favour chanting respobsorial psalms to offuce psalm tones. That way, it is easy to different translations without changing the music.

At the end of the day I just want the music and words to use at mass so I can get on with the job of being a church musician.

I would not consider that the permission for Coverdale in Anglican Use parishes is enough to make it a permitted option for Roman rite use generally. I'm assuming that the episcopal conference never gave it the same general approval for liturgical use that the current Lectionary, or the 1963 Grail, or the RGP got. (Or the Jerusalem Bible and the old RSV, back in the day.)

No DR, no Cov'dale, no KJV neither.
No Latin (no ruling: no need, no desire).
No worship? - no wonder. No wonder to speak of.
No lexical love, no linguistical fire.