Haugen Psalm 128 Permitted for use as Responsorial Psalm?
  • The title pretty much says it all. Is this (http://olow.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/GC125_Psalm128BlestAreThoseWhoLoveY.pdf) permitted for use as a Responsorial Psalm in the US? (The text is different from what appears in the Lectionary and the Revised Grail Psalter.)

    With thanks--
  • canadashcanadash
    Posts: 1,478
    http://www.canticanova.com/articles/feedback/arten1.htm

    This provides a good answer to your question.
  • Those who nitpick will nitpick, but basically, yeah, it's fine.

    That's the short answer; the long answer involves heated arguments about the Episcopal conferences authority, what it means for a hymnal to be published with approval, and all sorts of other things.

    There's obviously better options out there; but if, say, a wedding couple is requesting it for their wedding, I'd probably just do it, and I wouldn't feel guilty about it.
    Thanked by 1frernest
  • There's no long answer. It's not an approved translation of Psalm 128; it should not be used as a responsorial psalm.

    Was the hymnal approved? I presume so, but that doesn't mean that every psalm in it is licit for use as the responsorial psalm.

    I will agree with PGA on part of it, though: I'm not sure I would spend much capital on rejecting it. There are bigger problems that need fighting.
    Thanked by 1frernest
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,115
    I've also seen documents stating the same that just because a hymnal is approved does NOT mean that it's "responsorial psalms" (even if they are called that) are actually approved for use as responsorial psalms.
    Thanked by 1francis
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,471
    I have stopped using any paraphrased psalms. My justification is that psalms are part of the readings, and scripture should be presented without alteration. So far, no one has argued with me on that.

    Would I fight a battle over that particular psalm? No. If it were for a wedding, I wouldn't say so much. My parish of employment is a beautiful gothic structure, and we get weddings of non-member Catholics who just want to use the building as a backdrop. We never see them again after the ceremony, so I figure little harm is done to the regular congregation by their music choices.

  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,361
    Marty Haugen's "Psalm 128: Blest Are Those Who Love You" was included for the first time in a GIA hymnal in the 1988 first edition of Gather. The ascription states that the text is a "paraphrase by Marty Haugen."

    I don't think the "paraphrase" is very great, but it's sufficient enough to make the text different from the NAB text and able to be copyrighted by the composer.

    For those opposed to the use of psalm paraphrases, even if the paraphrases are very minor, there's now this to consider: the new Tony Alonso/Marty Haugen projected 3-volume The Lyric Psalter (only years A and C are presently available) replaces all of Haugen's paraphrased/adapted psalm verses in his various psalm settings with verses from The Revised Grail Psalms. So psalm 128 can be found at Holy Family (ABC), 27 OT (B) [when year B is published], and 33 OT (A) with un-paraphrased verses.

    By the way, the 1988 Gather (as well as all subsequent GIA hymnals) was "Published with ecclesiastical approval, Archdiocese of Chicago." That means that (usually upon the recommendation of his book censors who have done the actual work of plowing through all the page proofs) the archbishop has judged the texts within the book (even psalm paraphrases!) to be free of doctrinal error. It does not mean that he approves of the music, nor that he even judges the texts to be great literature. Nor does it mean that the hymnal is an approved "liturgical book," such as the 1974 Latin Graduale Romanum is. A diocesan bishop's permission to publish (formerly called an imprimatur in canon law) simply means "no heresy discovered."
  • Another part of what I meant, Andrew, is that there is legitimate argument on whether paraphrased Psalms can be used. I believe that Sing to the Lord implies that they can be - of course that's another can of worms because someone will be along in a moment to declare that this document has no authority.
  • And I agree with what everyone else says about weddings. In fact, recently I had a cantor singing for a wedding that does not normally sing at our church. The couple had not picked a Psalm. She said "what Psalm?" I said "What do you know?" The reply was "Blest are those who Love You."

    I said, "OK sounds good."

    Life is too short and if I'm going to fight "abuses," there's far bigger ones out there to put my foot down on.
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,115
    I HAVE A DECLARATION:

    SING TO THE LORD HAS NO AUTHORITY.
  • Thank you all for these very helpful answers and comments.
  • Ben,

    By what authority do you make that claim?

    God bless,

    Chris
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,115
    Chris,

    I did it in a humorous way, but the statement itself is still true.

    You're asking the wrong question....rather, by what authority does the USCCB publish documents? That is the real question, and the simple answer is, they have no authority to do this sort of thing, unless their document is approved by Rome, which the USCCB curiously did not do.

    This puts it in a state of faux-law where people see it as authoritative because it is under. The USCCB heading, but has no authority. And because they didn't submit it to Rome, they can get away with stuff a roman document never could, such as advocating for direct disobedience to the missal.
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,115
    simply means "no heresy discovered."


    Even that claim is rather questionable with some GIA books...
    Thanked by 1francis
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,471
    I have to ask how carefully a diocese looks at any of those hymnals. Like they don't have anything else to do.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,442
    Well, I would say here that it's one thing to use a psalm paraphrase as an alius cantus aptus/congruus at some other point in the Mass, but not as a responsorial psalm, just as a matter of principle regardless of the rubrical discussion. We would not use a paraphrase of the Scripture lections in their stead. The responsorial psalm is also a lection, and it's also a fit subject for homiletics (in the Middle Ages, scriptural psalms and canticles were the most commented portions of Scripture, something we've lost memory of), so replacing it with a paraphrase has the effect of treating it more like a hymn - and, at the Mass, hymns are condiments, not the main dish - which vitiates the purpose of Vatican II in providing more generously from Scripture in the lections of the Mass (however much it appeals to the pragmatist ever lurking in our celebrations of the Mass). For this Catholic progressive, the practice has no fit place in progressive liturgical principles.

    Personally, I'd love to see the episcopal conferences commission (and pay for in such a way as to make it creative commons public domain - possible if created in USA, not as easily in the UK) a graceful and musical (in terms of poetic language) metrical psalter (including scriptural canticles). But not for use as responsorial psalms, but as a white list for alius cantus aptus/congruus.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen rich_enough
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,361
    Even that claim is rather questionable with some GIA books...

    You're having quite a day, aren't you, Ben? Even had a comment of yours deleted from PTB. What are you smoking?
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Y'know I told him over at the cafe, Fatha, dat his "new anarchist look" would backfire. No one listens to us geezers anymore, right CDub?
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,115
    Can we honestly say that lines like "no heresy discovered" can honestly be applied to lines such as the ones below are not contrary to what Holy Mother Church teaches?

    [the mission of the church is] "not to spread our creeds and customs, but to build a bridge of care"
    -As a fire is meant for burning, RitualSong no. 779

    Well, so much for the great commission, and going to all nations baptizing them in the name of the trinity.

    "Dogmas that obscure your plan"
    -For the Healing of the Nations, RitualSong 823

    Do I need to even explain this? It's so plainly antithetical to what the church's teaches.

    "We rise again to ashes to create ourselves anew."
    -Ashes, RitualSong 957

    Hmmmm... so much for Christ creating us anew.

    And these are just what I've recalled in a few minutes.

    I simply stated that imprimatur ≠ no heresy, at least in the GIA books I have.
    Thanked by 2G francis
  • While I think each of those texts is problematic, and would not use them, we should be a bit more prudent about throwing around the H-Bomb.
  • Ben -

    The "As a Fire is Meant for Burning" line was problematic and was changed in the newest GIA hymnals.

    The line from "For the Healing of the Nations" does not strike me as problematic.

    The line about "Rising again from ashes" is flowery poetic language. I don't use the hymn because it's based on - nothing. But I would not call that line heresy. You can interpret that in a variety of ways, and that we "rise again" from ashes, through our lenten conversion, to "create ourselves anew" ....... well, you can argue about the value of the poetry, but I don't see the heresy.

    You seem like an all around sincere good guy, but your mindset in many of your posts is the issue that I have with so many "TLM/homeschool" culture Catholics.

    Really, you are not holier than the Pope and more Catholic than anyone in Rome.

    And your views on liturgy which are QUITE dogmatic and "to the letter of the law" are not quite Roman. In short, that's not how the Chuch really thinks. Of course anyone who points out this fact just gets labeled a "liberal" by your comrades.

    It is precisely this mindset that led one "traditional Catholic" to declare, with regards to Pope Francis, "We are praying for a short Pontificate." REALLY? Because she, ostensibly, knows that the Pope is a heretic.

    Again, I'm not trying to bash you and I really appreciate your zeal for the Church and her liturgy. Please keep that up! But honestly, please broaden your horizens a bit as well.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,418
    For something to be "heresy," it has to mean something that is heretical.

    HERESY: Jesus was adopted as God's son after his birth as a human.

    NOT HERESY: pickles the slowly typewriter 4987693. my favorite sport is mayonnaise.
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,669
    Yeah there's a difference between lyrics that can lead to confusion and misunderstanding and outright heresy.

    The hymns you mention could all lead to confusion, which isn't a good thing, but heresy is a big scary word and we should be sure to use it only in legitimate in-your-face cases.
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,115
    I'll agree the third one is, at best, nonsensical, and maaaaybe the second.

    But the first one seems rather clearly against the scripture and the mission of the church. Our mission is specifically to spread our creeds.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,418
    Our mission is specifically to spread our creeds.

    Nah. I'm pretty sure it's to build of bridge mayonnaise.

    I mean care.

    A bridge of care.
  • I do agree with you on the first one and I suspect that is why the text has been changed in Worship IV and Gather whatever number they're up to.
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,669
    Gather III
  • G
    Posts: 1,391
    Thanks for bringing up the Ruth Duck text, Ben. (I should add, I think she writes superb texts, and if I were also a Methodist I'd have no problem.)

    Glad to hear that it has been changed in more recent editions, but that doesn't help those of us in parishes that won't be buying new hymnals any time soon, or with liturgy committees that insist "any text in the hymnal is de facto approved for our use by the diocese." (That was verbatim, when I declined to use responsorial psalms with texts credited to any individual other than King David...)

    Save the Liturgy, Save the World!
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,361
    Ben, re: As a Fire Is Meant for Burning, your placing the words "[the mission of the church]" before "not to spread..." demonstrates that you are misreading Dr. Duck's original text. The entirety of her first stanza is:
    As a fire is meant for burning
    With a bright and warming flame,
    So the church is meant for mission,
    Giving glory to God's name.
    Not to preach our creeds or customs,
    But to build a bridge of care,
    We join hands across the nations,
    Finding neighbors ev'rywhere.

    There is a PERIOD after "name." "Not to preach our creeds or customs" is a subordinate clause to "We join hands across the nations," and not to "So the church is meant for mission."
    But it is understandable that people besides yourself misread the text, and this leads to ambiguity. In 2005 or so, Dr. Duck was asked to address the problem. Lines 3-7 now read:
    So the Church is meant for mission,
    Giving glory to God's name.
    As we witness to the Gospel,
    We would
    build a bridge of care,
    Joining hands across the nations,
    Thanked by 1MarkThompson
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,361
    Ben, re: For the Healing of the Nations, I agree with PGA. Again, I think you need to read the line that you consider to be problematic in context:
    All that kills abundant living, Let it from the earth be banned:
    Pride of status, race, or schooling, Dogmas that obscure your plan.

    If you've ever flipped through the TV channels of the televangelists, you will hear lots of dogmas that obscure God's plan. And what about the radical Isalm dogma of jihad? Closer to home: the former Catholic teaching which permitted human slavery. Yes, Lord, ban them all!
    Thanked by 1Ben Yanke
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,115
    Again, as G said, that's all well and good that she revised it, but it seems to be a dodge of the original inquiry.

    What about the rest of the parishes who still have the old hymnals, and those who had to use them for years before the new books, under the impression that the imprimatur actually meant something.

    Fr. K, You are correct, I misread it, and my bracketed text was not correct. But all the same, any line in a hymn telling Catholics not to "spread their creed" is very problematic.

    The Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.
    -CCC 848

  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,115
    re: For the Healing of the Nations

    Fair enough. Makes sense.
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,361
    Ben, re: Ashes, I think the text is goofy. I voted that it not be included in Worship IV (and it is not included). I hope that when the hymnal committee for Gather 4 meets in ten years or so, they will recognize the text's goofiness as well. In the meantime, let's remember that this is an OCP text. Perhaps the Archbishop of Portland will say, "Drop it."
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,115
    In the meantime, let's remember that this is an OCP text.


    That explains it.
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,787
    There are degrees of error: some statements are heresy, some are close to heresy, some are false without being heretical (because they conflict with a truth other than dogma), some are misleading or prone to a false interpretation, and some apparent statements are nonsense combinations that mean nothing at all.
  • Some statements are heresy, some achieve heretical status, and some have heresy thrust upon 'em. Nuff said.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,471
    All I know is that our priest told me that the "Ashes" text was the Pelagian heresy all over again, and to not ever use it. So I didn't, and I don't.

    We Byzantines are hardly Latin Traditionalists. However, I would repeat that I have said if Pope Francis doesn't start taking security a little more seriously, he may not last long. As John Paul II found, everyone doesn't love the pope.
  • However, I would repeat that I have said if Pope Francis doesn't start taking security a little more seriously, he may not last long.


    I've thought this, too, and it's probably not going to happen (Francis ramping up security, that is). I get the impression that he's going to evangelize the best way he knows how, and if someone takes a poke at him, then he will become more powerful than they can possibly imagine.
  • Ben, re: For the Healing of the Nations, I agree with PGA. Again, I think you need to read the line that you consider to be problematic in context:

    All that kills abundant living, Let it from the earth be banned:
    Pride of status, race, or schooling, Dogmas that obscure your plan.


    If you've ever flipped through the TV channels of the televangelists, you will hear lots of dogmas that obscure God's plan. And what about the radical Isalm dogma of jihad? Closer to home: the former Catholic teaching which permitted human slavery. Yes, Lord, ban them all!


    Actually, Father, I'm told that the late Fred Kaan rewrote verse 4 of that hymn before he passed on; it now says:

    Ludwig Ott is really cool an'
    Manuals are close at hand;
    Noses buried in the Schoolmen,
    Dogmas that reveal Your plan.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • Star Wars...nice.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,787
    Fr. Krisman mentioned:
    Closer to home: the former Catholic teaching which permitted human slavery.


    That's a serious claim to make! But how reliable is it? I'm not a historian, so I have to look for the work of more knowledgeable people in settling such claims.

    In his book "For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led To Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery", Rodney Stark, professor of sociology and comparative religion at the University of Washington, states that the Catholic Church has a good record on opposing human slavery, with local efforts starting as early as the seventh century and spreading later. By the 1200s, slavery was gone within Europe, and Aquinas concluded that slavery was a sin; and popes put authority behind the teaching from 1435-1537, up to Paul III, who decreed excommunication for slave-holders. An excerpt from the book is on-line.

    Oh -- I really don't mean to divert the thread into a side-issue, but I think it's only fair to defend the Church against what may be a gratuitous and perhaps false charge about its history.

  • G
    Posts: 1,391
    Thank you, Obi-Wan.

    (Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
  • G
    Posts: 1,391
    Ah, Clemens Romanus beat me to it.

    (Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,361
    I agree with Chonak that a discussion of the morality of slavery is a side issue to the subject of this thread (Haugen's Psalm 128). But so was Ben's questioning of a Fred Kaan hymn text.

    Of course, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Church, from the time of Saint Paul, accommodated the Roman imperial institution of human slavery and did not condemn it. And, yes, it is true that, beginning in the fifteenth century, there have been papal bulls condemning the slave trade, if not the actual owning of slaves, on the average of perhaps one per century.

    But was this papal teaching truly received by the Church? If it was, how does one deal with the Catechism of the Council of Trent stating that slaves are not fit for holy orders? (Wasn't slavery already condemned more than a century earlier, according to the apologists?)

    And why did the first bishop of the USA own slaves? And what evidence is there that bishops in the USA preached often and strongly against racial slavery prior to the lead up to the American Civil War?

    The Church is always in need of repentance and reconciliation. If we cannot even admit our corporate sins from the past, the sins of our co-religionists, how can we be an evangelizing force in today's world, which faces often quite different corporate sins?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,471
    Let's face it, a large part of the economic systems in earlier times rested on slave labor. That's just the way it was. Even without the Civil War in the U.S., the Industrial Revolution would have caused slavery to eventually become economically unsound. Machines are more efficient and don't require sleep. Then the boll weevil destroyed the cotton plantations that needed massive amounts of labor.

    I think it absurd to try to apply 21st century standards to those of earlier times. We were not there and didn't have to deal with the same conditions. We also have resources not available to people then. Makes a huge difference.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,665
    "In the Roman Catholic Church, a dogma (plural dogmata) is an article of faith revealed by God, which the magisterium of the Church presents as necessary to be believed if one freely chooses to be a Catholic." wiki

    The REAL problem with the "heretical" leanings of texts in these "faux worship aids" is that they are in what are supposed to be CATHOLIC hymnals, in CATHOLIC church pews, and sung by CATHOLIC congregants during the HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.

    For a Catholic, the word "dogma" means only one thing as defined above, and that is why Ben and many others in his Church are strongly offended and even scandalized to see these words used at Mass.

    This is one of the many ways the Church has succumbed to a "diabolical disorientation".
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,471
    I have never understood GIA's or the average Catholic pew sitter's enthusiasm for Haugen. He isn't Catholic and clearly, by his own admission, is not in agreement with positions held by the Church. Why do we enrich him and increase exposure to his works? Especially with paraphrases of scripture. Psalms are scripture and should not be paraphrased or have altered texts.
    Thanked by 2Ben Yanke Adam Wood
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,665
    What's worse is his support of things anti-Catholic.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW Ben Yanke
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,442
    I can venture a guess. Many like paraphrased psalmody. The NAB renditions of the psalms aren't known for their musicality of rendering, the inherent musicality of the Hebrew is obscured in some degree.

    The Massive Creation became viral in the 1980s because it was the first widely available setting in the US that was orchestrated for large ensembles of instruments, so it became the go-to setting in diocesan celebrations and that gave it word-of-mouth publicity money can't buy (this was at a time when there were still lots of parish musicians attending those celebrations; I don't think that dynamic is as strong today).

    So the GIA music came to supersede the Glory & Praise music. In retrospect, one can see some of the G&P repertoire had a certain vitality and simplicity (the best of it can be sung a cappella, no need for strumming guitars - for example, The Cry of The Poor) while the Minnesota sound could at times sound like a concertato for piano and voice.
    Thanked by 2BruceL Andrew Motyka
  • BruceL
    Posts: 1,066
    Fr. Krisman, thanks for the note about Haugen revising the psalter. His stuff is not my cup of tea, but the big reason I always shut it down when people asked for it for ritual Masses was that I couldn't abide by the paraphrases...I think the People of God deserve his Word...if it has to be filtered through anyone, I'd rather it be a competent ecclesiastical authority, not Marty Haugen (pax). I'm glad to hear that he and Tony Alonso are on board. Any idea about David Haas?
    Thanked by 1CharlesW