I have come to prefer the loft - especially when the accompaniment instrument is there. If the music is properly written and played, the segue from verse to antiphon should be audible and make musical sense. Music is, after all, the "universal language"! Any responsorial composition that does not include a natural, musical segue is ready to perform with a congregation, not should ever be published.

IMO, if your best psalmist cannot sing the resp. psalm from the ambo, it is better to sing an easier setting of the psalm than to have him/her sing from the loft.

Responsorial music does better, IMO, when there is a visual cue for when to sing the response.

I agree with Steve on this one. Once a congregation begins to expect a visual cue, they have taken a major step closer to not even being able to sing a hymn without someone standing in front of them. What a cantor can do to "lead" a hymn which isn't done better from the organ, I have no idea. At best the congregation can sing whatever the cantor has sung a split second (or longer) later.

Daniel. I heard your parish is having a traditional mass on Ascension Thursday. Would your parish maybe do more Traditional mass? Do you have a priest who can do it?

The GIRM (with adaptations for the United States) does not specify a preference, with regard to where the Psalms should be sung.

It says, "The psalmist, or the cantor of the Psalm, sings the verses of the Psalm from the ambo or another suitable place."

Having found myself at the ambo in the past, I know what CharlesW is talking about. All those faces out there, waiting for me to sing. More intoxicating to a performer than Dangerous Moonlight. I'm quite restrained when I cantor from the bench.

Our cantors used to sing the whole Mass from the Sanctuary. A year ago, they started singing only the Psalm from the ambo, then walking around the rear of the rererdos to sing the Gospel Acclamation from another microphone (on the other side of the Sanctuary). They go down after the Gloria and return to the loft after the reading of the Gospel. It has worked very well.

Although our choir sings from the west gallery, the psalmist dons cassock and surplice and goes to the ambo to sing the psalm. The verses are sung to psalm tones and the refrains are sung to simple antiphon melodies.
The text of the psalm is printed in full in the service leaflet, with "All repeat refrain" inserted wherever the people are to respond. Gestures are not used.

If at all possible, the psalm should be sung from the ambo--not merely because GIRM says so, but because tradition and reason both support its being sung there. The psalm entered the Liturgy of the Word as a lesson, and even in the late Middle Ages the cantor (or cantors) intoned the gradual and sang the verse from a lectern.

When ambones and lecterns largely ceased to be used for the Epistle and Gospel in the Roman rite, they ceased to be used for the gradual. The return of the lessons (including the psalm) to the ambo in the post-Conciliar reform constituted the restoration of a thoroughly reasonable and laudable tradition.

More confusing: http://www.romanrite.com/mim25.html

158. According to IG 309, "The readings, responsorial psalm and Easter Proclamation (Exsultet) are proclaimed only from the ambo." LM 22 says specifically that the psalm is to be sung or recited at the ambo/lectern.

159. It is surprising that this is not reflected in IG 61. This repeats GIRM 36 by saying the psalm is from the "ambo/lectern or other suitable place" - "ambone vel alio loco apto". Perhaps this is to make provision for situations where there is no ambo.

160. The psalmist should sing the psalm (IG 102). The term "cantor of the psalm" is unhelpful, because it confuses the psalmist, with the cantor who leads the hymns. According to CB 51, LM 33, GIRM 272 "the cantor should not use the ambo/lectern". But this refers to leading hymns, not the responsorial psalm. IG 309 attempts to make this clearer: "The dignity of the ambo requires that only a minister of the word should approach it".

Hi, Noel.

I wouldn't trust that book by J.R. Lilburne at romanrite.com much.

The English GIRM translation he presents gives a meaning different from the approved translation in the US. (If it matters, he's Australian.)

Lilburne says: "158. According to IG 309, 'The readings, responsorial psalm and Easter Proclamation (Exsultet) are proclaimed only from the ambo.'"

But here's GIRM paragraph 309 from the usccb.org site: "....From the ambo only the readings, the responsorial Psalm, and the Easter Proclamation (Exsultet) are to be proclaimed; it may be used also for giving the homily and for announcing the intentions of the Prayer of the Faithful."

See the difference? The USCCB's version is a restriction on what the ambo can be used for. For example, mere "announcements" should not be made there. Lilburne's version is a restriction on where the readings and psalm may be given.

I don't think either one is correct. The Latin is: "Ex ambone unice proferuntur lectiones, psalmus responsorius atque præconium paschale; item proferri possunt homilia et intentiones orationis universalis."

I'd translate that as: "From the one ambo are presented the readings, the responsorial psalm, and the Exsultet;...."

So it's not a restriction on anything. It's just a description of how the ambo is used.

And that makes sense: Paragraph 309 is part of the GIRM's instructions on church furnishings, not the GIRM's instructions on the presentation of the Responsorial Psalm. It's not meant to be a binding instruction on how to present the R.P.

GIRM 61 does say, "at the ambo or another suitable place", so using the loft is fine.

Miacoyne wrote: "Maybe Gradual and RP are considered different, although they are at the same place in the liturgy? Gradual being a Proper and response to the Epistle, and RP as another Reading?"

Nevertheless, throughout the Middle Ages the gradual (in its developed form) was sung from an ambo or lectern. See Ordo Romanus I and (as an example) the rubrics of the Sarum Missal.

Most of our responsorial psalms are lead from the loft. But after recently attending a confirmation at another church where the psalm was also lead from from the loft( not that there's anything wrong with it), I have changed my mind. I was surprised at my reaction.It seemed like I was conversing with someone who was too busy to be in the room with his guest.
Therefore we are singing our psalms acapella to the tones and will be moving to the front.

Ralph wrote:
It seemed like I was conversing with someone who was too busy to be in the room with his guest.

I guess this shows how variously people can look at the same situation. I think of a cantor in the loft as part of the congregation, as being "with" the congregation. But to each his own sensibility.

--

At a Mass Tuesday evening, I saw a cantor whose gestures were a bit too habitual. She read the first Scripture passage at the Mass, chanted "Verbum Domini"; and gave a raised-arm gesture to cue the congregation's response "Deo gratias". It was overkill.

What the details of this discussion--not the intentions or insight of the discussants--illustrate most is the profound aesthetic failure of the Ordinary Form.

I wonder if the biggest reason that the hand gestures came to be relied upon is that the responses and litanies became so unpredictable. It happens very frequently that the psalmist sings the response twice before expecting the congregation to join in and sing it twice, even if that's not how the music is printed. The music itself is often part of the problem.

Micoyne wrote: "So the Gradual should be done by a solo, at the ambo or lectern, not by the whole schola according to the tradition, even in EF?"

First, it was the gradual VERSE that was traditionally sung from the ambo or from a lectern. The respond was sung by the whole choir.

Second, although I know that the 1962 rubrics permit the Epistle and Gospel to be sung from an ambo or lectern, I am not at all sure that they allow the gradual to be sung from an ambo or lectern. Perhaps not. In the modern rite it would surely be permissible.

Bruce:

Regarding your psalmist donning cassock and surplice, you might take a look at USCCB's "Music in Divine Worship", section 36.3: "Cassock and surplice, being clerical attire, are not recommended as vesture for the psalmist." The practice has been to allow altar servers to wear cassock and surplice because they are performing in lieu of the proper clerical persons for those functions (acolyte or subdeacon), i.e., they are performing a clerical function. This is not the case with a psalmist.

Paul:

I agree that the GIRM and more recently "Music in Divine Worship" envisions two separate roles, psalmist and cantor. In reference to the Psalmist, see MiDW 34.3, "Although this ministry is distinct from the role of the cantor, the two ministries are often entrusted to the same person." And actually, the cantor, functioning as the psalmist, should NOT stay where they belong (at a lecturn), inasmuch as the Liturgy of the Word is properly proclaimed from the ambo, which is why it is given preference for the location from which the psalm is sung (other locations being PERMISSIBLE). I completely agree with your take on the inappropriateness of raising the arms from the ambo, as this should only be done WHEN NECESSARY. Most congregations are well aware of the psalms' responsorial nature at this point, and as has been pointed out, musical cues can be given to facilitate their readiness to sing the response.

Daniel,Why is the ambo not very practical for many settings of the ResPs, esp those with organ. In our church, the organ can be heard just as well from the Ambo as from the Cantor stand. Just wondering
Donna

The contemporary group leader sings the psalm from the with great success, and the people really, really sing when he does so. And I have heard about this for the last 3 years....

Recently we collaborated and I got to see this in action...and he's up there and the people really do sing.

Here's why. He sings the psalm antiphons to his own melodies if the ones in breaking bread are not easily singable. And he uses the same melodic forms repeatedly. So what we have at his Masses is the musical equivalent of the Simplex seasonal psalms to the text of the lectionary psalms and it works.

But being at the ambo has nothing to do with it.

Well, then the 4 options of chants? Are they not in order of preferences? "Other suitable songs' are as good as "Propers" in OF according to the documents?

"Other" is always going to be the last item on a list.

Not necessarily. If the ambo were merely one possibility among many, without preference, the GIRM could have stated something like: "The psalmist, or the cantor of the Psalm, sings the verses of the Psalm from a suitable place, not excluding the ambo."

In Church law, including liturgical law, where a priority or preference is intended, items are customarily listed in order from highest priority / most preferred to lowest priority / least preferred. The trick, however, is to figure out whether a preferential order was intended for any given list.

Licit? You must be kidding! Why on earth would it not be licit for the congregation to sing anything that was not strictly the Priest's part?

No, it's not traditional - at least in our tradition. What about monks in monasteries? They all join in. What about our own Colloquium - where the attendees make up the entire congregation?

During my 16 years at Our Lady of Walsingham, the congregation sang the verses all the time - at least the Gradual and Alleluya, sometimes more. And they joined in, with pointing, text, and music in front of them, Anglican chant, and some even picked harmony parts to sing.

On the one hand, I don't think we need to push the congregation to chant verses. But on the other hand, let's not get into the modern liturgists' habit of constantly underestimating the capabilities of the congregation.

No. The conductor doesn't use the ambo - any more than either the cantor or the psalmist MUST use the ambo.

At OLW, the lectern (Epistle side of Sanctuary) was used for Lessons and announcements, and the pulpit (slightly elevated and on the Gospel side of the Sanctuary) was used for the Gospel and sermon. Except for the Deacon chanting the Exultet, congregational music, responsorial or otherwise, was never lead from the front of the church. I often intoned seated at the organ console.

The requirement to chant the Sequence before the Gospel Acclamation (which is occasionally an Alleluia verse!) is just one more good reason for the return to the sanity of the EF Mass!