Gradual in the Mass of 1970
  • The GIRM says that the first choice for Responsorial Psalm is the Graduale Romanum. If a Bishop has imposed rules in line with Traditionis Custodes, I assume that would no long be licit in Latin, as the word of God must be in the Vernacular even at a Latin Mass.

    I just realized I should ask—as there are now so many resources compared with when I kept up—Are there English settings of the Gradual texts?
    Then, what I logged on to ask, in those dioceses where they have kept the status quo, is the Gradual in Latin licit in the Ordinary Form?

    Many thanks. Kenneth

  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,371
    GIRM 61. ... The Responsorial Psalm should correspond to each reading and should usually be taken from the Lectionary. It is preferable for the Responsorial Psalm to be sung, at least as far as the people’s response is concerned. Hence the psalmist, or cantor of the Psalm, sings the Psalm verses at the ambo or another suitable place, ... [common psalms, in lectionary ≈ GS] ...
    Instead of the Psalm assigned in the Lectionary, there may be sung either the Responsorial Gradual from the Graduale Romanum, or the Responsorial Psalm or the Alleluia Psalm from the Graduale Simplex, as described in these books.

    So 1/ Lectionary, for the day
    2/ Lectionary appendix common psalm
    3/ GR
    4/ GS
    Thanked by 1Paul F. Ford
  • Thanks. I should have looked. The ranking of music which puts the Graduale first is the Entrance Chant.

    It would be interesting to find out how many parishes chant the Entrance.

    My memory had been that that list appeared at every point where music was indicated. It either changed or my memory is faulty. So what it comes down to is whatever your Bishop says, but as far as the USCCB is concerned, the Graduale Romanum is licit, with the recent motu proprio complicating things.

    Thanks again.

    Kenneth
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,943
    The Latin Mass that is governed by TC is the preconciliar Latin Mass. Latin Masses celebrated in accordance with the current typical edition of the Missale Romanum (where the entrance/offertory/communion chants are included, not in the Lectionary) are not governed by TC.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Another good point to make explicit, except a shade technical. If a bishop insists that the vernacular be used in the TLM, I would think it is highly unlikely that he would accept Latin in the Novus Ordo. I can think of one archdiocese that would be a good indicator on that point, so I shall have to check, so thank you.

    Notice I said “complicating things.” Not directly pertinent, but it would probably have an effect.

    Kenneth
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,371
    By Flowing Waters (Paul F Ford) translates GS into chant in English. If I am correct in thinking that they are the same as the common psalms, the difference is just singing verses or stanzas, BFW congregations get twice as many responds.
    I have never encountered a Responsorial Psalm (as in the lectionary) in Latin and would not wish to do so. I agree with the view that the liturgy of the word should be in the vernacular, where such exists, or in a lingua franca, and have espoused that since 1965 when the TLM was first modified in the light of SC (and Trent XXII: viii).
    Thanked by 1Paul F. Ford
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 541
    We regularly use the gradual in Latin on higher feasts. This is accompanied by the other propers, also in Latin. It is licit in every way, and in no way does it contradict TC. In fact, I'm not sure that vernacular settings of the gradual are technically licit in the English-speaking world, as to my knowledge there is not an approved English translation of the texts for graduals.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,371
    There were ICEL translated, and SCR/CDW appproved, translations of GS antiphons.
    Thanked by 1Paul F. Ford
  • Trentonjconn, how is your Bishop handling TLMs in light of TC?
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 541
    Our bishop has (unfortunately) been on the firmer side of crackdowns, but this has nothing to do with the Novus Ordo since TC was aimed only at tridentine celebrations. TC has nothing to do with the N.O. in Latin.
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,767
    I far as I can tell the Psalm as a 'fourth reading' is merely one interpretation of the role of the Response to the First Lesson. If the Word of God had to be always in the vernacular that would about halve our Offertory repertoire.
    Responsorial Gradual from the Graduale Romanum

    A head scratcher for me!
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    It's just a bad translation of Responsorium Graduale: I would have said "Gradual Responsory" (since the Gradual is, in fact, a Responsory, even if the respond isn't usually repeated after the verse). But the real problem is that the Ordo Cantus Missae that the 1974 Graduale Romanum is based on doesn't only have Graduals after the First Reading: Eastertide has the First Alleluia; Palm Sunday and Good Friday both have the Tract after the First Reading (with the Grad. Christus factus est before the Gospel); and Trinity Sunday has the Canticle of the Three Children from the former Ember Day Mass as an alternative chant to the Gradual: someone who is truly rigid (pace Bergoglio) could interpret the GIRM as permitting the Gradual from the 1974 Graduale Romanum, but not the other interlectional chants in the same book.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    Also this is another example of the "Treasury of Gregorian Chant" allegedly "a treasure of inestimable value" being officially relegated to the dustbin of history. The Graduals and Alleluias are the most glorious chants in the entire Graduale Romanum, but what we get instead is musical gibberish. I realize that this may hurt people's feelings, but I have yet to come across ANY settings of the Responsorial Psalms from the Lectionary that are little more than utility music: even the best pseudo-chant settings are usually banal, and I include my own settings in that heap of forgettable ditties.

    Edit: lmassery's comment posted while I was typing this, so please note that it is in no relation to the file that he uploaded: this is an addendum to my own previous comment.
  • Paul F. Ford
    Posts: 857
    By Flowing Waters (Paul F Ford) translates GS into chant in English. If I am correct in thinking that they are the same as the common psalms, the difference is just singing verses or stanzas, BFW congregations get twice as many responds.


    There are 57 responsorial psalms and 46 alleluia psalms in the Graduale Simplex, of which By Flowing Waters is a carefully prepared version in English, and approved for liturgical use. These are not the same as the 23 common psalms, although there is some overlap.

    The antiphons of the 57 responsorial psalms are from the official ICEL translation, and SCR/CDW approved. The text is from the NRSV, approved for liturgical use.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen