Permission status of the Palmer & Burgess Propers within the Roman Rite
  • CantorCole
    Posts: 69
    Hello,

    I am curious about the status of the Palmer & Burgess propers with regards to usage in the Roman Rite according to the Roman Missal. Are there any explicit instructions that address this topic (from a general perspective; I doubt there is anything addressing the specific translation/adaptation)?

    Thank you,
    CantorCole
  • Marc Cerisier
    Posts: 542
    “Another suitable song” covers a lot of territory.
    Thanked by 4irishtenor tomjaw trentonjconn ServiamScores
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,478
    "another suitable song" was never unqualified, this is the current US version :
    ; (3) a chant 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) another liturgical chant that is suited to the sacred action, the day, or the time of year, similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.

    And note that it is the text which requires approval, not the tune.
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,116
    And the USCCB delegated that approval to respective bishops of the place of publication, which is contemplated by the "or the Diocesan Bishop" if you squint.
  • Chaswjd
    Posts: 271
    If there is a question, why not run it past your diocesan office of worship and get permission? I can’t see that there would be anything wrong with the texts.
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 633
    This doesn't really answer your question and is more anecdotal, but I used them on Candlemas this year in an OF Mass at which several prelates were present and I didn't get yelled at. For what it's worth...
    Thanked by 3M. Jackson Osborn tomjaw Joseph Michael
  • davido
    Posts: 958
    Why are we agonizing about these instructions over and over?

    If you have a priest open to tradition, use Palmer/Burgess. If you have a priest who is not open to tradition, use Dan Schutte songs.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,912
    I've used them many times. They are just a literal old-english translation put to the original tunes. If anyone honestly thinks it's ok to sing half the schlepp that's in GIA and OCP hymnals (which are "approved") but that it's not self-evidently fine to sing the P/B propers, then I suppose there's little I can do to help them.
    Thanked by 7tomjaw Charging3296 CHGiffen trentonjconn a_f_hawkins lmassery IanW
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,912
    And regarding approval, it's worth noting that technically, the translations that are in the Gregorian Missal aren't even "approved" even though it's the official book of traditional chants for use in the novus ordo of the roman rite.

    And don't forget that older, previously approved translations are grandfathered in.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,912
    The preface to the P/B says,
    In order that the texts of the English Hymnal may be provided for, the texts of the medieval Salisbury use are included, as well as those of the existing Roman use as reformed in 1570.
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 763
    The Bishops of the Ordinariates in North America, Britain and Australia are members of their respective Conferences of Bishops, and the rules for Divine Worship, a closely-related form of the Roman Rite, allow for use of PB. While this doesn't provide explicit authorisation for use in a Diocesan context, it makes it reasonable; particularly as Pope Benedict stated the Ordinates' liturgical patrimony is "a treasure to be shared".
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
Add a Comment