Are you being railroaded into using the Responsorial Psalm?

noel jones, aago

GIRM 2002 reads: "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"

The entire section of section of the GIRM that this is from is quoted at the bottom of this post.

Vatican II has slightly improved the singing of Catholic Churches, but it has expanded the repertoire a bit. Back in the 1950's if you wanted to hear Catholics sing you scheduled Holy God for the hymn afer Mass. The rafters would ring. Today we are also hearing rafters ringing at Mass, but not during the hymn singing. People raise their voices in song for the Sung Responses in Mass, Gregorian Chants of the Ordinary and Vernacular Mass settings....and still, Holy God.

The reason for this is simple: Repetition. Music sung over and over again. If you want Catholics to sing, you make the music part of them by repetition.

The Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei....and the Pater Noster all become part of the parish repertoire whether you sing them in English, Spanish, Latin...any of the many beautiful Asian languages...as long as you repeat them enough. And the Alleluia as well.

The Responsorial Psalm changes and changes and changes....it is not a candidate for the singing by the congregation, yet the major mass-produced newsprint hymnals force it on us. It should never have been placed in the hands and mouths of the people. The Psalm was the property of singers. Because it is not repetitious, singers...also called psalmists, declaimed it and should today as well. Why?

The options we are given above for replacing the Responsorial Psalm are in musical terms: hard - "Roman Gradual", easier - "Simple Gradual" or even easier - "in another musical setting." The moment we abandon trying to involve the people in singing the psalm....and leave it to the singers, then it becomes possible to match the ability of your singer/singers to the music available that matches their skills. instead of trying to sing what OCP or GIA determined they wanted us to sing, you choose the music that meets the abilities of your singer. Aside from the Latin versions, there are also vernacular versions that present varying challenges musically. BY FLOWING WATERS by Paul Ford is a good match for the Simple Gradual, THE AMERICAN GRADUAL by Bruce Ford the Roman Gradual and THE ANGLICAN USE GRADUAL adapted by C. David Burt provides easy musical settings in chant style....and it is also free.

To assuage the fears of the congregation that you are doing something wrong, you may find yourself needing to check the translations of any of these against what the people have in their hands, as there is wide variance in the translations used. If this concerns you, you may want to do some pencilling in of text.

But how do we get free of the expectation of the congregation that we sing "what's in the book."? GIA and OCP (and any others) do a grave disservice by not indicating that alternate forms of the Psalm may be sung and in doing so make our congregations think that the Responsorial is the ONLY form of the Psalm to be sung. So music directors who wish to vary from their book get flak....and often lots of it....by people who want to sing the Responsorial Psalm, but even worse, by those who are unhappy in any way...be it the lack of parking places because they come late to Mass...or because the Pastor refuses to install armed guards to prevent people from leaving at Communion...to take yet another change and make a cause célèbre out of it....

And it will save time. At this time the responsorial psalm is not sung in the form of Antiphon and Psalm singing as it was in the church prior to Vatican II.

In historic practice, the Antiphon is sing, the Psalm is sung and at the end the Antiphon is sung again. That's it. The Antiphon may be sung in between verses of the Psalm, as is often done when the singing accompanies a procession...including the Communion Procession. But at this point in the Liturgy the Psalm is sung not to fill time while things happen, but to be heard by the congregation. So expanding it just to give the congregation an opportunity to "actively participate" in something that changes continually and that they should not be singing just does not make sense.

Active participation is merely being there. That's been pretty well fully explained lately. Free yourself of the musical stricture of the mass-produced liturgical aids and match the ability of your singers to the Psalms and we may begin to hear Psalms declared in the joyful manner of David and others who knew how to shout to the Lord....

noel at sjnmusic.com

Full Section of GIRM, 2002:

The Responsorial Psalm

61. After the first reading comes the responsorial Psalm, which is an integral part of the Liturgy of the Word and holds great liturgical and pastoral importance, because it fosters meditation on the word of God.

The responsorial Psalm should correspond to each reading and should, as a rule, be taken from the Lectionary.

It is preferable that the responsorial Psalm be sung, at least as far as the people's response is concerned. Hence, the psalmist, or the cantor of the Psalm, sings the verses of the Psalm from the ambo or another suitable place. The entire congregation remains seated and listens but, as a rule, takes part by singing the response, except when the Psalm is sung straight through without a response. In order, however, that the people may be able to sing the Psalm response more readily, texts of some responses and Psalms have been chosen for the various seasons of the year or for the various categories of Saints. These may be used in place of the text corresponding to the reading whenever the Psalm is sung. If the Psalm cannot be sung, then it should be recited in such a way that it is particularly suited to fostering meditation on the word of God.

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.

The Responsorial Psalm

61. After the first reading comes the responsorial Psalm, which is an integral part of the Liturgy of the Word and holds great liturgical and pastoral importance, because it fosters meditation on the word of God.

The responsorial Psalm should correspond to each reading and should, as a rule, be taken from the Lectionary.

It is preferable that the responsorial Psalm be sung, at least as far as the people's response is concerned. Hence, the psalmist, or the cantor of the Psalm, sings the verses of the Psalm from the ambo or another suitable place. The entire congregation remains seated and listens but, as a rule, takes part by singing the response, except when the Psalm is sung straight through without a response. In order, however, that the people may be able to sing the Psalm response more readily, texts of some responses and Psalms have been chosen for the various seasons of the year or for the various categories of Saints. These may be used in place of the text corresponding to the reading whenever the Psalm is sung. If the Psalm cannot be sung, then it should be recited in such a way that it is particularly suited to fostering meditation on the word of God.

G

It is very difficult to " get free of the expectation of the congregation that we sing 'what's in the book.'"
One small inroad I've made is mixing it up for the psalms and canticles between the readings at the Paschal Vigil.
Another is on extremely hot days (that was my excuse to TPTB,) singing a through composed psalm.
But I have to say my experience is different from yours.
If the psalm response is to one of the Gregorian tones people will belt it out as strongly as they do anything else.

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

JulesVanNuffel

Here are some Seasonal Psalms:

http://chabanelpsalms.org/Common_seasonal_psalms/

Gavin

"The Responsorial Psalm changes and changes and changes....it is not a candidate for the singing by the congregation, yet the major mass-produced newsprint hymnals force it on us. It should never have been placed in the hands and mouths of the people. The Psalm was the property of singers. Because it is not repetitious, singers...also called psalmists, declaimed it and should today as well. Why?"

You've made no support for this, indeed it's quite contrary to common experience. With the exception of the early Mass (filled with cranky old conservatives who literally won't even sing "amen") the responsorial psalm DOES always have the highest congregational participation out of all the music.

"Active participation is merely being there." is also patently false. If you think ANYONE has been saying that lately, you're paying attention to the wrong people. Most of the blogs I read (Fr. Z, NLM) say quite something opposite. I suggest you need a much more nuanced view of the topic.

The R.Psalm is still the first choice in the GIRM - so if you're not singing it, you're REPLACING the text, not of the Roman Gradual, but of the lectionary! I'd suggest you'd better have something a LOT better than the Anglican Gradual before you replace the psalm! Like, say, the Roman Gradual chant or a polyphonic setting... If you really are having trouble getting your congregation to sing it, I suggest recto tono with a psalm tone for the verses. If they can't handle that, go seasonal.

G

"You've made no support for this, indeed it's quite contrary to common experience. With the exception of the early Mass (filled with cranky old conservatives who literally won't even sing 'amen') the responsorial psalm DOES always have the highest congregational participation out of all the music."

Gavin, may I suggest that just as his experience is not universal, neither is yours, (or mine)?
Some places, some congregations, won't sing the psalm at all, (so far... I like to think that since, as some people like to constantly say, we are a "pilgrim" Church, eventually we we all "travel" to the point where we all sing everything we should and nothing we shouldn't...)
In fact, at what we affectionately refer to as the "geezer" Mass, (although the earliest, quieter Mass also draws more than it's share of introverted teenagers,) although they're cranky enough that someone answered our Liturgist's rhetorical question, Why don't they sing more? with a snappy, "Well, we might if you'd stop asking us to sing something that sounds like the theme song from Bonanza," the year before I became MD; they sing the psalm as enthusiastically as if it were their school fight song, IF it's a psalm tone. The syrupy Celebration psalms, not so much...

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

Gavin

If I did ask "why not sing" at the geezer Mass, the response would be "Well, we might if you'd ask us to sing something that sounds like the theme song from Bonanza." These are the same people who told me that "Adeste Fidelis", "In Dulci Jubilo", and "Of the Father's Love" are inappropriate for Christmas Mass.

As far as the "your experience is not universal" line, give me a break. Am I supposed to believe that nobody's experience is universal for the US? Your congregation that won't sing anything that isn't a chant tone, mine that won't sing anything longer than 4 measures, and frog's that won't sing anything between readings are all each exactly representative of 1/3 (no more no less) of American parishes? One of our experiences is in the majority, and I'd argue that it's mine based on both experience and plain reasoning that anyone above the age of 3 can repeat a short phrase with a simple melody.

And I like the psalm tone model (although I was at first skeptical), but it doesn't get a good reaction from my congregation. Now that I would say is probably not universal. It always slows to a dirge and only children sing it (to the shame of their parents, hopefully).

Charles in CenCA

I hope this is intelligent and civil- did anyone besides me find the thread title itself deliberately provocative and baitingly divisive itself?
"Railroaded?" I understand hyperbole somewhat. But this term somewhat panders to the notion of some unspoken conspiracy that "they" continue to hijack the "liturgy."
Now, to the issue. I have Gavin's back on this one.

noel jones, aago

Gavin and Charles,

Thanks for your comments.

"The R.Psalm is still the first choice in the GIRM - so if you're not singing it, you're REPLACING the text, not of the Roman Gradual, but of the lectionary!"

I do not understand the intent of those who wrote the GIRM when a few paragraphs above we have:

48. The singing at this time is done either alternately by the choir and the people or in a similar way by the cantor and the people, or entirely by the people, or by the choir alone. In the dioceses of the United States of America there are four options for the Entrance Chant: (1) the antiphon from the Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting; (2) the seasonal antiphon and Psalm of the Simple Gradual; (3) a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) a suitable liturgical song similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.55

And Charles, you are absolutely right....I should have used a word more appropriate...maybe forced would be more accurate...Jules, I think a lot of the Chabanel Psalms...a good way to go. And to G, a long hot spell could be an answer to prayer!!!

noel at sjnmusic.com

noel jones, aago

And whose words are these?

"Active Participation

Wherever an exaggerated concept of "community" predominates, a concept which is (as we have already seen) completely unrealistic precisely in a highly mobile society such as ours, there only the priest and the congregation can be acknowledged as legitimate executors or performers of liturgical song. Today, practically everyone can see through the primitive activism and the insipid pedagogic rationalism of such a position which is why it is now asserted so seldom. The fact that the schola and the choir can also contribute to the whole picture, is scarcely denied any more, even among those who erroneously interpret the council's phrase about "active participation" as meaning external activism. ("In the Presence of the Angels..." Adoremus Bulletin, Vol. 2, Nos. 6-8, Oct-Dec. 1996)."

noel at sjnmusic.com

Michael O'Connor

Hmm.. your quote from the GIRM refers to the Introit, not the Responsorial psalm. It does not at all apply to interlectionary chant. The GIRM is quite clear about the Church's first preference here. Why not redirect your energies into creating better Responsorial Psalms? This is a part of the modern Propers. If you don't like Mr. Alstott's (or Msrs. Haugen and Haas's) settings, Then adapt the texts into simple tones and whip up some new responses, metric or otherwise. I don't see anything really wrong with the Responsorial Psalm in and of itself. The GIRM, as you say, does allow for other options, and those can be employed from time to time when the music for a certain Sunday is not up to the job.

Oh yes, I'm not so sure about the repetition claim. Many congregations sing One Bread, One Body a couple of times a month and the singing is not exactly enthusiastic. I think problems run much deeper than unfamiliarity. Most of Alstott's responses can be learned by the simplest person after hearing them twice.

G

"Am I supposed to believe that nobody's experience is universal for the US?"

Yes, exactly.
I think you've put it well.
No one person's experience is universal.
Some individual person's experience may be more common, even the most common, but not universal.
I think the different experiences related on this very thread demonstrate that... that is what "universal" would mean, that EVERYone's experience of this were the same.
For me to say, "my parish doesn't, therefore no parish does," or "how your parish sings can't be very common because it's not how my parish sings," would be ludicrous.
Whether your experience is the most common, I can't say, it may very well be.
For all I know you've done polls and statistical analysis of the subject, which I certainly haven't.
I don't know how many different parishes you have worked in, how many different dioceses you have experience of, what number of varying ethnic, age and education demographics you've encountered.
There may be facts to support your contention that "the responsible psalm DOES always have the highest congregational participation out of all the music."

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

noel jones, aago

Michael...

That's exactly what I meant to cite. I cited it because it seems very strange that the Roman Gradual is THE recommendation for the Introit.
But GIRM then recommends: a responsorial psalm and if you do not want or cannot sing that then "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". Why should we sing a responsorial psalm in place of the proper psalm from the Gradual?

The moment you subtract the Responsorial Psalm from the equation of what the people are to sing and have the people sing the Ordinary and Psalm, the role of the Psalmist/Cantor is then returned to actually declaiming the Psalm.

I'm not looking for an argument, but a discussion among those who might be interested, having been dissatisfied with the reassignment of the Psalm from the Singers to the Congregation after centuries....and thanks to all who have responded.

noel at sjnmusic.com

Gavin

Ok fine Geri, common, not universal :P I get annoyed with bad logic, you have every right to get annoyed by misuse of vocabulary! I suppose my point is that frog's argument against the responsorial psalm uses for its support that the psalm isn't sung well due to its changing nature. I contend that is not the COMMON case in the US. As Michael O'Connor pointed out, the Alstott psalms are easily singable. As I pointed out, recto tono is an option. So I think that does away with a pragmatic reason to not use the responsorial psalm.

Frog to Michael:
"Why should we sing a responsorial psalm in place of the proper psalm from the Gradual?" Because the GIRM asks us to. The Gradual is a primary and unalterable element of the Extraordinary Form. The responsorial psalm is now in that place (although alterable) for the Ordinary Form. As to why the lectionary rather than Roman Gradual should be used, it is because the Roman Gradual does not yet have music for the interlectionary psalm (if you prefer that term). I don't think the GIRM or Lectionary are beyond reproach. Frankly, I would be happy if we reverted to the one year lectionary and only added an old testament reading and the interlectionary psalm. And the GIRM could mandate the Introit in some form (even recited). However, these decisions are not mine to make nor yours, and I suspect all of us could write a long letter to the pope with all the things we want altered in the GIRM and he'd just have a big laugh at it.

As for "active participation", I strongly object to the phrase "just being there" because that's precisely what pope Pius (whichever coined the phrase) was trying to get rid of - just showing up to the early 20 minute low Mass late, praying your rosary, and leaving as soon as the priest communes. It requires an actively receptive disposition from the faithful which manifests itself occasionally in the proper motions, bodily positions, responses, and yes singing. A far cry from "just being there", and a distinction we have to make. Or, as my boss says, "active participation doesn't mean absolutely everyone does absolutely everything, but it also doesn't mean absolutely no one does anything."

JulesVanNuffel

Gavin, I disagree that most people join in singing the Responsorial psalm. I am speaking of churches I've attended in 5 states.

Jscola30

I've been doing the seasonal psalm deal and I'll admit I don't like it that much, it gets irritating after awhile. Personally, I've found that is the resp. is easy enough the congregation picks it up. Yes I know alot of people here don't like the Alstott R&A (I don't mind the antiphons, the tones are kinda wacky, as are alot of modern chant like tones), but I feel most of them are well constructed for reasonably instant singing. Although I do have the books from GIA (Grail/Genlineau/Guimont), WLP, and LitPress, I don't know them well enough to comment on how easy they are, but they seem ok. I also think it depends how you introduce it. Often people the antiphon is played once through (somestimes just melody in octaves), cantor sings it once (note sings, not warbles and makes up his/her own tempo, as if it were an aria), then the people.

And as to the whole "this is my experience". To be honest, even as I'm using examples from my experience, for the purposes of scientific gathering, anecdotal evidence is not the most reliable evidice.

Charles in CenCA

Jules, we don't know each other yet, so please don't take my remarks here as mere contradiction. (But I came here for an argument!)
I've been a DM for 37.5 consectutive years in California, 20.5 years in the San Joaquin Valley, 17 years prior in the Oakland Diocese. During those years I've pretty much had very long tenures at about 5 churches, including two cathedrals. In the last 27 of those years we've been using Alstott's R&A Sunday psalms. Prior to that, Paluch's.
The aspect missing from your contention, based upon your empirical experience, is the consistency and competency factors of the musical leadership in the parishes of those five states. I can honestly counter your contention that most congregations choose not to join the singing of the responsorials, and I second Mike's opinion that the accessibility (or banality) of R&A and their ilk actually facilitates the ease with which a majority of congregants join the singing of the response. And I believe the factor that most influences such success is not the inherent beauty in the musical setting necessarily, but the functional and appropriate beauty of performance on the part of the psalmists, organists and choirs. And, if the use of those "gebrauchsmusick" settings happens consistently over a generation or so, then they (whether we appreciate it or not) become part of the collective memory in a given parish. I've been in my current parish over 15 years, so that's 5 cycles of R&A. Rejoice or bemoan that aside, they've been singing them well since day one to last Sunday; I know that from being at four out of eight Masses per Sunday at either ambo or podium. I don't listen with inner ears, I listen because it's in my best interest as a director to do so.
I'll give you another example. I've watched the televised Masses from the National Shrine for decades. When Leo Nestor had the schola, for whatever reason he had Mrs. Brubaker as his primary psalmist. She sang everything as if channeling Marilyn Horne. Camera pans to the congregation, no one singing the refrain. When Peter Latona revamped the whole program, he's installed a pristine and discreet soprano soloist as psalmist. Her voice helps to keep the melody floating and forward, not to intrude and overwhelm the ear. Camera now pans to congregation, joining in singing. I've seen it and heard it in DC live and on the TV!
So, we can debate repertoire merits 'til we're blue; but credible, appropriate and artistically beautiful performance practice needs to be factored in, whether its an R&A psalm, or the proper gradual for the day. YMMV.

G

No, you didn't.
You came here for an argument.

(Save the Liturgy, save the World)

IanW

I'd like to make four observations.

Firstly, like it or not, the responsorial psalm does seem to be the Church's preferenece for the Novus Ordo. While alternatives are provided for, it seems to me that a strong argument would be required to justify departure from this norm in parish worship.

Secondly, there are problems with form and practice that need to be addressed. The psalm-verses can drag (a personal bête noire: my parish choir, which I generally avoid, declaims the verses in harmony v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y, and with great drama). Metrical responses don't always sit well with chanted verses. The English of the translation can be flat. The sheer length of some psalms excarbates these problems. We can't do anything about length and translation, but chant covers a multitude of sins if it isn't allowed to drag. We might even consider a limited range of chants for the responses - not only would this sit well with the verses, but it would probably sound better and be easier for the congregation to sing.

Thirdly, while the responsorial form is the Church's preference, there's no harm in our pointing out the problems inherent in it. It may take a long time, but ideas about the practicalities of liturgy do evolve and change. Personally, I find the responses interrupt the flow of the verses, and feel that the solutions discussed are simply making the best of a bad job.

Finally, on a different matter, I agree with Charles about thread titles: as a general rule, rhetoric isn't helpful.

Michael O'Connor

Charles, I recall Ms Brubaker's cantoring very well. We attending the choir Mass in alternation with the Latin NO in the crypt back in the late 1990s. No one sang, but I always wrote that off as the fact that this was a "visitor's church". You're right, though. She really didn't lead the congregation. In her defense, I've never been a big fan of cantor leading. It's really counterintuitive.

noel jones, aago

I know it has been months and months, but every so often I still get slightly rankled over the mention about rhetoric in the title, especially after reading Lucy's excellent article at:

http://www.adoremus.org/0608Carroll.html

Bull in the China Shop, indeed. Right on, Lucy!

I'm finished...and I feel much better now, thanks....can there be something about this issue that calls for rhetoric?

Richard R.

Now, now. Having had some association with the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception off and on over the years, I would suggest it not be judged the arbiter of standard congregational liturgical practice. What modest permanent community exists is typically overawed by pilgrimage groups of varying liturgical formation and linguistic affiliation (not to mention dress code, which leans heavily toward "tourist", especially during DC's hotter months). And leave my old buddy Ginnie Brubaker alone! She exercised the parameters of cantor as well as anyone I know. If there is fault, I would argue it lies with the parameters themselves. You really want someone to lead the congregation? A "song leader" perhaps? God help us! There's already far more arm-raising at the Shrine than there is at a Redskins game.

Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!

Categories