Paul Ford on the Psalms
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    At praytell, Paul Ford writes:

    There are more than two choices, Jeffrey; you are free to set to music any translation of the psalms approved by the USCCB or your diocesan bishop. The one thing you may not do is recite the Revised Grail Psalter as the responsorial psalm.


    I'm sure sure sure that this has been discussed on this forum many times, and I'm not sure why I can't seem to keep this straight in my mind. I think I knew that any Psalm translation will work but have we already discussed WHICH ones are valid? Also, I don't understand why the RGP can't be recited. Once again, I apologize for my constant confusion about this. Maybe this time I can listen and learn and it will stick.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    Any Bishop in the USA can approve any Psalm variant he wants to.

    Let's say I do a Psalm translation. If a Bishop approves it for Liturgical use, it can then be used by any Diocese of the USA (this was confirmed by the Secretariat of Divine Worship in 2009).

    If you look in, for example, "GLORY & PRAISE," you will find hundreds of Responsorial Psalms which have different words from the Lectionary. Even the Refrains have different words than the Lectionary.

    However, "GLORY & PRAISE" has Ecclesiastical approval, so they are allowed to be sung for the Responsorial Psalm in Dioceses of the USA.

    If you look in "GLORY & PRAISE" (one example from MANY I could have chosen), you will find numerous Psalm translations done by composers who have absolutely no training whatsoever in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, etc.

    How will you keep all these translations straight? I have no idea. In March of 2001, Liturgiam Authenticam called for one Psalm translation:

    36. In order that the faithful may be able to commit to memory at least the more important texts of the Sacred Scriptures and be formed by them even in their private prayer, it is of the greatest importance that the translation of the Sacred Scriptures intended for liturgical use be characterized by a certain uniformity and stability, such that in every territory there should exist only one approved translation, which will be employed in all parts of the various liturgical books. This stability is especially to be desired in the translation of the Sacred Books of more frequent use, such as the Psalter, which is the fundamental prayer book of the Christian people.


    One of the distinguishing features of THIS PROJECT is that we change not a single word in neither Antiphons nor Psalms. We stick to the official text.
  • awruff
    Posts: 94
    When recited, the psalm must be what's in the book (i.e., the old NAB in the lectionary.)
    When sung, the psalm may be any translation.
    I don't believe a Bishop needs to approve anything here - the general permission is given in the GIRM with US adaptations.
    Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    When recited, the psalm must be what's in the book (i.e., the old NAB in the lectionary.)
    When sung, the psalm may be any translation.
    I don't believe a Bishop needs to approve anything here - the general permission is given in the GIRM with US adaptations.
    Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB


    That is not what the Secretariat of Divine Worship said in 2009.

    I'm assuming he's going off the GIRM (with a special USA adaptation) which says:

    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 crucial line to notice is:
    providing that they have been approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop

    This is a special USA allowance. Here is what the GIRM says for the rest of the world:

    Psalmus responsorius 61. Post primam lectionem sequitur psalmus responsorius, qui est pars integralis liturgiae verbi et magnum momentum liturgicum et pastorale prae se fert, cum Verbi Dei meditationem foveat. Psalmus responsorius unicuique lectioni respondeat et e Lectionario de more sumatur. Praestat psalmum responsorium cantu proferri, saltem ad populi responsum quod attinet. Psalmista proinde, seu cantor psalmi, in ambone vel alio loco apto profert versus psalmi, tota congregatione sedente et auscultante, immo de more per responsum participante, nisi psalmus modo directo, idest sine responso, proferatur. Ut autem populus responsum psalmodicum facilius proferre valeat, textus aliqui responsorum et psalmorum pro diversis temporibus anni aut pro diversis ordinibus Sanctorum selecti sunt, qui adhiberi valent, loco textus lectioni respondentis, quoties psalmus cantu profertur. Si psalmus cani non potest, recitatur modo aptiore ad meditationem verbi Dei fovendam. Loco psalmi in Lectionario assignati cani potest etiam vel responsorium graduale e Graduali Romano, vel psalmus responsorius aut alleluiaticus e Graduali simplici, sicut in his libris describuntur. link


    In other words, for the rest of the world, it says:
    Loco psalmi in Lectionario assignati cani potest etiam vel responsorium graduale e Graduali Romano, vel psalmus responsorius aut alleluiaticus e Graduali simplici, sicut in his libris describuntur.

    Here are three translations of that line:

    "Instead of the psalm assigned in the Lectionary one may also sing a responsorium graduale [Responsorial Gradual] from the Graduale Romanum or a responsorial or alleluia psalm taken from the Graduale simplex, as is described in these books."

    "In place of the psalm, assigned in the lectionary, one can sing as well either a gradual responsory for the Roman Gradual or a responsorial or alleluia psalm from the simple Gradual, as they are respresented in these books."

    "In place of the psalm assigned in the lectionary one can also sing either the Gradual text from the Graduale Romanum, or either the responsorial psalm or the responsorial psalm with alleluia refrain from the Graduale Simplex, as is set forth in those books."

    Some further reflections for those not familiar with an "alleluiatic Psalm" are here:

    If you look at the GRADUALE SIMPLEX, you will see that there is a choice of an “alleluiatic psalm”. Perhaps the best way to say this in English is “responsorial psalm with alleluia refrain.”
    Notice in the Latin: vel . . . aut = either one or the other
    “alleluiaticus” is an adjective that modifies “psalmus,” as does “psalmus” before it.
    The alleluiatic psalms have their own Gregorian melodies, both for the alleluia refrains, and the cantor verses.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    AN ADDENDUM:

    There still seems to be a lot of confusion (angst?) regarding this point.

    Less than an hour ago (8:35PM), somebody posted this comment on one of our Chabanel Psalms YouTube videos:

    I can't stand when they use "alternate" versions at Mass, such as "Psalm 33: Happy the People You Have Chosen", by Rory Cooney, or even songs based on an entirely different Psalm than the rest of the Holy Catholic Church is singing that day. I am especially disheartened when music purges out all male references to God, awkwardly avoiding all "His", "He", or "Him" for instance. What right do they have to push on us a new theology devoid of God the Father? This is heresy.
  • BachLover2BachLover2
    Posts: 330
    When sung, the psalm may be any translation.


    .....can anyone provide any documentation for that statement?
  • Paul F. Ford
    Posts: 864
    Father Anthony may have his own answer to BachLover2 but mine is found in this document (attached). Msgr. (then Father) Moroney asked me to address this issue in front of the 2000 FDLC meeting in Costa Mesa, CA. The basic principle is: Singing the liturgy is so important that any sung liturgical text is "more important than" any recited liturgical text. My mentor in these matters, Msgr. Frederick McManus, however, would have agreed with Father Anthony.

    Please notice that I am more restrictive in my interpretation of this principle than is Father Anthony. I said: "you are free to set to music any translation of the psalms approved by the USCCB or your diocesan bishop."
    GIRM Appendix 19 26 36 56i.pdf
    83K
  • BachLover2BachLover2
    Posts: 330
    i feel that fr. fred mcmanus would have agreed that we're bound by the GIRM...but I'm willing to change my opinion if anyone can (please) provide a church document which says "when sung, the psalm may be any translation."
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,115
    http://musicasacra.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2992
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    This is really interesting.
  • BruceL
    Posts: 1,072
    I am of the opinion that the wording of the US GIRM is so lose that it lets literally anything be sung (or rather any "interpretation" of a certain psalm). How many liturgical commissions and offices of worship really are going to take the time to set out the limits? Not many that I have known.

    It begs the question: what is a "translation"?

    The question I pose is: if the renewal of the Liturgy of the Word in accordance with the dictates of SC (giving it its proper dignity within the structure of the Mass) is to be really achieved, how long will we tolerate this cavalier attitude toward the psalm translations?

    Here is some food for (ecumenical) thought: although I have been in full communion with the Church for five years, I was raised Protestant (Anabaptist, in fact.) As children, we were taught to love the Word of God and were taught many Scriptures to memorize (I believe, with the hope that we would be able to recall them in "times of need" later in life). Some of what passes for "a translation" of sung responsorial psalms in the Church is so unrecognizably paraphrased that they bear little resemblance to the original text. I am not talking here of small differences, or even inclusive language. Rather, is "Shepherd me, O God" really Psalm 23(22)? I think not.

    Anyhow, I don't mean to hijack the thread, nor do I mean to contest the implication in Dr. Ford's statement '"Singing the liturgy is so important that any sung liturgical text is "more important than" any recited liturgical text' that we should prefer a sung Mass. However, there reaches a certain point where, as Msgr. Irwin said in a recent presentation on the new Mass translation, "Words matter."
  • BachLover2BachLover2
    Posts: 330
    When sung, the psalm may be any translation.


    ...i ran this thing by a canon lawyer, and he agrees that we are bound by the GIRM in the USA.
Add a Comment