Singing the Responsorial Psalm
  • Paul_OnnonhoaratonPaul_Onnonhoaraton
    Posts: 434
    It is permitted to sing the REFRAIN, then entire PSALM, then REFRAIN.

    However, I cannot seem to locate where the rules say this.

    Can you help?
  • donr
    Posts: 971
    From the RMIII

    The Responsorial Psalm
    61. After the First Reading follows the Responsorial Psalm, which is an integral part of the Liturgy of the Word and which has great liturgical and pastoral importance, since it fosters meditation on the Word of God.
    The Responsorial Psalm should correspond to each reading and should usually be taken from the Lectionary.
    It is preferable for the Responsorial Psalm to be sung, at least as far as the people’s response is concerned. Hence the psalmist, or cantor of the Psalm, sings the Psalm verses at the ambo or another suitable place, while the whole congregation sits and listens, normally taking part by means of the response, except when the Psalm is sung straight through, that is, without a response. However, in order that the people may be able to sing the Psalm response more easily, texts of some responses and Psalms have been chosen for the different times of the year or for the different categories of Saints.
    These may be used instead of the text corresponding to the reading whenever the Psalm is sung. If the Psalm cannot be sung, then it should be recited in a way that is particularly suited to fostering meditation on the Word of God.
    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.
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,186
    The answer to the OP's question is "yes".

    The quoted rubric is rather more than usually haphazard (for the GIRM).
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 997
    The General Introduction to the Lectionary says:
    20. As a rule the responsorial psalm should be sung. There are two established ways of singing the psalm after the first reading: responsorially and directly. In responsorial singing, which, as far as possible, is to be given preference, the psalmist, or cantor of the psalm, sings the psalm verse and the whole congregation joins in by singing the response. In direct singing of the psalm there is no intervening response by the community; either the psalmist, or cantor of the psalm, sings the psalm alone as the community listens or else all sing it together.

    I may be mistaken, but I don't see the performance Jeff proposes described in either GIRM 61 nor GIL 20.
  • Paul_OnnonhoaratonPaul_Onnonhoaraton
    Posts: 434
    Friends, I know the Church allows this ... Noel Jones used to perform the Psalms this way at his Church ... can anybody find the legislation? Thx!
    Thanked by 1E_A_Fulhorst
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,215
    Isn't para. 20 above referring to this method when it speaks of presenting the psalm "directly": "In direct singing of the psalm there is no intervening response by the community...."

    GIRM para. 61 also mentions it:

    It is preferable for the Responsorial Psalm to be sung, at least as far as the people’s response is concerned. Hence the psalmist, or cantor of the Psalm, sings the Psalm verses at the ambo or another suitable place, while the whole congregation sits and listens, normally taking part by means of the response, except when the Psalm is sung straight through, that is, without a response. However, in order that the people may be able to sing the Psalm response more easily, texts of some responses and Psalms have been chosen for the different times of the year or for the different categories of Saints. These may be used instead of the text corresponding to the reading whenever the Psalm is sung. If the Psalm cannot be sung, then it should be recited in a way that is particularly suited to fostering meditation on the Word of God.


    Are you reading these differently: e.g. to mean that the "direct" manner requires omitting the antiphon before and after?
  • Paul_D
    Posts: 133
    Try reading GIL 20 with this emphasis: “In direct singing of the psalm there is no intervening response by the community....” It does not rule out the singing of the antiphon before and after the psalm (though I admit that my interpretation may be contrived).

    Given the overall flexibility of the rubrics surrounding the psalm, I can’t see the rubrics intending to rule out Paul_O’s version. Even if a slight innovation, I say that it is the very sort of thing promoted by Musicam sacram 59.

    And, coincidentally, I have been mulling over doing the same thing, because in recent weeks, the length of the responsorial psalm has been irritating me more and more. It seems disproportionate to the readings, and seems to make me forget the first reading rather than meditate on it! Attending to a refrain every few lines does help interiorize the response, but it can interfere with an encounter with the psalm overall, and focus too exclusively on one point.

    The solution is not to eliminate the standard form of the responsorial psalm, but to make a judicious use of the various options for singing it.

    So thank you, Paul, for bringing up this option, and firming my resolve to implement it on occasion.
    Thanked by 1canadash
  • ScottKChicago
    Posts: 349
    I really like the way they sing the psalms on the broadcasts of Vespers every day from Notre-Dame de Paris: Refrain - Psalm verses alternating cantor/all - Refrain. No internal repetition of refrain during psalm. So the people get some substantial texts to sing and not the refrain only. They really get to help do the work! My point is: I think it would be great to sing the Responsorial Psalm this way, if allowed.

    Here's an example of a Vespers music sheet.

    Here's a video of a (different) psalm sung this way (unfortunately not from the sheet linked above).

    I love the beautiful way they sing the psalms and move gracefully through Vespers without fuss but with devotion.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,215
    Incidentally, KTO (Catholic TV in France) streams some of its programs live on the net, so you can watch these live, and if your TV setup includes a Roku video device, you can put the Vespers on the big screen.
    Thanked by 1ScottKChicago
  • Paul_OnnonhoaratonPaul_Onnonhoaraton
    Posts: 434
    Somewhere there exists a more EXPLICIT permission for this. I am sure of it ...
  • donr
    Posts: 971
    This sort of says what you are looking for, maybe?
    Sing to the Lord - 2007
    157. The proper or seasonal Responsorial Psalm from the Lectionary for Mass, with the congregation singing the response, is to be preferred to the gradual from the Graduale Romanum.127 When the Latin gradual is sung in directum (straight through) by choir alone, the congregation should be given a vernacular translation.
  • donr
    Posts: 971
    The paragraph prior states:
    156. “As a rule the Responsorial Psalm should be sung.”125 Preferably, the Psalm is sung
    responsorially: “the psalmist, or cantor of the psalm, sings the psalm verses and the whole congregation joins in by singing the response.”126 If this is not possible, the Psalm is sung completely without an intervening response by the community.
  • Bruce E. Ford
    Posts: 431
    Why do so many people dislike responsorial psalmody and look for ways to avoid performing responsorial psalms in the usual manner? Do they think the responsorial psalm is some sort of post-Conciliar novelty?

    The tradition of responsorial psalmody is older than the tradition of antiphonal psalmody, and both are older than alternate psalmody. The Gregorian graduals are, in fact, ornate responsorial psalms, reduced to a single verse.

    The kind of psalmody in which the verses are sung by alternating choirs is not true antiphonal psalmody. It is more properly called alternate psalmody, and its use at Mass is not traditional. In true antiphonal psalmody the antiphon is sung by alternating choirs while the verses are sung by a soloist.

    McKinnon has given us evidence that the psalm at the Liturgy of the Word is in origin a lesson. It was originally sung straight through by a soloist, and congregational responses were added later. In the tracts we have precedent for direct (sung straight through by a soloist) psalmody. In the graduals we have precedent for responsorial psalmody. Centuries before the composition of the graduals Augustine and Leo the Great mentioned responsorial psalm singing at Mass. In the introits and communions we have precedent for antiphonal psalmody. Nowhere in the Mass, however, do we have precedent for psalm verses sung by the choir or by the congregation.

    Why do so many church musicians think it would be more seemly or more traditional to have the psalm in the Liturgy of the Word performed in a different manner from that described in GIRM?
    Thanked by 4CHGiffen Paul F. Ford SkirpR Andrew Motyka
  • Paul_OnnonhoaratonPaul_Onnonhoaraton
    Posts: 434
    I can only speak for myself. I want to make sure it is licit to do this for a Resp. Psalm that only has 4 lines — seems ridiculous to break it up in this case.

    http://noelchabanel.org/psalms/C_21_ord/
  • ScottKChicago
    Posts: 349
    I just think the person in the pew experiences the Responsorial Psalm all too often in these ways: (1) All I get to sing is this carpet-store-commercial jingle of a refrain, and not enough information is given (or none), so I have to memorize it the first time I hear it and then try to ignore the distraction of the verses so I can remember enough of the jingle...er, refrain to sing it again. (2) All I experience of the verses is a cantor singing them too quickly, or without really paying attention to the meaning, so it all vanishes the moment the psalm is over. If I could sing every other verse, alternating with the cantor, I'd have a chance to pray the psalm with the assembly. It would be better to have the Gradual sung from the Graduale with the Latin and English texts printed out so I could pray that.

    (I'm obviously not a fan of the responsorial psalm as given and would like it if there were several options for how to do it. If there aren't, c'est la vie.)
    Thanked by 3noel jones, aago KARU27 Jahaza
  • Paul_OnnonhoaratonPaul_Onnonhoaraton
    Posts: 434
    Can anyone answer this question? Noel, you cited this rule years ago on the forum? Am I crazy? Was this only in the old GIRM ?
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    JMO,
    As the USCCB website lines up with everyone else in their formatting of the RP you're questioning, why not contact Rv. Sec'ty Hilgartner for the "American" answer?
    Thanked by 1Paul_Onnonhoaraton
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    You can always try the lightning strike test: do it and see if you get "shocked" on the spot!
    Thanked by 1IanW
  • SanAntonioCath
    Posts: 77
    Paul, here is a response from the USCCB Secretariat, Monsignor Hilgartner:

    Yes it is a lawful option. See the Introduction to the Lectionary for Mass (found in Volume I), no. 20.

    Msgr. Rick Hilgartner
    Executive Director
    Secretariat of Divine Worship
    United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
    3211 4th St. NE
    Washington, DC 20017
    Thanked by 1Paul_Onnonhoaraton
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    I can only tell you that it is there.

    We actually did this in the Gym at a Mass the day that Amy Wellborn reviewed the Mass and her husband employed by the Diocese of Birmingham, AL, sadly since deceased, explained to her that that was how it was done historically and that it was licit to do so today.

    I feel that the processional practice of singing an antiphon and extending it with verses is wonderful, but interrupting the psalm in its poetic glory with interjections of an Antiphon just does not make sense. But, hey, who am I to complain? Making it a congregational thing? Then have them read it all together or antiphonally side to side. It just violates reason in making it a group sung event when it's not group singing material - causing it then to be butchered into pieces to try and make it work.

    Anything to be sung by the people at Mass has to be standard - there is no way for a congregation to sing a different psalm each week...it violates the logic of how Mass parts are divided up and used.

    Scott's right. Let's stand outside church and ask them to repeat a line from the psalm or even just give us an idea of what the psalm was about. They might recall the refrain - and if so, it FAILS, for it is putting emphasis on something that is not the psalm for the day, but something hinged to it.
  • Andrew Motyka
    Posts: 946
    Let's stand outside church and ask them to repeat a line from the psalm or even just give us an idea of what the psalm was about.

    Yeah, but you could stand outside church and ask people to repeat the words of institution and you'd probably only get a 50% return rate. Whether or not people can recite it after Mass isn't necessarily the barometer for good liturgy.
    Thanked by 2Gavin E_A_Fulhorst
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    The POINT (to me) of the responsorial psalm is to have them remember the response. They aren't going to remember a psalm, so the Church wisely gives an antiphon (same thing with the propers) as something to hammer home.

    I still remember the antiphon "My God, my God why have you abandoned me?" from Palm Sunday in my youth. If you're going to say the Church failed me because I don't know the entirety of Psalm 22... I guess I can ask outside YOUR church and see how much of the psalter YOUR congregation knows.

    I'm sure they know every word.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    "Yeah, but you could stand outside church and ask people to repeat the words of institution and you'd probably only get a 50% return rate. Whether or not people can recite it after Mass isn't necessarily the barometer for good liturgy."

    You know, we seem to get petty at times. Shouldn't those people be sent back inside for a bit of remedial training?

    What is the use of merely attending Mass if you are not actually involved in understanding the readings and psalm? I mean, people fought to get the Mass in the vernacular and the same old lazy Catholic thinking still applies. I went to Mass. I've met my obligation.

    Active participation=involvement in understanding - not sing alongs.

    "They aren't going to remember a psalm, so the Church wisely gives an antiphon"

    Gavin. Why not give them a Reader's Digest Dick and Jane version of the bible and we'd all be out faster each Sunday?
  • E_A_FulhorstE_A_Fulhorst
    Posts: 381
    Why do so many people dislike responsorial psalmody and look for ways to avoid performing responsorial psalms in the usual manner? Do they think the responsorial psalm is some sort of post-Conciliar novelty?


    Because, when beginning with a naive bias, the particular changes from the classical Roman Rite to the juridical Novus Ordo are on-balance more bad than good, by a fair margin? Or, if this is too hypothetical the question, few Catholics have ever seen the "juridical" Novus Ordo and have only seen the de facto Novus Ordo, full of versus populum, bare walls, and bad music? (Keeping in mind, please, that the changes between the two are not necessarily isomorphic with the mandates of the Council, and that the "juridical" Novus Ordo as such is not at all isomorphic with the Novus Ordo as performed these days.)
Add a Comment