This sounds like an instance of modern clericalism that I am surprised to hear coming from Adoremus Society. The NSRV and Jerusalem Bible texts have been approved in Canada and other English speaking countries, but not in the USA. And yet the RSV-RC Bible was approved, officially, and was in use up until the publication of the NAB Bible texts, so it should be considered as "authorized" here in the USA. And, although I'm not sure where to find the ruling, I've heard that sung texts may use any authorized texts. Is a part of the automatic function of Canon Law that authorization of one set of texts automatically de-authorizes texts in use? As I've mentioned before, we had a beautiful Ordinary translation during the mid '60s transition period - very similar to the Anglican Rite I text. IMO, we should be allowed to use them yet today, and in the future.

I know that I raised this issue on another thread, owing to a comment that a colleague of mine made when I told him that I was planning on making use of BFW. I appreciated Dr. Ford's clarification on the subject, and want to make it clear that my original comment questioning the status of the texts was in no way an attempt to engage in calumny.

While I recognize that it is possible for there to be an attempt at wickedness on the part of some who wish to marginalize or pour scorn on BFW, I think that for the most part it's not calumny but more a lack of understanding regarding the status of the texts used in BFW.

I'd like to believe that ignorance, unless it's wonton, isn't necessarily evil or sinful, as the word calumny suggests.

Paul Ford, are you saying that the Bishops allow your RESPONSORIAL PSALMS to be used in the USA?

I don't see how that can be, since they do not use the correct text (approved for use in the United States).

Please explain.

Dear Paul,

I thank you for typing that. Is there any official documentation available that says the same thing?

Hi Paul,

Actually I would say this is not common knowledge as evidenced by the frequency that you have to defend your book. I think Jules would like to have something to offer as evidence to the local pastor. I believe you forwarded a letter in a previous email.

Or, heck, what about singing the readings? Would that allow the NRSV to be used for, say, the gospel reading?

The scenario you describe above strikes me as an absurdity. I think it's great that BFW is available and approved etc., but for something to be approved for singing and not for speaking just sounds funny....in a sad-state-of-affairs, maybe-it's-a-power-struggle kind of way.

JVN,

My cynical side gets the feeling that the USCCB/CDW would also give you the "common knowledge" reply.

An idea I have brought up earlier is that the current bishops are the same guys who presided over funerals where "Make Me a Channel of Your Peace" was the "responsorial psalm" in the 1980s. I tend to think they are not terribly concerned with liturgy - at least, not nearly so much as those of us who frequent this list, NPM, SWLC, SCL, Adoremus, CMAA, NAAL, or any other liturgically-minded forum/organization.

My current pastor is a "prodigy" who is very adept in front of a crowd. He's good at fund-raising. Basically, the talk is that they'll make him a bishop. Liturgically, though, I sometimes think he knows and cares little beyond "do the red, say the black, unless I want something else".

Look how long SttL took to come out. Many have commented here, and I think not unjustifiably so, that it's a twisty, messy document. (Gavin's reaction is worth recalling - it spends half its ink quoting other documents!) Would this be the work of a group of people who really care about the subject matter? It had its shortcomings, but at least MCW was more coherent than SttL.

I agree that most bishops don't care one way or the other.

I know bishops who don't even know what an Introit is (much less that they are not allowed to skip it in spoken Masses).

However, I don't think that we can simply do anything we want, and justify it because we know a bishop who doesn't care.

I am very curious to see how Dr. Ford responds to the queries that have been put forth on this blog (above).

I know several priests with doctorates who would scoff at the idea that one can SING any translation (with an imprimatur), whether as the Responsorial Psalm, Gospel, or whatever the case may be.

If Dr. Ford can produce ANY document that backs up what he says, I will be very grateful. I have never heard his point of view before. I know several priests who suffered greatly for years on account of the translations they had to use (under obedience).

But these are serious issues, and tossing around the "common knowledge" card doesn't do any good here.

Cheers!

Jscola30,

That is essentially the content of the .pdf file (letter from the BCL) that Dr. Ford provided earlier in this thread.

I must confess that in light of official, curial, Roman documents (especially Liturgiam Authenticam) regarding the use of approved texts, I have to ask if Msgr. Moroney's "approval" on behalf of the BCL carries any real weight.

Dr. Ford's work was extensive, exhaustive and costly in terms of his time and resources. It's a shame to set it aside or subject it to narrow scrutiny because of questions of approval, especially if the questions begin to border on scrupulocity. The fact that Dr. Ford took the time to even ask for some kind of approval from the BCL demonstrates that he is interested in doing things right, which is much more than can be said for most of the "liturgical music composers" who have contributed their truly awful twists on texts that appear regularly in the resources published by the "Big Three." Even hymnals like "Spirit and Song" can claim to be published with ecclesiastical approval. But just what does that mean? (In a thread where the issue of hymn texts came up, I asked why none of these hymnals carried an imprimatur or nihil obstat, and if ecclesiastical approval by the American bishops really meant anything).

Because BFW represents a huge chunk of Dr. Ford's work and life, I can appreciate that he may feel the need to defend himself against what can appear as personal attacks (hence the use of words like "calumny" in referring to comments made in the Adoremus bulletin), and his defense can easily turn to defensiveness.

I think what we're interested in here is intellectual honesty and circumspection. In that regard, I concur with JulesVanNuffel's request for something a bit more than just the copy of the letter from the BCL. I'm afraid that based on our collective experience with the BCL, we're more inclined to skepticism with respect to much of what the BCL (now the Committee for Divine Worship) has to say. Perhaps some clarification on their position that comes from more than a functionary (with all due respect to Msgr. Moroney) . . . say, a statement signed by all members of the CDW that goes beyond simply approving BFW for publication, and actually approves it for use in the liturgy.

If BFW is truly worthy of use in the liturgy, it seems it would be worth the effort to get the proper recognitio to give it the weight it needs to get beyond these niggling questions.

Good Call!

Paul F Ford: "However, readers of this Forum know that By Flowing Waters was approved by the USCCB’s Committee on the Liturgy (now the Committee on Divine Worship) on July 2, 2003. (see attached)"

Somehow the attachment for the first post is missing (lots of attachments go missing with regularity).

When you attach, can you also give us the http://whatever so we still have copy-paste access?

Where does the editorial appear in the Adoremus Bulletin? I just perused the online version of the April 2009 issue and failed to find it. I would like to reply to it.

Where the introits, offertories, and communions are concerned, the "alius cantus aptus" provision obtains. Certainly any translation of the texts in the Graduale Romanum or the Graduale simplex may be sung.

The legitimacy of using the Graduals and Alleluias from The American Gradual in the Roman Catholic Church has been a subject of debate in this forum. One writer holds that because the bishops' conference has adopted no official translation of the texts Graduals and Alleluias in the Graduale Romanum, these texts may not be sung in the vernacular. Others have asserted that because no official translation exists, any translation may be sung. I don't know who is right.

The Adoremus Bulletin editors are certainly mistaken, however, in their implication that translations of the introits, offertories, and communions which are not based on a biblical translation currently authorized in the American RC church may not lawfully be sung.

How can I communicate with them?

what translation of the Psalms does BFW use? Grail?

I've tried to explain this matter of the Graduale texts many times to HHH.

Here it is again.

What's the deal with the posting above? Is it spam?