Is Gradual replaced by the Responsorial Psalm in OF?

Oh, no for the confusion until now.
Oh, yes for waking up from the consfusion and ignorance.

So there's no proper translation, then do we sing Gradual in latin in OF, if somehow MD choose to do Gradual instead or Res. psalm?

True but tradition favors Gradual, and it is permitted, contrary to what people say.

As one who has adapted the chants of the Graduals for Sundays and Holy Days to English words, I am grateful that no single English translation of the texts. I work from the 1979 American Book of Common Prayer psalter and the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, but I do not adhere to the texts slavishly. (Sometimes the "correct" renderings of the Hebrew have no liturgical relevance.) And, while I do not make up padded texts to fit the music (as some have done) I do make adjust the texts for musical reasons from time to time.

There is no question that use of the Gradual in place of the responsorial psalm is permitted in the modern Roman rite. But whether "tradition favors it" is an issue subject to debate. Saint Augustine referred to responsorial psalmody in the Liturgy of the Word. Some traditionalists despise the responsorial psalm, viewing it as a post-Conciliar novelty. The Gradual evolved from the responsorial psalm, and if properly rendered, it retains its responsorial structure.

I think that singing the Gradual can be justified only if choir and cantor are able to sing the text (in Latin or the vernacular) to the proper melody or to some variant of it used to accommodate the vernacular text. Also, in parish churches, where most of the worshippers at Sunday Mass do not participate in the LIturgy of the Hours, I think that they benefit from prayer longer segments of the psalter than the Graduals provide. For the most part I would restrict REGULAR us of the Graduals to religious houses.

That said, I love the music.

Well, it is pretty clear from the documentary evidence that the Missal propers were intended for spoken Masses. But we've been through this before. I like Fr. Weber's point of view on all of this: whether you use Latin/English, Missal/Graduale, sing the propers and sing them well. I really don't think there is much else to add.

No Bishops have said anything about the Graduale/Missale issue or their translations or anything else along these lines, so far as I know. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Jeffrey Tucker wrote: "I think I misunderstood the RR comment above. He means in the 1962 Missal."

But Richard R had written: "There is any amount of question, if you're talking about a vernacular setting of the prescribed Latin text found in the Graduale Romanum. The modern Missal/Sacramentary with its general instruction has never provided for such a thing. Please direct me to legislation to the contrary."

My comment regarding SP and the Indult was pretty oblique, I admit. I just thought that we were past such a blanket pronouncement of "restrictions". It would seem more in the spirit of mutual enrichment were we not so quick to disparage our received musical tradition, but accept it as a great gift to the Church (meaning, the whole Church) for use in modern worship. That would seem to be the thrust of this organization.

I must admit, the idea of vernacular settings of the major Propers is intriguing. While I cannot claim any particular knowledge of Canon Law on the subject, it seems pretty clear to me that when the General Instruction refers to singing the Gradual from the Graduale Romanum, they mean as given in the Graduale Romanum; that is, in Latin. The English Lectionary says not word one further on the subject, whereas the Sacramentary clearly provides official English texts for the Ordinary of the Mass. Why not prepare and use literal translations of the Collects? In many cases, they would be notably different from the official English versions. But we wouldn't do that, because it would be an obvious abuse against the official vernacular texts.

The point that no bishop has proscribed the use of vernacular settings of the GR Graduals (and, presumably, Alleluia verses and Tracts) may be significant. Or it may show just how rare the practice really is. Are there published collections of these available? Jeffrey could run one by BCL (or whatever the relevant bishops committee is called these days) and see what they have to say.

On the other hand, maybe you'd just as soon not know what they might have to say...

I don't deny the confusion. The point about the 64/65 Missale is interesting, but I wonder how relevant it is, given the subsequent changes in the Lectionary.

Richard R. wrote: "it seems pretty clear to me that when the General Instruction refers to singing the Gradual from the Graduale Romanum, they mean as given in the Graduale Romanum"

Do you think that GIRM refers exclusively to the texts and music given in the Graduale Romanum? Or does it refer only to the texts? What about polyphonic settings of the Graduals?

If in this case reference is made only to the texts, and all the liturgical texts of the Mass may be sung in the vernacular, may these texts not be sung in the vernacular?

Perhaps a "strict constructionist" view would be that they may be sung in the vernacular only if a "competent territorial authority" has approved a translation of them and submitted it to Rome for approval.

Vernacular adaptations of the introits, offertories, and communions are covered by the "alius cantus aptus" provision.

Vernacular adaptations of the graduals? Music directors and rectors of churches will have to decide for themselves, I guess, unless they receive direction from their bishops.

I initially made my adaptions for use in the Episcopal Church. Very few Episcopal churches, if any, regularly sing my adaptations of the graduals. Very few RC churches are likely to sing them, either. So the debate may be purely theoretical.

"What about polyphonic settings of the Graduals? "

That's an interesting question. Renaissance composers generally did not set the major Propers, the few exceptions being full sets of Propers by Byrd, Isaac, and maybe Lassus. So the practice existed, but was not widespread, and I imagine things in Rome were more conservative than elsewhere (Palestrina set the full corpus of Offertories only). How other motets, whose texts match those of the Propers, were used liturgically is not at all clear to me. Of course, simple choral versions were used in the last century, to replace the chant (and still are, in some EF Masses, more's the pity).

But it's how that all got translated in the liturgical reform and the new Missale which is the question. I still maintain, for the chants between the readings (which have always been more tightly regulated than the other Propers), the Latin texts of the GR are one thing; vernacular settings of the official Latin texts quite another. I just don't see any provision for the latter. But you are all right; this probably is not on any episcopal radar. I would think, however, that were you to present the possibility, most priests (with any sort of liturgical training, for better or worse) would raise a questioning eyebrow at the notion. Most would want the texts in the Letionary. (Even Offertories, which do not exist in the current Sacramentary, have been rejected by at least one priest, who questioned their modern liturgical validity.) It's worth submitting a dubium to Rome over the issue, but you'd probably have to find a bishop interested enough to submit it for you.