We kneel to pray.
We sit to listen.
We stand to sing.

GIRM 43 is admirably ambiguous:

The faithful should sit, on the other hand, during the readings before the Gospel and the Responsorial Psalm...

... obviously one should therefore stand after the OT lesson, or "reading before the Responsorial Psalm", and sit again for the Epistle.

We stand. We're in the loft, and can't be seen, and it unequivocally improves the sound of all members, except the most trained who know how to handle the different body positions.

The spell-checkers aren't always up to speed on church vocabulary.

I think CHG's rule isn't complete.

We stand for collective liturgical prayer;
we kneel to reverence the Eucharist;
we kneel for devotional prayer;
we sit to listen (but pews are a post-Renaissance innovation, so before then we stood).

Emmm, does a responsorial psalm not just have a response, rather than a 'responsory'?

Dictionary definition of responsorial
(Of a psalm or liturgical chant) recited in parts with a congregational response between each part.

What with no less than five topic threads examining aspects of executing the responsorial psalm/gradual, I wonder if we've saturated the topic to myopia and "can't see the forest for the trees" complexity.
Whether one read Eugene Walsh or Alcuin Reid in one's formation, what is abundantly, obviously clear is that this event in the Liturgy of the Word is supposed to be, among all things, truly dialogic. It is essentially a subset of the larger dialogue between the Divine and our offices that is the Sacrifice of the Mass.
I had the occasion of accompanying the funeral service of a wonderful, Christ-filled 12 year old young lady last evening. Toward the end of the service (conducted by Lutheran pastors) the large congregation was invited to recite Ps22/23 tutti, and I felt a stark contrast with this corporate approach. Though all were "praying" in the declamation of this incredible psalm, something about this method didn't feel right to me.
On the other hand, can't we all remember at least one occcasion where a homilist at Mass while orating scriptural exegesis incorporated the "Respond" as the focal point. And in one's mind that was a key summation of the whole responsorial/dialogic nature? "The Lord is kind and merciful." "Oh, yes! I get it now."
That is what seems paramount a concern to me. Not whether we stand or sit. Not whether the respond is alternated two versus many times. Not whether the choir functions as the alternated voice in the dialogue to the congregants in alternatim. Not whether it's a gradual or responsorial, vernacular or Latin. And not whether there's a distraction with a gesticulating psalmist at the ambo or "another suitable location." Is there a reputable, dignified and authentic dialogue of God and His people through the majesty of the Psalms?
Wrapping up- that is also why I strenuously argue against seasonal psalm use and the unthinkable reduction of using one psalm throughout the year of Sundays.

BTW, I think we should also be using the terminology found in the GIRM instead of coming up with different terms from the experiences of some of us in other Churches sui iuris or other ecclesial communities. Check out the Latin and English, for instance in GIRM 61:

psalmus responsorius = responsorial psalm
responsum psalmodicum = (the people's) Psalm response

The GIRM does not call the entirety of this liturgical element a "responsory," or what the people sing, a "respond."

MJO,

There was no psalmus responsorius in the Catholic Mass prior to the 1969. And it is hardly "pedestrian" or "outright incorrect" to translate the term psalmus responsorius as "responsorial psalm" in English. So if the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship decided to name this new liturgical element (in Latin, of course) "psalmus responsorius," why can't we leave well enough alone and just have the English be the cognate "responsorial psalm"?

That's really all I'm saying!

Fr. Ron,
Nice to hear from you. All points taken with gratitude. My use of those terms was simply in relation to prior posts as I normally default to responsorial psalm personally. But as sympathetic as I am to the contentions raised by you and in Jackson's response, I think that nomenclature is subserviant to practice, and yes, to me a hindrance towards common sense being applied to practice. Regarding the deconstruction of the Latin dictums, I'm reminded of the uproar and kerfuffle in some quarters about LitAuth/MR3 that insisted the sky will fall. It didn't. Yet we still cannot agree upon what the term "cantus" actually means. And to me, calling that question towards forensic semantics results in an autopsy. Whether OCP calls "Gather us in" an Entrance Chant or Song is of no concern to me.
What is of concern is whether we who lead the sung worship do so in a prepared, fitting and artful manner. Verbs rather than nouns.

Yes, MJO - in fact I have heard it referred to in some works as the Gradual Responsory.

Fr Krisman -

Thanks for the clarification. In fact, my edition of Worship III has the venerable R-with-a-slash-through-it sign before the responsories, which sign is the quite ancient one for 'responsory' or 'response' or 'respond'. (Commendable!)

Brings to mind Tommy Lee Jones as the Great Commoner, Rep Thaddeus Stevens, admonishing a too-pragmatic Lincoln in Lincoln (2012): "Ah, sh*t on the people and what they want and what they're ready for! I don't give a g*ddamn about the people and what they want! This is the face of someone who has fought long and hard for the good of the people without caring much for any of `em. And I look a lot worse without the wig. The people elected me! To represent them! To lead them! And I lead! You ought to try it!"

(After which, Stevens duly caves. For the time being.)

My Melo friend, who wrote:

Toward the end of the service (conducted by Lutheran pastors) the large congregation was invited to recite Ps22/23 tutti, and I felt a stark contrast with this corporate approach. Though all were "praying" in the declamation of this incredible psalm, something about this method didn't feel right to me.

Many non-liturgical protestants have the advantage of a stable KJV translation which they memorized in Sunday school and can recite by heart, which might be further unsettling to Grail-folk. But I would think what wasn't right was the lack of singing. One of the strangest fruits of Christians trying to understand each other's language in the 70's was the appearance of respond settings in the Methodist Hymnal, usually executed with an organ pitch, sung refrain, and spoken verses (pointing was omitted in early printings).

Lutherans generally read and sing, and around here are very proud of knowing the difference between responsive and responsorial, maybe because of the nearby seminary. Psalm texts are given to the congregation in pointed form and sung cantor/choir, all, c, all, &c. unless the congregation is divided antiphonally. This to me seems the true dialogue; I only get a rough approximation of that feeling in a Cath'lic setting if the cantor 'refrains' in the sense usually applied to the hand-sitters.

Oy vey, live by the dictum, die by the dictum, or live by the options, die by the options.
Now I'm reminded by the tedious, tendentious threads over the years about women in the sanctuary, the all male schola in the EF in choir within the sanctuary, who's on first, what's on second, I dunno's on third.....yawn.
Does or does not the choir, whose members include male and female and maybe some "who knows?" homo sapiens, maybe a singing whale and a howling wolf who only sings tri-tones, fulfill an "office" at service to liturgy in the OF? By implication of the above, one would conclude "no, they're just PIPs" with no association to Gladys Knight. That notion is distasteful. Whether robed, cassocked or in mufti, a choir, a REAL choir has clearly articulated roles assigned to it while in service. What the heck difference does it make to anybody if they, though part of the whole, stands, sits or kneels during the RP? But arriving at that decision by reductive reasoning is just silly.

"Lectiones ante Evangelium et psalmus responsorius" is a compound subject.

Of course. It's also clear to me how you're reading it, and I'm willing to be instructed on Latin grammar. Does the preposition ante require "psalmus responsorius" to be declined differently if one interprets the compound part as Evangelium et psalmus instead of Lectiones et psalmus?

I'm parsing it as



Psalmus is not part of the prepositional phrase beginning with "ante".

It wouldn't make sense to read the phrase as
"readings before (the gospel and the responsorial psalm)"
because only one reading is before both the Gospel and the Responsorial Psalm.

Appreciate the clarification, Fr.
Got lost in all the parcing and decimation.

I must say (having a similar opinion) that, of course, there must be some kind of mechanism -- be it never so hard to use -- to indicate, clearly, how the written words' ambiguity should be resolved: a combination of letters and other marks, suitably chosen, might be appropriate. (Or not.)

You guys are great. My head hurts. Can we sing 'alicubi super iride' responsorially?

Oh man... You found me out.

;-)

That kind of reminds me of a question I had this past Lent. Why do all of the psalms sung during Lent have written score for musical accompaniment, if we are to sing them without instruments? Probably a similar answer. The score is there if you want to use one of them in place of a hymn.

Ben:

You cannot blame the publishers. They are printing what the church is buying. At sometime in the past, a priest/bishop told them it was ok to include accompaniments. They would NOT go against the rules without seeking counsel.

Every problem with music in the church is the fault of priests and bishops.

@Ignoto, sorry for the two-days’ delay in responding to your important question concerning choirs singing verses of responsorial psalms or adding harmony and/or descants to psalm responses sung by the congregation.

My response is that, as far as I know, the GIRM and other legislative documents dealing with the liturgy contain no norm concerning either of these practices, but a legitimate custom apart from (praeter) the law, or perhaps even contrary (contra) to it, has been established over the course of the 45 years since the Lectionary for Mass was promulgated in 1969. And this custom has been established at least in some parishes in perhaps most dioceses of this country.

The 1983 Code of Canon Law contains the laws on custom (consuetudo) in its canons 23-28:

Canon 23 A custom introduced by a community of the faithful has the force of law only if it has been approved by the legislator, in accordance with the following Canons.

Canon 24 §1 No custom which is contrary to divine law can acquire the force of law.
§2 A custom which is contrary to or apart from Canon law, cannot acquire the force of law unless it is reasonable; a custom which is expressly reprobated in the law is not reasonable.

Canon 25 No custom acquires the force of law unless it has been observed, with the intention of introducing a law, by a community capable at least of receiving a law.

Canon 26 Unless it has been specifically approved by the competent legislator, a custom which is contrary to the Canon law currently in force, or is apart from the Canon law, acquires the force of law only when it has been lawfully observed for a period of thirty continuous and complete years. Only a centennial or immemorial custom can prevail over a canonical law which carries a clause forbidding future customs.

Canon 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.

Canon 28 Without prejudice to the provisions of Canon 5, a custom, whether contrary to or apart from the law, is revoked by a contrary custom or law. But unless the law makes express mention of them, it does not revoke centennial or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs.

The “legislator” in these canons would be the diocesan bishop, not the pastor of a parish. And that legislator would not be the supreme legislator (the pope) since the latter is the one who gave us the written law (lex). The legislator either approves the custom which is apart from or contrary to the law, or he does nothing and the practice acquires the force of law after its being observed for a period of 30 continuous and complete years.

After the promulgation of the 1969 Lectionary for Mass, there was a flurry of compositional activity preparing musical settings of the responsorial psalms contained therein. That activity continues to this day. Not all settings were/are just for congregation (the reponses) and psalmist (the verses). Some also involve embellishments by the choir which go beyond their role as members of the congregation and only singing the responses in unison.

In the 10 1/2 years that I directed choirs between 1969 and 1981, the choir would on occasion sing the verses of a responsorial psalm or add harmony/descants on the response. Usually this would occur at a more solemn celebration. It may have been my own composition, or a fauxbourdon setting of verses, or a harmonized Gelineau psalm tone, or one of the through-composed responsorial psalms published by The Composers’ Forum, or one of Alexander Peloquin’s Songs of Israel. Were I leading a choir these days, I certainly would use on occasion the fine responsorial psalms of Fr. Jim Chepponis (several of which are included in Worship IV).

To be fair, I should add that not all interpreters of canon law would agree that these practices of choirs are legitimate customs. I remember that in the mid-1980’s some US bishops expressed the canonical opinion that all liturgical laws were part of the constitutive law of the Church. Accordingly a diocesan bishop would be unable to dispense from any of these laws. As a corollary to that, I suppose they would also have held that customs contrary to the law would be unreasonable and, therefore, prohibited. However, I am unaware of any canonical experts who gave/give that interpretation. (I am also unaware of any diocesan bishop making a statement or promulgating a particular law for his diocese which expressly prohibited a choir’s greater involvement in the singing of responsorial psalms.) Because our rites have been reformed subsequent to VII and things once prohibited are now permitted – even some practices which do not conform to general principles of the reform – it seems to be a stretch to argue that all liturgical laws are constitutive law.

It depends on how "community" in canons 23 and 25 is interpreted. My commentaries on the 1983 Code are in boxes in my garage. Perhaps if someone has access to the CLSA commentary or another, they can shed some light on your question. Otherwise, I'll start going through my boxes later this afternoon.

IIRC, a parish is not a juridical entity that can establish a custom with the force of law behind it. It has to be a diocese or prelature or religous order (perhaps certain abbeys that have a higher juridical status as well), et cet.