This is wonderful. We will be using it. Thank you so much.

Hi Charles,

What a can of worms :¬)

Here are some random thoughts hoping for coherence.

GIRM 62–63 was cited as a reference both for and against the use of vernacular tracts. For, because the tract is a licit option for the OF. Against, because the directive never explicitly permits any setting outside of "the Graduale".

But we know that we cannot assume the directive refers specifically to the Graduale Romanum. because the Graduale Simplex is listed as a unique item many times in this document as a licit, no-episcopal-approval-needed option.

Note, though, that the four-option matrix for the minor propers, which includes provisions for alius cantus aptus, doesn't apply to the chant before the Gospel: the choice is Lectionary, Graduale (which Graduale?), or silence.

We know that the Constitution on the Liturgy (36.2) allows parts of the liturgy to be extended to the mother tongue. Certainly the tracts qualify as a part of the liturgy. To translate a tract into the mother tongue and put it into a musical form that somewhat approximates the original seems to be a licit activity.

We know that Latin-rite bishops worldwide turned this permission into a mandate (see Overath [PDF] for US examples), which rendered a whole bunch of Latin-language church vulnerable to neglect at best, including the music most native to the rite, and the things that this native ritual music promotes. Never mind that much of this music was hardly heard on a wide basis before it was jettisoned.

Not all of the Latin liturgical texts were translated and approved qua vernacular liturgical texts explicitly (CSL 36.4), including the texts of the tracts. But we have Scriptural translations that may be used in liturgical capacity. So as far as English translations of the tracts go, unless we use translations that are duly approved for liturgical use (in the US, see this Adoremus Bulletin article for some 1996-vintage clarity), they aren't licit.

Under this criterion, the collection I've edited appears to be technically illicit (since the Solesmes Gregorian Missal translation was never intended for liturgical proclamation).

Have I missed anything?

Incidentally, I have arranged the Graduale Simplex tracts in both NAB and RGP versions — both approved for liturgical use.

As far as truncation goes, it appears that the tracts we have are in truncated form already (save Lent I and perhaps Palm Sunday). I'll leave scholarly authorities with the final word on that. But I'm sure that truncation/abbreviation would be tolerated.

Based on my reading, they may not be used. Unless the USCCB or diocesan bishop approves it (nationwide and within a particular diocese, respectively, either on a standing basis or ad experimentum, I would think).

I would answer is "yes" to that question.

If I remember correctly, By Flowing Waters is an approved collection of vernacular chants (I don't have my copy with me so I cannot tell you definitively), but it needed approval because it uses the NRSV (if I remember correctly).

So paraphrased Responsorial Psalm is allowed, but not Tracts? Why is that?

It would be nice if Aristotle or someone else can set approved text, such as the NAB? to the Gregorian melody.

paraphrased Responsorial Psalm is allowed

No, they are not.
I clearly showed the mis-quoting.
http://musicasacra.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1442#Item_20

The question comes up whether the tract can be sung in the vernacular. The GIRM permits the tract to be sung in Lent; it can be drawn from the Graduale, it says. In the previous paragraphs, the gradual has been permitted, drawn from the Graduale Romanum or the Graduale simplex; here it simply says Graduale, but in the context of the previous paragraph, it should be taken to mean both Romanum and simplex.

The tract, sung out in melismatic Gregorian chant in Latin, is provided in the Gregorian Missal (which is an extract from the Roman Gradual); but the GIRM is oriented completely to the vernacular liturgy, so there is no reason to think that that permission doesn't apply to a vernacular translation. Recall that the chants proper to the Graduale Romanum have not been provided with translations; this allows the musician preparing the vernacular version to select the translation; it certainly does not prohibit the singing of the tract in the vernacular.

There are points in the translation of the GIRM which are not particularly accurate. For example, it says that the chant after the first lesson can be an antiphon and psalm from the Graduale Romanum or the Graduale simplex, but the Graduale Romanum does not contain any antiphons for such purpose, but rather graduals. The Australian translation of this same text says responsorial gradual, which is more precise. The Latin of the GIRM says "potest etiam vel responsorium graduale e Graduali Romano, vel psalmus responsorius aut alleluiaticus e Graduali simplici, sicut in his libris describuntur." "It is possible [to sing] either the gradual responsory from the Roman Gradual or the responsorial psalm or alleluia psalm from the Simple Gradual, as set forth in these books."

We sang Tract today for the Feast of St. Joseph. It was very special and beautiful. (For the parish who is not ready for the Tract from GR yet, this was a beautiful introduction of it, though I kind of had to explain to our priest what tract was. He told me he never heard of it before, but was glad to learn about it ! We also sang the gorgeous Communio., Joseph Fili David. My schola loved it. We had a beautiful and reverent liturgy today. This evening my family and I will be going the Family Dinner Night at our parish, which will be a good chance for me to talk about this beautiful liturgy we had this morning with others.).

Thanks Aristotle.