Dear Fr.,
I'll get to a suggestion in a second, allow me a mini-rant, if you all will, please.
Added to my list of banned words and terms in liturgical discourse that now prohibits: "Like....don't like," "I think," and anything close to "nice....good....bad," I am adding-
"supposed to." Endeth the rant. (Save for the part that "a priest" saying such implies some sort of "authority." Feh.

Okay, I'm gonna solve yer problem-doesn't matter if you use Chabanel or Respond and Acclaim and ever' thing in between. Here goes.
During the chanting of the verses, whether in alternatim with the responsorial or through, what's to prevent the quire from becoming an a capella "organ" using an "ooh" vowel or somesuch? The psalmist will cantillate the text, fine. The quire will still remain the living human voice most suitable for praising God (ain't that in the documents somewhere's, just as saxophones ain't?) As long as the quire are NOT voicing a Doo and a Wop and doing the Temptations lift step, who gives a rip? While I'm on it, what if that "another suitable" (the ever yielding ambiguity of the legislation, gotta love it!) place happens to be from the organist's bench and console, s/he being cantor/psalmist/choir/congregation and kitchen sink in one (The Quinity!)?
Question for Noel: when is someone going to write a little pamphlet book titled "When Priests Attack"? Or, in this era, that title probably wouldn't fly so well. Endeth the second rant.
Question: is it me, or is every DirMus that I know and love under severe duress that has nothing to do whatsoever with the Advent-Christmas season or the Third Edition of the English Roman Missal?

Charles: chill. Put your feet up. Listen to some good music. Open a bottle of something.

Well, so much for Westminster Cathedral, St. Paul's in Cambridge, and probably half of the Catholic parishes with outstanding music programs.

What would be the point of a cantor-only (meaning an individual person) restriction?

PGA - the abuse of judgement shouldn't require us to wish for a papal bull on the breakfast table every day (© W. Ward). Catholicism since Trent has swung between an Ultramontane desire for central dictation of everything to an uberliberal anything goes-so-long-as-it-gives-us-a-nice-warm-feeling. One of the lessons Joseph Ratzinger has for us is that we must look to tradition for liturgical guidance, for that "Spirit of the Liturgy" which will help us walk the authentic path. His observations on the choral Sanctus - which some would prohibit on the basis of a fundamentalist interpretation of the GIRM - are instructive.

It seems that neither the GIRM (nos. 61, 102, 129) nor the GILM (nos. 20, 22, 56) refer to the role of the choir in the singing of the Responsorial Psalm. The first reference in GIRM to choirs appears in no. 41:

41. The main place should be given, all things being equal, to Gregorian chant, as being proper to the Roman Liturgy. Other kinds of sacred music, in particular polyphony, are in no way excluded, provided that they correspond to the spirit of the liturgical action and that they foster the participation of all the faithful. [Cf. SC no. 116, & no. 30]

Then in no. 103 we find:

103. Among the faithful, the schola cantorum or choir exercises its own liturgical function, its place being to take care that the parts proper to it, in keeping with the different genres of chant, are properly carried out and to foster the active participation of the faithful by means of the singing. [Cf. S.C.R., Instruction, Musicam sacram, March 5, 1967, no. 19: AAS 59 (1967), p. 306.] What is said about the schola cantorum also applies, with due regard for the relevant norms, to other musicians, and especially the organist.

GIRM 103 cites the Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Rites as an example of "relevant norms" for the role of the choir. Here's what it says:

19. Because of the liturgical ministry it performs, the choir -- or the Capella musica, or schola cantorum -- deserves particular mention. Its role has become something of yet greater importance and weight by reason of the norms of the Council concerning the liturgical renewal. Its duty is, in effect, to ensure the proper performance of the parts which belong to it, according to the different kinds of music sung, and to encourage the active participation of the faithful in the singing. Therefore:

(a) There should be choirs, or Capellae, or scholae cantorum, especially in cathedrals and other major churches, in seminaries and religious houses of studies, and they should be carefully encouraged.

(b) It would also be desirable for similar choirs to be set up in smaller churches.

What is lacking in all these instructions so far is an explicit instruction as to what are the "parts [of the liturgy] that belong to [the choir]." Musicam sacram, no. 19 (cited above) hints that the choir's role has something to do with the "kinds of music sung."

Finally in the adaptation by the USCCB we read in no. 61:

61. ...In the Dioceses of the United States of America, instead of the Psalm assigned in the Lectionary, there may be sung either the Responsorial Gradual from the Graduale Romanum, or the Responsorial Psalm or the Alleluia Psalm from the Graduale Simplex, as described in these books, or an antiphon and Psalm from another collection of Psalms and antiphons, including Psalms arranged in metrical form, providing that they have been approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop. Songs or hymns may not be used in place of the Responsorial Psalm.

Since there are multiple options for the chant between the readings encompassing a variety of forms (gradual chant, responsorial psalm, alleluiatic psalm, or possibly another psalm, including metrical psalms) it would appear necessary to determine the appropriate manner of rendering the chant. So we read:

Graduale Romanum
5. After the first reading the Gradual Responsory is sung by cantors or by the choir.... [translation mine]

Graduale simplex
18. Paying heed to the principle set forth in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, that "in liturgical celebrations each person, minister or layman, who has an office to perform, should do all of, but only, those parts which pertain to his office by the nature of the rite and the principles of liturgy" [no. 28], by the structure of the chants of the Simple Gradual:
a) The cantor intones the antiphons and proclaims the verses of the psalms, the people responding. The psalm can also be sung by the choir (schola).
b) The assembly of the faithful (coetus fidelium) should sing the antiphons and the responses to the psalms that occur between the readings. On occasion, the faithful may even be given the part of the choir; it is appropriate, however, that at least the responses to the psalms that occur between the readings be proclaimed by the entire assembly, attention being given to their very nature and facility to be sung. [translation mine]

It is interesting to note that the directions for singing the psalms are all directed at set forms which are provided by the official liturgical books of the Roman Rite, i.e. the Graduale Romanum and the Graduale Simplex. Since the Church has never provided official music for the Responsorial Psalms of the Lectionary, it would seem to be a reasonable application of the existing norms to respect the musical integrity of the settings, allowing for choral, solo, or even congregational singing of the psalm, with the understanding that where there is a musical response at least the congregation will be expected to sing it.

I am not clear that the RP is necessarily simply a Gradual substitute. There's a sense in which it is also a 4th reading (or a 2nd OT reading, to provide symmetry with the Gospel/Epistle pair). IF it's a reading, then verbal rather than musical values would have primacy, and a single singer (all things being equal) projects text better. In any case, there's little that tradition can tell us about a liturgical element that didn't exist before 1970.

There's not a whole lot of good to come from rubric wars, but I wonder what Fr. Stuart's priest friend does about organ in Lent, or excessive EMHCs, or a host of other things. If Catholic musical culture lives by rubrics, it will also die by rubrics. At some point, it reminds one of George Carlin's crack about "going to Hell for a beef jerky on Friday."

@IanW:

Open a bottle of something

I think you meant "DRINK" a bottle of something. Open bottles all around the room, and he's still in anxiety-attack mode....

matthewj wrote: If a choir can sing cleanly and as though they are one voice (even if singing in harmony) I think they're just acting as a cantor

You put your finger on it. I have my schola sing unison, psalm-tone-based verses, from which the response is derived. Given a choir with good experience of Anglican chant, I would not be averse to harmonised verses, though some considerable skill is required to do it properly. The key thing with the responsorial psalm is to get the text over, enhancing it with music without the music getting in the way. That is quite possible with a choir, as it is with a competent cantor.

I would suggest that there are numerous items we could point to which show there is NO prohibition of a choir singing the Resp. Psalm. I am going to try to find some time later to type my thoughts on this.

Also, an expert Liturgist sent me this a few minutes ago:

Concerning paragraph 61: the responsorial psalm is a preference, not a requirement.

The first alternative is the gradual from the Graduale Romanum, in which it is inconceivable that the congregation should sing the verse; the traditional rubrics for the gradual assign the verse to cantors, so that not even the choir sings the verse. Other alternatives are collections of psalms and antiphons. Just as with the gradual, these psalms would be performed according to their own manner of performance. Thus. if you are using a collection of psalms with the verses set to Anglican chant, you would have the choir sing them. If you have a collection in which the cantor's part is provided with choral setting, it would come under this rubric and is perfectly permissible, I should think. The only prohibition is againt "songs or hymns."

In light of this possibility of alternatives, paragraph 129 is simply descriptive of the usual practice, and cannot restrict the practice to the responsorial psalm only, since paragraph 61 provides for alternatives to it.

There are ambiguities in the GIRM that mean that one must refer to Musicam sacram, Sacrosanctam concilium, and the entire tradition of teaching about sacred music, all of I think which would concur with what I have said.

The GIRM is the instructions that come with the Missal/Sacramentary. It gives basic instruction to the priest/celebrant and then to the other ministers in the Sanctuary. It gives direction for the minimum requirements. It does not go into what the altar server do and don't. It doesn't give any specific instructions for choir does or doesn't do either. It doesn't even try to tell the Bishop what he should do when celebrating the Mass - that's in another book. This is a very fundamentalist point of view, that there can only be one Psalmist, and that s/he must sing/read from the Ambo. Yes, there is the argument that doing anything else, even out of "Tradition" only opens up another Pandora's Box to other 'traditions". So, we shouldn't do what we know to be correct because some one else will concoct an excuse to do what the think is correct?

It would be helpful to have a document that lays out exactly how things were done....before Vat II. In locations such as a monastery, a cathedral, a large city parish church, a small country church.

Who sang what and how many.

The GIRM is more a description of how far you may stray from an ideal rather than directions for perfection.

No?

In this case, it may have been helpful.

After all, the gradual is seriously divorced from the resp psal. But is it not where it came from? Is there no connection?

Long florid Alleluias - sung by one, by a few, by the entire choir?