What about another name for the Responsorial Psalm?
  • hilluminar
    Posts: 121
    Doesn't it strike you as odd that we now have several books of Propers that present everything in a responsorial style? Now all the Propers can be Responsorial Psalms! We have the Graduale Simplex, and the English version By Flowing Waters, and now the Simple English Propers, all in a responsorial style. And (correct me if I am wrong), even the Lumen Christi Missal has the "refrain" or "antiphon" to all the Propers in it. So now, when we are talking about a Responsorial Psalm, precisely which part of the Mass Propers are we talking about? I think that the Responsorial Psalm which occurs between the Old Testament and the Epistle Reading should now be retermed: "The Psalm between the Readings".
  • hartleymartin
    Posts: 1,447
    I think that the name "Responsorial Psalm" is intended to contrast with the Gradual. It is still liturgically correct to use the Gradual instead of the "Responsorial Psalm".

    The other Propers (Introit, Offertory, Communion) are not so much "responsorial" as they are "antiphonal".
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    One reason for the appearance of this is purely practical. The Gregorian piece is longer and can stand on its own as a real piece of music. Psalms are always optional but not necessary. Not true with these syllabic English pieces, which start and end in 10 seconds, so of course you have to use Psalms to help them make sense. But in general I agree that using only these, every proper at every week, can be a bit much. This is why it is good to have the Rice Choral Gradual on hand, plus many other resources.
  • Ally
    Posts: 227
    A change in terminology might help...there are people who still think the Psalm between readings is intended to be a "response" to the first reading, rather than the manner in which it may be sung.
  • PaixGioiaAmorPaixGioiaAmor
    Posts: 1,473
    I vote for using whatever exact wording is used in official documents and in the Roman Missal.
    Thanked by 2Spriggo SkirpR
  • Ioannes Andreades
    Posts: 310
    They should call it the second reading. Back in the fourth century, it was considered a reading just like the epistle was, though its delivery differed. For whatever reason, when it was reintegrated back into the O.F. mass, it was no longer thought of as analogous to the other scriptural readings.
    Thanked by 3PMulholland Ally CHGiffen
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,414
    There is, indeed, some confusion about the manner of singing the propers, what with antiphons and responds alike being misunderstood and treated as mere 'refrains'. Properly understood, we have a 'respond' for responsorial psalmody, and an 'antiphon' for antiphonal psalmody. Not 'refrains'.

    Responsorial psalmody is that in which the full choir (or congregation) sing a 'respond' between vv. of a psalm sung more elaborately by a cantor. The alleluia is also a responsorial form, 'alleluia' being the respond to an accompanying verse or verses.
    The gradual itself is what is left of a responsorial psalm, consisting, as it now does, of a respond and one vestigial verse. Both the 'gradual' and the 'responsorial psalm' share the same place and function in the liturgy, and their names could, it seems to me, be quite interchangeable. Many scholars do, in fact refer to the 'responsorial gradual' as a particularly Roman form.

    Antiphonal psalmody occurs when two choirs or groups sing successive vv. of a psalm and then sing together the antiphon.
    I have seen some current efforts that rather turn this form (as in introit, offertory, & communion) on its head, making the 'antiphon' into a simple congregational 'refrain' in alternation with cantorial psalm verses. And, voila! What is supposed to be an antiphonal chant has been turned into a responsorial one.

    Neither the 'respond' nor the 'antiphon' is a mere 'refrain', and we would be better off if we stopped using that term in reference to the mass propers.
Add a Comment