I think BFW is #2.

The reference to a metrical psalm would necessarily include paraphrases.

Psallite has the imprimatur of Bishop John Kinney of Saint Cloud, the ordinary of the diocese in which The Liturgical Press operates. It is lawful to use the Psallite collection for all the processional chants, as well as for the chants between the readings.

Extracted from one of my historical timeline posts Discussion 2034 ...
http://musicasacra.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2034#Item_31
1969-mar USCCB BCL Newsletter Vol 5 No 3
USCCB decision confirmed by Holy See allows the use of similar collections of psalms
and antiphons as substitutes for the present chants of Mass ...
In English the principal collections of this kind are the Gelineau, Somerville, and Deiss psalms.
The reason for this decision was to permit substitute texts to be used without waiting for
the composition of musical settings of the antiphons of the Simple Gradual.

You can see the entire quote in context in Discussion 3783 ...
http://musicasacra.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=3783#Item_22

And, as I was hoping to encourage in Discussion 1421 ...
http://musicasacra.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1421
the above and many other interesting details become more clear
if only everyone would invest in a copy of
Thirty-Five Years of the BCL Newsletter 1965-2000
by USCCB
http://www.usccbpublishing.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=294

With all due respect, does the imprimatur of a single bishop = the official approval of the USCCB? Isn't the approval thing WAY overlooked? Just asking serious questions here.

Well. I'm not a canon lawyer and I really really fear to play one on the Internet. But.

In canon law, bishops and councils of bishops have power. Primates of nations have authority, too. National or other conferences of bishops don't even exist as a legal entity. Individual bishops can agree to go along with what the conference decides, but that's the only power they have. All the bishops signing a piece of paper don't have more canon law legality than one bishop signing a piece of paper -- unless they call a council and sign the paper as council business, or unless Rome signs off on whatever they're doing. All the bishops but one signing a piece of paper (outside a council) can't compel that one bishop to go along with what they do, or his subjects. Rome can.

OTOH, in the US, what one bishop approves for liturgical use and publication has usually been okay for subjects of another bishop to use, unless their particular bishop says No. Back in the old days, books often appeared multiple times from presses in the sees of multiple bishops in the US with multiple imprimaturs, but that doesn't usually happen now. If diocesan and archdiocesan bishops are approving hymnals specifically, it's not something a peon like me would hear about. I suppose the archdiocesan worship offices may submit some kind of whitelist sometimes, but I never see it in the diocesan paper or anything; and I don't think in the past it would have annoyed the bishop any, to go outside an approved list, as long as you didn't hit on anything definitely disapproved. So anything approved by one bishop in the US would probably be okay for subjects of other US bishops to use.

But anyway, stuff like the GIRM only has force in the Archdiocese of Blankytown, USA, if some Archbishop of Blankytown signed on, or if Rome has signed onto it. Stuff that Rome hasn't mandated, the Archbishop of Blankytown can ignore whenever he feels like it. So if the USCCB bishops approve a book, it's exactly the same as if one bishop approved something, multiple times. If Rome mandates use of the book as submitted by the USCCB, that's different.

Maureen.

What I am saying is that we (music directors) do not know what is and what isn't approved by the authorities. I personally went to task to expose the erroneous theological content of a hymn that appeared in (I think it was the second edition) of G&P. I sent a letter to my Bishop at that time and then he directed me to send it to the publisher. I received a four page letter from the composer (MH) defending the suitability of the hymn. At that point I dropped the issue. When the next edition appeared, the hymn was gone. Don't know if it ever appeared in later editions--didn't feel like being the music vigilante after that, but I did feel slimed and discouraged that no one was reviewing the music that hundred and maybe thousands of parishes are purchasing and singing at the liturgy.

So, if I hadn't of taken the time and measures to combat a hymn dedicated to earth worship, it may have remained in the hymnal for how long?

Point is, there are no checks and balances for content that "receives approval" as this was a glaring example of anything goes with the big publishers of Catholic music. Of course, being a composer myself, I was pretty much writing myself out of the industry by doing this sort of thing, but then, who else was going to do it?

So today, I am still not aware that anything has been officially approved. If it has, where is the white list so that we have a leg to stand on when it comes to blacklisting innapropriate selections?

Incantu

I do believe the GR is an approved book. But I don't think anyone can produce a whitelist on 99% of music that is utilized in American Catholic parishes.