Good morning and welcome to the new GIRM
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    The details here
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 2,086
    As Ronald Reagan would have said, it's morning in Ecclesia!
  • bgeorge77
    Posts: 190
    Just trying to anticipate objections that I will get when I speak about this to others: Does the "in another setting" phrase allow books like the SEP? Meaning: is a translation considered "in another setting"?
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    The GIRM doesn't deal with the translation issue at all, and this is good. The translation task has not touched the Graduale.
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 2,086
    As a practical matter of implementation, translation is essential. Going to the Propers will be an earthquake for most parishes. Going to Propers AND insisting they be in Latin is just not in the cards. In the "the priest turned his back to me!" culture, "words I can't understand" aren't going to happen.

    Here's the sweet part...who else besides CMAA has Propers in English? We're in the position of FEL in 1965... AND we won't flush that down the drain with copyright lawsuits.
  • BrophyBoy
    Posts: 47
    Well, "other things being equal," there is also the Anglican Use Gradual.
  • Mark M.Mark M.
    Posts: 632
    (cross-posted from the combox there:)
    61(d) …there may be sung either the Responsorial Gradual from the Graduale Romanum… as described in these books…
    Responsorial Gradual?!? I trust that the phrase "as described in these books" means that we recognize that the Gradual is not, in fact, "responsorial."
  • newmanbenewmanbe
    Posts: 76
    Mark M.:

    That is still better than before:

    [T]he 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 Gradual does not have any responsorial psalms and the Simple Gradual (which does not have any Graduals) does not have anything to do with the lectionary.
  • ClemensRomanusClemensRomanus
    Posts: 1,023
    I thought the Gradual was originally responsorial and may still be sung that way.
  • Mark M.Mark M.
    Posts: 632
    Better, yes.

    How would the Gradual be sung "responsorially"? The melodies seem too elaborate and too varied for congregational participation.
  • catholiccomposer
    Posts: 21
    I agree with Clemens. Responsorial doesn't entail congregational participation. In the original gradual, the respond (the first part, hence "responsorial") would have been sung again after the verse.
  • Mark M.Mark M.
    Posts: 632
    "The respond"… as in, before the asterisk? Or is this something that would have been different in the "original gradual"?

    In any case, I'm thrilled to learn this… this does seem like the newly-translated GIRM is giving greater weight to the gradual — sung as it is supposed to be sung.
  • lagunaredbob
    Posts: 161
    Has the new GIRM 2011 come out in PDF form yet?
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    There is a school that takes "responsorial" to mean that the psalm is a response to the firs reading, even when it is sung straight through.
  • Mark M.Mark M.
    Posts: 632
    Some other great answers to my "responsorial" question have appeared over on the Café combox. Thanks everyone!
  • catholiccomposer
    Posts: 21
    Mark, the respond is everything before the first double bar, and everything after the "V/." is the verse. In the older form, the entire respond was repeated, similar to the introit (but without Gloria Patri, if I'm not mistaken).

    incantu, I had forgotten about that. It's been awhile since I've encountered it. It just shows what happens when we stop catechizing...
  • catholiccomposer
    Posts: 21
    Whoops! Force-fingered!
  • Adam Schwend
    Posts: 203
    I have to agree with the confusion of what a "responsorial gradual" is. By definition, a gradual is not responsorial....that would basically be a tract.
  • benedictgal
    Posts: 798
    The new GIRM has not come out yet on PDF format because the USCCB is revamping its website. I did order my own copy yesterday and I should be receiving it next week.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,974
    I am going to order it. I have the "old" one, so I can compare the two when the new one arrives. I strongly suspect that mine will be the only parish in town actually following it. But that's one area where I would be delighted to be proven wrong.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,411
    Everyone knows why the gradual is called what it is. But why the confusion over the fact that it indeed is what is left of a psalm sung responsorially? And: what is wrong with a psalm that IS sung responsorially? Nothing. All that is needed for it is good ecclesiastical music, preferably in an historical chant idiom. (I'm sure, after all, that there were people in the tenth century who complained that they were not doing things the way they were done in the sixth century --- a responsorial psalm, whether The Gradual or another one, is not sui generis a bad thing.)
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,610
    Not in town, in the Diocese. Yet another parish has abandoned its organ...
  • francis
    Posts: 10,810
    Excuse me, but I cannot find the 'new' translation of the GIRM... anyone?

    And, I am wondering if there is no new Latin version, but simply a new English translation.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    yes new English

    http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/roman-missal/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal/
  • Paul F. Ford
    Posts: 864
    I've posted some of it here:http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2011/09/05/the-english-girm-2002-and-2011-side-by-side/
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    a fantastic job Dr. Ford!!
Add a Comment