In the OF, the Responsorial Psalm from the Lectionary is considered normative, with the Gradual as an option (due, I assume, to its pedigree and worth).

My opinion: It wouldn't really make sense to use something that would essentially be a replacement of a non-normative option.

...there may be sung ... the Responsorial Gradual from the Graduale Romanum...

Another thought... notice it is called the "Responsorial Gradual" in the rubric... which seems to imply that if it is done, it is to be done with the "respond" repeated after the verse - unlike typical EF custom.

SkirpR,

Do I correctly understand that your (very strict) reading of the GIRM implies that only the exact setting in the Graduale Romanum can be sung?

So, for instance, the Chants Abrégés by Solesmes, the simplified settings by Richard Rice, and all polyphonic settings would be forbidden?

Is that the way you are reading it?

(I am asking in a serious way. I am not trying to be a jerk.)

Like Adam, this is only my understanding, which doesn't mean much, but:

I think that it is reasonable to say that the GIRM does not foresee the use of a polyphonic setting of the Gradual. The Responsorial psalm, for better or for worse, is clearly intended to be the normal practice, but in deference to tradition and the "pride of place" ("first place"?) Gregorian chant occupies as recognized by the Council, the Gregorian gradual is allowed as another option.

Having said that, a polyphonic gradual is still in the spirit of the Gradual as a meditative, elaborate interlectionary psalm and it might be overly legalistic to say that the GIRM forbids it.

The "chants abrege" Graduals are another matter. The function of these compositions is to allow choirs who cannot manage the Gradual to fulfill the requirement in the EF to sing the text. It is not overly legalistic, I think, to say that this is not only not foreseen by the GIRM but is totally contrary to what it intends. If the choir cannot manage the real Gradual, then there is no reason to sing the Gradual text, and we should go back to the first option, the Responsorial Psalm.

Otherwise, an opportunity for congregational participation (very important consideration guiding the choices in the OF - cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium 14) is made subordinate to favouring a traditional interlectionary *text* rather than the lectionary text. We may wish that things had been done differently and that the Gradual texts had been preserved between the readings for the responsorial psalm in the interests of continuity- I do. Laszlo Dobszay showed in his Graduale Parvum how this might have been done (while also satisfying the desire for congregational participation) and even obtained special permission from the bishop's conference to do this in an offical Hungarian hymnal.

As it stands however, "abridged" graduals and Rossini psalm tone graduals seem to me to be too much of a stretch to maintain that they are permitted by the GIRM, unless we want to concede that all manner of things are permitted by the GIRM and anything goes up to and including "Turn, turn, turn" by the Byrds, etc...

Please see below.

I'm interested in what you have to say, PoJo- even (especially) if you disagree.

BTW:
While I tend to think that in the OF the Psalm from the Lectionary is "normative" I would also say that- if you are doing all the other Propers from the Graduale, it would be particularly weird not to also sing the Gradual. I have nothing official to back that up other than a sense of liturgical gestalt. In that case- if you were (for example) doing a full set of polyphonic propers (does that even happen in the OF anywhere?), then also doing a polyphonic gradual seems to be the more appropriate than intruding with a "Responsorial Psalm." But that's just me.

A modicum of legalism is very prudent, but I strongly believe that the Church intends a certain amount of liberality in all this. FWIW: My personal opinion is that freedom and variety, within the bounds of legitimate tradition and appropriate solemnity, were a big part of B16's liturgical program.

Yes, but it's not B16 now.

Ask the priest what he wants and do it, without comment. If he expresses no preference, recite the responsorial psalm from the lectionary, listen to the sermon, say the responses, receive Communion, and go out into the world where you, layman, have your real Christian work to do.

This question has me confused, an easy thing to do I am afraid. The Rossini propers are lovely as are their English counterparts. Wasn't the English version of the Rossini propers used by some parishes before Vatican II? I think doing a simpler version of the full contemplative chants is better than not doing them at all, the Mass is to be sung which I take it to mean the texts of the Mass. The best thing to do is the real thing and if it is programmed in for special occasions, I think most congregations which already have some Latin in their Mass would be open to having the full Latin chants occasionally. Teach them to the children's choir if you have one that is good enough or the ladies in the choir who are good enough singers and can blend or be led. The biggest problem I have heard is when the melismatic chants are performed poorly, ouch!
One more consideration: The Vatican thought the texts of the Gradual, Alleluia and Tracts were important. If they had not believed these texts were important I doubt we would have the Graduale Romanum today. Maybe I am wrong but Solesmes re-ordered the contemplative chants so they could be used in the OF and that is a major indication to me that the texts should be sung. The Haec Dies goes way back, maybe even to the 2nd century, but I doubt when sung in Jerusalem or Antioch that it sounded like the more modern Gregorian Chant. There... I called Gregorian Chant modern!
The tradition is to sing the texts of the Mass whether as a Resposorial Psalm which uses the proper psalm, a simpler version of the Gradual or the real deal.

I have to admit I'm pretty perplexed at the rigorous demand that a certain text must be sung to a particular musical setting, particularly when it seems that it would be the only instance where this is the case. Even the musical settings in the Missal itself are but suggestions and may be replaced with more or less complicated settings as appropriate.

the beauty - dare I say usefulness - of the Gradual seems to me to lie in the joint musical/textual composition of the chant as something meditative.

How long does it have to be -- and how melismatic should it be -- for it to be beautiful and meditative? A short chant can be meditative. A syllabic chant can be meditative. Is this gradual meditative enough? How about this tract?

then just do the Responsorial Psalm!

Some perspective from a practical level would be helpful here. This is taken from Jeff's blog post introducing the Lalemant propers:

However, those attempting to introduce the Mass Propers at their parishes realize absolute consistency is necessary. Therefore, what happens when a cantor gets sick or there is not adequate time for the choir to learn a chant from the Graduale Romanum or Simple English Propers? Or what about circumstances where a choir is not present, such as a 7:00am Sunday Mass, or (perhaps) a special Holy Day? What about the summer months, when some choirs do not meet? If the Propers are simply omitted, this causes considerable confusion for the congregation, which was previously told that each Mass has special Propers which ought to be sung. We know very well that the Liturgy is complex and must not constantly switch back and forth with changing texts, practices, and musical choices. Constant changes are quite disruptive to Liturgical prayer.

There are plenty of great comments in this discussion about the nature of the gradual, how it is intended for meditation on the text, how the melismatic form contributes to this, etc. But I do not see how that commentary translates to liturgical legislation.

that seems to accomplish about as much as ringing a bell and shouting... "the Responsorial Psalm should have never been invented."

And with that quip, SkipR, you just made a case for doing it.






(lest anyone get upset this is intended to humorus)

In looking for an answer to chonak's question (which I did not find), I found an interesting statement about the responsorial psalm. I don't know if it is even relevant to this conversation, but it is still interesting.

The text of the Graduale Romanum has not been changed as far as the music is concerned. In the interest of their being more readily understood, however, the responsorial psalm (which St. Augustine and St. Leo the Grat often mention) as well as the entrance and communion antiphons have been revised for use in masses that are not sung. [Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, approving the new Roman Missal, 3 April 1969, emphasis added]

Don't have the time to look it up right now, but isn't there another document that says the Responsorial Psalm is intended/preferred to be sung? Maybe the Introduction to the Lectionary. If that's true, then its use cannot apply solely to "masses that are not sung." But, rather, perhaps that the Gradual is more apt for Masses that are entirely sung, as Adam suggests.

Bruce, I am also appalled, but I think it's implicit in, if not intended by, Pope Francis's recent calls for the laity to reform and to take up our proper place in the world rather than the sanctuary. I think he thinks that for laymen to occupy themselves with the liturgy (altar serving, being a lector, greeting, were mentioned -- true, not performing sacred music) is akin to "disease".

I do rather wish to be wrong about this.

Andrew- I don't think that is what Francis was saying at all. From what I could tell, he seemed to be saying that we (lay people) should not believe that the ONLY or MOST IMPORTANT way to "actively participate" is to do liturgical things. He didn't say that those things shouldn't be done, or that lay people should not be doing them.

I cannot imagine a circumstance in which singing the Gradual in English would be a good idea. Singing a Gradual in the vernacular to a Psalm-tone may be more dignified than some of the more undignified Responsorial Psalms (think of the ones in the front of some of the hymnals of years yonder)... but I certainly think some of the more dignified Responsorial Psalms by Oost-Zinner, Esguerra, Bartlett and/or Ostrowski would be a far better option.

The actual Gregorian Graduals, sung in their entirety, are a wonderful thing... I can't imagine the awe that is brought about by their full singing could ever be captured in a vernacular version.

Also, the American Gradual

:) Capitalization. A+

Though I must say that my book, THE RECTO TONO PROPERS, includes both the Responsorial Psalm and the Gradual, so you'd have the option.

Here's the Latin for the text which jpal quoted above (Pope Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum 1969):

Quod reliquum est, licet textus Gradualis Romani, ad cantum saltem quod attinet, nοn fuerit mutatus, tamen, facilioris intellectus gratia, sive Psalmus ille Responsorius, de quο S. Augustinus et S. Leo Magnus saepe commermorant, sive Antiphonae ad Introitum et ad Communionem in Missis lectis adhibendae, pro opportunitate, instaurata sunt.

It appears that the reference to "read Masses" refers to the introit and communion antiphons added to the Missal in 1969, but not to the responsorial psalm (although I wish it had been referring to both!)

"I believe it is incorrect to suggest that there is always, to every question, a definitive answer."

Part of me wants to say "YES. THIS."

The other part of me would miss the forum if everyone here realized that.

There is a problem in speaking of the "restoration" of the responsorial psalm. We have neither concrete texts nor melodies to give us any idea of what to restore. The practice of singing office psalmody for the responsorial psalm is misconceived. Office psalmody is ideal for a whole community to chant the entire psalter in the course of a week. Its purpose is to allow the individual worshipers to chant the text unselfconsciously. But surely a different manner of singing should be required when a soloist presents the text for the entire congregation to hear. But from a historical point of view, this is only theoretical, since we have no concrete examples of responsorial psalms before the graduals were notated.

I remember JT blogging about a similar (or the same?) liturgy where the Ordinary was chanted by the congregation with Propers sung in polyphony - which is something of a switch from the more "usual" practice of a polyphonic Mass with Gregorian Propers.

It strikes me as a WONDERFUL approach- combining a very classical/traditional solemnity with a (I would call it) contemporary understanding of congregational participation in the singing of the Mass.

It's interesting that (other than for perhaps pastoral reasons) hardly anyone here would say that a fully chanted Mass had "too much chant," but you concluded that a fully polyphonic one (Ordinary + Proper) was "too much polyphony." Even when it's Byrd. (I have no conclusions to draw from that exactly... I just think it is interesting.)

=========

just published a biography of Byrd in the Master Musicians series of Oxford University Press

I'm sure I'm not the only one who was interested by that. Here it is...




http://www.amazon.com/Byrd-Master-Musicians-Kerry-McCarthy/dp/0195388755

I remember JT blogging about a similar (or the same?) liturgy where the Ordinary was chanted by the congregation with Propers sung in polyphony - which is something of a switch from the more "usual" practice of a polyphonic Mass with Gregorian Propers.

Isn't this what we did at the Colloquium in 2010, using the Gradualia and Gregorian ordinary?

In case anyone is taking a poll, we do, very occasionally sing the gradual in the vernacular for feasts, etc. at our 7am weekday masses. Most people attending that mass need to get to work and if there happens to be a gloria, creed, etc. it helps if we are able to shorten in other ways.

With regard to singing the Gradual:

1. Speaking for myself, I find it absurd to imply that the Gradual can only be sung "exactly as it appears in the Graduale Romanum." For one thing, that stirs up a whole bunch of controversies already covered in other places, like whether it is allowed to use the Solesmes rhythm, which is often contrary to the Vatican rhythm. This has been treated for 100 years, going all the way back to Pothier's letter to the organist Widor.

2. Speaking for myself, I find it inconceivable that a polyphonic setting of the Gradual would be forbidden. The same with the Chants Abrégés of Solesmes (both versions of this book are allowed and perfectly licit). Remember that Solesmes has been (in essence) the Vatican publisher of chant since 1918. Remember that the Second Vatican Council specifically praised Polyphony and chant and said chant should hold "first place."

3. Speaking for myself, I find it totally unthinkable that a Psalm Tone setting or simplified setting of the Gradual would be forbidden. These are longstanding traditions that go back at least 140 years. I've read nothing to contradict them. Remember that the Bishops' Committee has said the GIRM is only a guideline that gives general norms for usual circumstances. I can find the precise quote somewhere. The GIRM assumes knowledge of common Catholic practice. It is not a technical document that spells out every possible circumstance. Again, it assumes knowledge of Catholic tradition. Like we said when I was the chief umpire, years ago: "The rules of baseball were written by gentlemen for gentlemen, not by lawyers for lawyers." (Although that phrase didn't help when it comes to defining a "balk" motion.)

4. I've read nothing in the GIRM that says the Gradual can only be sung in Latin and not any other language. This would seem to fly in the face of common praxis of the last 45 years.

5. Regarding the musical setting, it requires no approval if composed in the style of Gregorian chant, according to the Bishops' Committee. This has been stated in writing.

6. Regarding the text, the Gregorian Missal English text has been approved for liturgical use by several USA Bishops, is frequently used by major Cathedrals, and has a 1989 Imprimatur. The Bishops' Committee has stated in writing numerous times since 2006 that one Bishop's approval "counts for all" in this matter. That is how they interpret GIRM 48 and the Vatican is aware of this, according to the Bishops' Committee. This has been stated in writing.

7. I think it is worth noting that a major publishing company has already admitted that none of their Responsorial Psalms have their musical settings approved by a Bishop, which you can see by viewing this PDF file.

8. I think this is worthy of consideration that a major publishing company has admitted in writing that not one of their alternate texts (which they use in place of the official Responsorial Psalm text) has been approved by any Bishop, which you can see by viewing this PDF document from last year.

9. For the record, when I started working at our local Cathedral, I was very shocked and worried that almost NONE of the Responsorial Psalms (which all used alternate texts from the official one) had any approval by any Bishop. This is something that caused me great anxiety, as my duty was simply to play what was given to me. I can say that, after several conversations with the Rector, I became less bothered by this. Four years later, and hundreds of Masses later, I became even less bothered. I am not saying this is right, and I certainly have NO INTENTION of casting any aspersions on our wonderful Cathedral program. I'm merely sharing some observations of a parish musician who has played hundreds and hundreds of Masses in Latin, Tagalog, English, Spanish, and other languages. I am merely sharing my experience for what it's worth.

10. I hope and pray my words will be welcomed, and taken in the spirit in which they are given.

P.S.

By the way, on a similar note, a few years back, I recall speaking at length to a director of liturgy for one of the largest, most Catholic Dioceses in the USA. At that time, I was asking about the approval status of the SEP. I kept asking over and over, and he kept saying, "What are you talking about? It's just the Graduale Romanum! We use SEP all the time. What are you talking about?" I think I eventually hung up the phone, pretty embarrassed that I would waste his time like that. I mention this merely as a point of interest. There's a certain degree of common sense here that also needs to be taken into consideration.

Isn't this what we did at the Colloquium in 2010, using the Gradualia and Gregorian ordinary?

Andrew,
The Saturday Solemn High Mass
Int: Salve sancta parens/Byrd
Grad: Benedicta et vernerabilis/Byrd
Alleluia: Post partum/Byrd
Off; chant/If ye love me/Byrd (not proper)
Comm: Beata viscera/Byrd