Indeed. GIRM 61 states:

"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."

And the General Introduction to the Lectionary 20 says about the Responsorial Psalm:

"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."

I'm pretty sure I know what parish this is. It's in my backyard ... literally.

Yes, I realize this is the only licit way to do it in RC rules.

Interesting that in the NO Mass, this is the place that they draw a hard and fast rule.

It's the mixture of sung and read in one prayer that seems so odd and ridiculous.
But I feel that way a lot at the OF of the mass. The most jarring (sometimes plain funny) IMO is when the Embolism is spoken by the celebrant, and followed by an uptempo, extended and loud choral Amen (amen!!! amen! amen!! aaaaaameeennnnn!!!) with organ.
It's like saying hello to a neighbor and getting a high-pitched brass quartet and soprano mini-aria back at you. Weird.

It's a problem of fluidity and proportion, of elevated cantillation and more commonplace spoken delivery. And it's bound to happen in a "now we're singing and now we're not" off-and-on, my turn, your turn approach to the mass as we try and progress to actual sung liturgy.

The parish I grew up at in Canada did this during Advent and Lent. The rest of the year the entire Psalm was read by everyone, including the refrains. It wasn't until I became a Music Director at 16 that I found a place where the Psalm was sung every weekend - and only because I insisted upon it.

The psalms were sung then....but the music is lost and the words have been translated so the even the simple rhythmic pattern of the original psalms is gone.

Are there those up in heaven above listening in torment to what we, both unable to sing them in the original language and having lost the original melodies, do to them?

Do they rant and rave saying...just read the words. I mean, should Beatles song lyrics be translated and set to new melodies? Should a Wagnerian opera be sung in French to new melodies? Are these not examples of perfection....as were the sung psalms?

Protestant churches read the psalms frequently - I am subbing for my wife at the Episcopal church Sunday and they read the psalm. It is more effective and represents a higher degree of active participation than the mess it is now.

No place in the Mass are the people EVER expected to participate with a changeable text. The idiots who came up with this are genuinely stupid and attempted to create something in their own image/imagination rather than merely change the language of the Mass from Latin to the vernacular. How come no one ever says this? Don't you agree?

מה הם עשו לשיר שלי?

Protestant churches read the psalms frequently

Do they read the refrains too? I found it awkward because I wasn't used to it, but it was reading the refrain that I found strange, perhaps because the psalms don't have refrains?

I do agree that singing the refrain is difficult, especially if the cantor isn't great and the congregation doesn't have the right text or melody. Then there is the fact that most people don't read music, which we as musicians often forget. I noticed this a lot this summer when I was away from my parish and found it difficult to participate in the psalm.

Protestant churches read the psalms frequently

Do they read the refrains too? I found it awkward because I wasn't used to it, but it was reading the refrain that I found strange, perhaps because the psalms don't have refrains?

In the Episcopal Church, the Book of Common Prayer contains the complete psalter for liturgical use, and no refrains are given. If the psalter is read from the BCP, typically it's done responsively (leader reads first verse; everyone reads second, and that alternation continues) or in unison (reader reads up to the first asterisk in the middle of verse 1, and everyone reads the rest of the psalm from there).

Sunday's psalm was 112 (Hebrew numbering). Ten verses to alternate, nice and neat. There should be a distinct pause at the mid-verse asterisk. Some congregations ignore this; others do it very carefully, and newcomers get caught out by barging ahead.

There is a set of books called Gradual Psalms that gives the Mass psalms for Sundays and holy days in responsorial form in Gregorian-style chant using traditional psalm tones. We used these in my previous parish where I was head cantor, and they worked well there. In my current parish, the schola chants the Gradual (and all the other propers) in Latin from the Graduale Romanum. We do recite the psalms responsively at daily Morning and Evening Prayer in the church, though.

Prayerfully one day singing the Gradual will return to its proper place of being the norm, and we can simply forego the Responsorial Psalm.

Just like the issue of a cantor giving a small cue for the people to come in, I've never understood why the responsorial pslam - and the loathing of it - has become one of the darling causes of those who view themselves "traditional," "conservative," or "orthodox."

And I'm not sure what makes the gradual better; Chant the psalm with psalm tone verses and a singable refrain. Not sure what about that does violence to the traditional roman rite.

PGA -

I won't speak for anyone else, and I don't have a dog in the race because my parish (EF) doesn't have the situation to address, but the problem can be understood from a variety of vantage points.

1) The Mass is an organic whole, not a mish-mash of unrelated stuff stuck together. It is not, to quote the then Cardinal Ratzinger, a perpetual workshop.
a) There are elements which change, and the traditional name for these is "proper". This does not imply that other things are IMproper; other parts of the Mass are "ordinary", not in the sense of "mundane, dreary, boring", but in the sense of "fixed, set in place"
b) Even those parts which change must respect the nature of the liturgy, which is public worship of Almighty God. If a Mass is sung, then it should be sung. If it is spoken, it should be spoken; if the "choir" or the "congregation" are required to sing their parts, then the celebrant should sing also, so that an organic whole is preserved. (Others have illustrated this.)
c) The Mass is an organic whole throughout time, not merely in our era. Just as the Communion of Saints involves the saints of all generations past, and the doctrine of the Church is unchanging in essentials over time, so the liturgy is by its nature stable, and must be allowed to be so.

Seen from this vantage point, speaking the psalm at a spoken Mass makes sense, and singing the psalm at a sung Mass makes sense, but singing only the antiphon makes none.

2) "Finally, there must be no innovation unless the good of the Church surely requires it", says the Second Vatican Council.

Seen from this perspective, the use of a Responsorial Psalm needs to be explained as surely necessary. Mind you, so must the removal of the prayers at the foot of the altar, the Leonine prayers, and all sorts of other "innovations", but I digress.

3) There's a principle that nothing profane may be introduced into the Liturgy.

Most of the new compositions (in this case, the psalms) are intentionally written not to sound like churchy music, stuff used to worship God, but rather to entice the participation of the faithful. I don't mean that I like or dislike them in themselves, but rather that however much I like the saxophone, there are places it would be utterly inappropriate. When Palestrina (to name just one) used melodies from secular (or, profane) sources, he - by his compositional work - made them worthy to bear the weight of the worship of God. If the last 40 years of composition had intended to make new melodies and forms suitable to the worship of God, this would be one thing; instead, mostly, they were written to serve "the needs of our own day" or "our community" or "the new Church" or whatever, but not God.

St Patrick didn't introduce Gaelic styles of music into the liturgy, and the Mexicans and Spaniards didn't use mariachi bands at Mass. Then, the dam broke, and what was right and proper within its own sphere was suddenly introduced where it was not fitting, and did not belong.

OK, CGZ first of all I'm quite acquainted with what the proper and the ordinary are, although I understand not all are. Secondly, I agree with the assertions regarding spoken vs. sung liturgy - and namely, I think that the example in question which started this thread is absurd. I agree - either sing it or say it, not both. Although not illicit, it doesn't make sense either.

Now let's dig into the meat of your argument, which you present as numbers 2 and 3. You talk about innovation, but I don't believe that the psalm is innovation as suggested by the context of that quote. The psalm is the first choice of the GIRM and was placed into the liturgy by the Church. The removal of the prayers at the foot of the altar is not an "innovation" in the sense of a rogue innovation. They were removed by the Church, which surely has the right to change the liturgy, although priests, bishops, the laity, and anyone else do not have that right.

As for number 3, I completely agree with you. Like settings of the ordinary or anything else, music composed for psalm responses must be worthy of the liturgy. In my own parish I use, primarily, the Gelineau and Guimont settings of the psalms. They, I believe, accomplish BOTH ideals: They are easy for the congregation to sing, thus they enable active participation, AND they use chant elements (modality) and actual chanted verses, which accomplishes the ideal that the music be truly sacred and bear resemblance to chant.

So - again - what do you have against the psalm? It sounds like you have something against inappropriate SETTINGS of psalms, and rightfully so. But what about the CONCEPT do you not like? Do you claim that it is an innovation? I submit that it is a lawful one, made by the Church, and one which the Church had every right to impose on her own liturgy.

In case anyone thinks I'm a rad trad (that amuses me greatly!) I was speaking about the Gradual in the OF. It is perfectly licit and suitable in either form of the mass. It is still included in the 1974 Graduale Romanimum. If sacred music is the greatest treasure of the Church, the Gradual is by virtue of its elaborate beauty and meditative force, the crown jewel of that treasure.

Wasn't the Gradual a corruption of what was originally a psalm? The psalm is not an innovation, but a lawful restoration by competent authority.

With due respect, the view that the Resp. Psalm as we use it today was a widespread practice of ancient Christians is widely disbelieved among liturgical scholars, and has been for decades.

Those interested in the origins and aim of the Resp. Psalm might do well to consult Prof. Mahrt and his papers on the subject.

Lest I be dismissed as trad (not a very charitable or intellectually honest approach, btw), let me say that I sing Resp. Psalms when asked, and I've composed them. I'm not entirely anti. I just think the Gradual is far more meditative, beautiful, and authentic to the sung liturgy.

I don't think the psalm as sung in parishes today was a widespread practice. The psalm as sung scripture was definitely widespread and authentic, as is still seen and heard in the eastern churches. The Gradual was a derivative of the psalm.

Rad trad? Never heard that one before. Although I do think some EF folks I've met have an agenda that idealizes everything in the EF, whether authentic or a corruption of early church practice. It was a council, not some OF enthusiasts, that decided the Roman Rite needed reform. Restoring the Psalm was a great idea, I think. Perhaps the application has suffered a bit.

The responsorial psalm as it is practiced in a supermajority of parishes doesn't help the "active" participation of the faithful.

cgz, what statistical evidence do you possess that enables you to know how the psalm response A. is actually practiced in any quantity of parishes, and; B. Any such practice helps or, by impllication, hinders the AP of the PiPs?

And the ideal was what, the recitation of a whole psalm? and the Gradual is to be understood as a deviation? A departure from the ideal way?

Of course changes occur over time, that's the glory of art and history, not to mention liturgy. But you still now have the Gradual (and we are discussing music, not just the low Mass practice of reciting the Gradual verse) being a "non-authentic" (unauthorized? unruly??) creature, of stealth and creeping.

I want to say something about the congregation singing the propers and the purpose of the chants between the readings . . . But I'm just going to back slowly out of the room now . . .

Well... the gradual is not from the EF. It's just as much of a part of the OF, despite popular practice.

The introit is from the EF too, but that doesn't make it foreign to the OF. It's used almost as often.

It is a component of the pre-1970 mass.

So is the introit. And the consecration.

The Gradual is part of the official music of the revised Mass too. The 1970 Ordo Cantus Missae says "After the first reading, the Gradual responsory is said [this includes singing] by the cantors or the choir" [my translation]. And GIRM 61 says (I'm translating from the Latin here): "In place of the psalm assigned in the lectionary the Gradual responsory from the Graduale Romanum, or the responsorial or alleluiatic psalm from the Graduale Simplex can be sung, as described in those books."

But CharlesW has a point about the practical level: the authentic Gregorian melody of the Gradual responsory makes it a melismatic and reflective piece. It requires great preparation by the singers.

Melofluent,

I don't have statistics. I don't need them. Look at the giant publishing houses. (How did they get so large?) The music they produce, by its nature, can't help because it is designed to not lift our minds to the holy. (Don't take my word for it. If you ask whether the music is designed to help congregations adore and worship God, you're likely to get completely hostile results. Of course, you could just look at the music and the bowdlerized words of the psalter, but I digress.) Is the purpose of this music to lift the hearts and minds of the faithful to worship God? If it isn't, and if it isn't to worship God either, then how CAN it, by its nature or by its performance, possibly aid the active participation of the people in the pews? As we heard this Sunday, "God is not mocked".

(Seeing the missiles coming in from various quarters)....

What can, affectively, please the senses could theoretically be used for PRIVATE devotion, but not everything which can/could be used privately should be used publicly.

Well, at least you reveal the true objective openly, and that is commendable, cgz. You'll have to have a seance to have your theoretical question above answered.
Meanwhile, in the real world of now...
The larger point is that none of us can make global pronouncements about the "state of the ....(whatever)" without being omniscient or having deduced a conclusion through the accumulation of data/evidence for the contention. On general terms, whether by the models of Gelineau, Alstott, Guimont, Oost-Zinner, Ostrowski, Esguerra, Bartlett et al, the responsorial/verse format does, in fact work to some degree. But, when you acknowledge, which you must, the pervasive use of the vernacular (the infamous "Vernie,") no one has produced any criteria for evaluating the "success" of the responsorial psalm, much less the worthiness musically of some over others.

On your terms, here's where I see your argument is purposefully designed to argue on an uneven platform. Whether or not one agrees that the responsorial psalter texts are "bowdlerized," the exquisite chants of the Gradual in Latin clearly are superior vehicles in service of the texts, most notably when text painting occurs both in melodic motifs or even in the melismatic augmentation down to the syllables of primary words within a whole text. But again, this is primarily an EF thing with the caveat I offer above. Your maxim that the music alone should effectively "lift the hearts and minds of the faithful to worship God" has the cart in front of the horse. The texts we are provided are to be served best by the music we are inspired to create and then utilize. In the OF, not all musics are created equal, but we are the arbiters of whether the text is as artfully and adequately served by its setting. The chanting of the psalm, and for that matter, all the lessons of the Lit/of/Word, cannot solely be adjudicated by the intrinsic nature of the music. The lessons are not moments of performance; that would be counter-intuitive. And I know of at least four parishes whose audible response suggests otherwise to your contention, and I wouldn't presume to qualify that according to your criteria.

OTOH, I have been to numerous occasions where Morning and Evening prayer is thoroughly rife with recitation of the LOH psalms in alternatim between PiP's on either side of an aisle. And I've never been convinced of that efficacy in the slightest. I just leave it there.

The texts we are provided are to be served best by the music we are inspired to create and then utilize.

Precisely.

BruceL, I agree with your former ire with instructions for the deacon to recite the Kyrie tropes with a sung Kyrie/Lord... following, it is disrupting. I do not agree with your second scenario as the Universal Prayer, whether recited or canted, just requires clean elocution, which then can be finished by an intoned invocation "Let us (all) pray" sung 1-1-2-7, with "Lord, hear our prayer." 7-6-7-1." Smooth as silk and it works the first time and every time with any congregation.
If we, for example, cannot persude the pastor or other celebrants to chant the Our Father (first degree of MS) then we can be licitly innovative in the brick by brick, progressive solemnity ideal such as I mention for the UP, just to remind folks that we chant our prayers. It is not always either/or.

Melo, I think this is just an area of taste. I just can't abide that sort of thing with the universal prayer. Yes, you can make it work, no, it is not illicit, but I'm not sure what it accomplishes. I don't believe it does enhance progressive solemnity: ultimately, whether we like it or not, I believe that has to come from the celebrant. I know it's just a difference of opinion, but it was always a novelty in places where I've worked...it never "bore the fruit" of more singing of dialogues, etc.