Can anyone explain this?? (RESP. PSALMS)
  • It is preferable that the responsorial Psalm be sung, at least as far as the people's response is concerned. Hence, the psalmist, or the cantor of the Psalm, sings the verses of the Psalm from the ambo or another suitable place. The entire congregation remains seated and listens but, as a rule, takes part by singing the response, except when the Psalm is sung straight through without a response. In order, however, that the people may be able to sing the Psalm response more readily, texts of some responses and Psalms have been chosen for the various seasons of the year or for the various categories of Saints.

    OK, I understand that.

    These may be used in place of the text corresponding to the reading whenever the Psalm is sung. If the Psalm cannot be sung, then it should be recited in such a way that it is particularly suited to fostering meditation on the word of God.

    I don't understand that part, and I E-mailed the USCCB several months ago, and they did not respond.

    I was told to write to the Secretariat for Divine Worship, and so I sent the following message in December:

    Dear Secretariat for Divine Worship,
    With regard to "Seasonal" Psalms (also called Common Psalms), when can these be used? I know that the Ordinary Time Psalms can be used during Ordinary Time.
    But the Feast "The Baptism of the Lord" is in Ordinary Time, so can one use a Seasonal Psalm for Ordinary Time on this feast? May one use the Seasonal Psalm for Christmastide on January 1, Feast of Mary Mother of God? Can the Seasonal Responsorial Psalm for Christmastide be used on the Feast of the Holy Family?
    Sincerely, with gratitude,


    I never received a response.

    In the dioceses of the United States of America, the following may also be sung in place of the Psalm assigned in the Lectionary for Mass: either the proper or seasonal antiphon and Psalm from the Lectionary, as found either in the Roman Gradual or Simple Gradual or in another musical setting;

    Can anyone explain this to me in plain English? because I don't understand it. I am sorry, but my brain just doesn't comprehend this sentence.

    or an antiphon and Psalm from another collection of the psalms and antiphons, including psalms arranged in metrical form, providing that they have been approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop. Songs or hymns may not be used in place of the responsorial Psalm.

    And what does this mean? Does it mean that, on the Feast of Christmas, a completely DIFFERENT Psalm and Antiphon can be sung? Who chooses the Antiphon?? Who chooses the Psalm??
  • A chart showing very clearly the choices and sources of them is desperately needed.

    A simple answer and someone will have a better one, I hope, and this comes from studying BFW and the Simplex Gradual:

    There are psalms that change with every Sunday. BUT you may choose to sing a seasonal psalm, such as may be found in Latin in the Simplex or in English in BFW. These are ones that are "approved" meaning very acceptable. In BFW there are 2 for Advent...that confused me until I read and realized that there are two aspects to Lent and these two covered the two aspects. Ordinary TIme also has a set to choose from.

    But there are ones assigned to feasts in the Simplex. I have no idea if you HAVE to use them or if they may be replaced by the seasonal ones. Paul Ford may be able to explain this succinctly.

    And I'm sorry that your financial support of the USCCB and the Secretariat for Divine Worship has not been of sufficient size that might cause them to respond to you in a timely manner. The nun in charge of explaining why an email download of the ORDO costs the same as a PRINTED version has never responded to my email. But I have not given up. I WANT TO KNOW THE SECRET! THIS IS A GREAT WAY TO MAKE MONEY!
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    By the way, Noel, what ever happened to your project where you were going to lay out for all to see each option for the Responsorial Psalm? I was excited about that.
  • http://www.frogmusic.com/ComparisonGradual.pdf

    This is the report I put together back then, it could use expanding to include the Fr. Weber and Fr. Kelly sources as well as the expanded Chabanel resources.
  • Richard R.
    Posts: 683
    It would seem pretty clear to me that Seasonal Psalms would not be used for particular feasts during Ordinary Time, but would be supplanted by the Proper Psalm of the day. It is possible that the Psalm for the Christmas season, or more likely Epiphany, could be extended to cover the Feast of the Baptism. But even reciting the proper Psalm would seem preferable to me.
  • Has anyone used this web-site before? It seems to give some information pertinent to the discussion.
    http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/1998USL-Psalms-Alleluias.htm

    I've really wondered who the person was who wrote, "In the dioceses of the United States of America, the following may also be sung in place of the Psalm assigned in the Lectionary for Mass: either the proper or seasonal antiphon and Psalm from the Lectionary, as found either in the Roman Gradual or Simple Gradual or in another musical setting." Is there a Lectionary other than the Lectionary for Mass? Did the person know that sometimes the gradual in the Grad. Rom. is not even a psalm? Can one include more than the one or two verses found in the Grad. Rom.? I agree that it's not at all clear.

    My hunch is that it's okay to use the psalm for Epiphany on the Feast of the Baptism. In the Grad. Simplex, the psalm assigned for the Baptism is the same assigned for Epiphany, #72. My hunch is that it's probably also okay to use the common psalm for the Christmas season, as my understanding is that the first week of ordinary time begins on Monday.
  • Richard R.
    Posts: 683
    There is one Lectionary, but three official sources for the Psalm between the Readings:

    1) the Lectionary (Proper Responsorial Psalm in English, or one of the Seasonal Psalm options*)
    2) the Graduale Romanum (Proper Gradual chant in Latin)
    3) the Graduale Simplex (Seasonal Psalmus Responsorius in Latin, though there are a few proper Psalms for feasts)

    "...another musical setting" would seem to allow for other settings of any of the above (which goes without saying for 1), since the Lectionary contains no music). It would also cover older polyphonic settings of the Latin Gradual (though grudgingly, I imagine). It would also seem to allow settings of the Lectionary Psalms in their Latin original (editio tyipica, or whatever), which I have seen done (and abetted, at least for the refrain).

    On the other hand (as has been discussed here recently), what is not clear, and what remains a very intriguing question, is whether this allows settings of the texts from the Graduale or Simplex using their English equivalents. I think I have seen somebody's unofficial attempt at an English version of the Simplex. But certainly there is no official collection of Graduale texts in English, specifically for use as sung texts at Mass. Some people have made there own, using various approved translations... without incurring ecclesial wrath, apparently.

    The term "Psalm" is used generically in the documents to refer to the (first) chant between the readings, even when another Old Testament Canticle is used in its place (such as the "You Will Draw Water" canticle from Isaiah at Easter Vigil).

    *I can't find the list of Seasonal Psalms in my 1970 Lectionary, which suggests other semi-official sources for these.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    Thanks for the excellent explanation of the options.

    I too find it intriguing that even with Liturgiam, no effort has been made to push for an official translation of the propers from the Graduale Romanum or Simplex. My guess is that this because there is very little consciousness at all of the existence of the two (or three) sets of propers. I don't think I've ever known anyone but musicians who are even aware of this issue. Fr. Weber, for example, knows of the two sets but in the sung English Gradual he is now putting together, he presumes that the Missale propers are what people will be singing, though he is glad to set Graduale propers when asked.
  • Ralph BednarzRalph Bednarz
    Posts: 473
    Does "...another musical setting" justify " Shepherd Me O God'"?as a responsorial psalm.
  • thanks! let me mull this over, and hopefully it will become clear to me
  • Pes
    Posts: 623
    Who could take on a translation project like this and keep it public domain?
  • Richard R.,
    The website I mentioned says that the seasonal psalms are #175 in the 1970 Lectionary. Does that make sense? I don't have a copy of that version.

    One issue I've wondered about in the Grad. Simplex. is that sometimes the seasonal options that they give for a given mass work better as a unit. In other words, in the two sets of options for Advent, the resp. psalm for Advent mass 1 seems more suited to the first two weeks of Advent, along with the pieces listed for the introit, alleluia, offertory, and communion. The introit and offertory of Advent mass 2 seem inappropriate for the first weeks of Advent. Is it okay to mix and match? Not clear.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    Pes, there are a zillion public domain translations of most of not all of them.
  • RobertRobert
    Posts: 338
    Jeffrey, you wrote:

    "no effort has been made to push for an official translation of the propers from the Graduale Romanum or Simplex."

    In the case of the Simplex, it would be an official re-translation one would be pushing for as there is an official ICEL translation of these texts that was made in the 1960s, and this is what Paul Ford used for By Flowing Waters, for the antiphons anyway. It's definitely not the greatest translation--I wonder whether it's already on the agenda for a re-translation according to Liturgiam Authenticam principles? What would it take to get a translation of the GR propers on their agenda?

    I know Jeffrey you are of the opinion that having no official GR translation is a good thing...
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    Yes, that's my opinion, not that it matters. I'm not even sure that having an official translation of anything is a great idea. For one thing, it too deeply entrenches the vernacular as seemingly normative. Also, there is no way a translation can ever really be stable unless an ethos exists to freeze it in place regardless of cultural changes (as in the Eastern church). So fights and more fights are inevitable with a project like this. The ritual text becomes a venue for perpetual conflict and division -- not good. A "market" for translations might more readily cause the best and most useful ones to rise to the top over the long term. Ok, then a slightly more fundamental point. Why was the Mass translated to begin with? To provide more immediate cognition. Well, that theory already introduces a problem as regards liturgy. Vernacular is, by its nature, designed for a communicative and cognitive purpose whereas liturgical language serves a distinctly liturgical function. Then there is the completely unanticipated calamity of copyrighted ritual texts, which mixes religion with the state in a way that is contrary to the best theological traditions and introduces cartels and terrible conflicts of interest.

    I've yet to read Peter Jeffery's critique of Liturgiam. Maybe he has some good points in there.
  • Richard R.
    Posts: 683
    "The website I mentioned says that the seasonal psalms are #175 in the 1970 Lectionary."

    So indeed they are.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    Jeffrey, your post is very good. As a matter of fact, it is astounding and succinct.

    I am willing to bet some folks made the same argument in the 1960's, but now we have indisputable PROOF of what you warn about ...proof that's constantly before our eyes!!! Right?
  • G
    Posts: 1,387
    Does "...another musical setting" justify " Shepherd Me O God'"? as a responsorial psalm.


    Whatever common practice is, I, on no authority whatsoever, and no evidence but my own reasoning, would say not.
    What makes it a psalm? that it is included in the part of a bad hymnal with the title "Psalms"?
    It is no more a psalm than "The King of Love My Shepherd IS" or "Shepherd of Souls."

    The text does not even have the same intention as the psalm by which it is inspired -- the latter is a remarkable expression of absolute trust, while SMOG is a request.

    (Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
  • Felipe Gasper
    Posts: 786
    But the Feast "The Baptism of the Lord" is in Ordinary Time, so can one use a Seasonal Psalm for Ordinary Time on this feast? May one use the Seasonal Psalm for Christmastide on January 1, Feast of Mary Mother of God? Can the Seasonal Responsorial Psalm for Christmastide be used on the Feast of the Holy Family?

    The Feast of the Baptism of the Lord is in CHRISTMAS SEASON, not Ordinary Time.

    Seasonal responsorial psalms can be used any time. So, for any Mass in a given season, you can use any of the seasonal responsorial psalms for that season. The answer to your 2nd and 3rd questions is “yes”. The same seasonal psalm can be used on Baptism of the Lord.

    It’s exactly the same way that most chants of the Graduale Simplex work.
  • Felipe Gasper
    Posts: 786
    G,

    I did a blow-by-blow comparison of the two texts a while back.

    Other than the refrain text, Haugen comes fairly close to capturing pretty much all of it.

    The only kickers are all in verse 4 of Haugen. The “anointing my head with oil” and “cup is overflowing” lines, which are obscured in Haugen. “Crowning” does convey some of the same sense as “anointing”, and something that is “beyond my power to hold” could be said to “overflow”, but that’s more of a stretch than I think is really called for. Also, I am not sure “hatred” is really the same idea as “foes”.

    This may be the “most Catholic” part of this psalm, since it directly evokes (for Catholics) images of Anointing of the Sick and Holy Communion.
  • Felipe Gasper
    Posts: 786
    Jeffrey,

    Jeffery’s critique is, IMO, chock full of interesting information, but the fundamental problem I see in his reasoning is that the situation of languages today is anomalous in history: a single rite that exists simultaneously in many languages. Most/all of the paraphrasing that Jeffery illustrates has been going on in Western history has been stuff that replaces the original text; Jeffery overlooks that today’s liturgical translations are meant to be used alongside the (Latin) originals.

    Also, it is astounding but true: he never knew about the Vatican’s response to the dubia concerning Liturgiam and the Nova Vulgata until...I myself told him about it in an email. That’s not to pat myself on the back, but it amazes me that no one (and LOTS of people have read the articles that became that book!) had pointed that very pertinent document out to him until well after this stuff was published. In my mind, it calls into question just how strongly people even entertain the idea that the perspective of the Vatican may be a valid one.
  • G
    Posts: 1,387
    Yes, he gets the verses pretty close, I don't object to the text as a text.
    But since the single verse of refrain is all that the people will sing, I think it is an unacceptable abuse of the mnemonic power of music to have them sing that in place of a valid translation of the psalm..
    I am not saying it is not fit to be sung at Mass, but as an alius cantus aptus, (programmed it that way myself today,) just as "The King of Love My Shepherd Is. (One parish near here uses the latter as the "psalm" at funerals.)

    (Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
  • Felipe said: "The Feast of the Baptism of the Lord is in CHRISTMAS SEASON, not Ordinary Time."

    Then, that means The USCCB made an error, right? January 9, 2005 — The Baptism of the Lord — (First Sunday in Ordinary Time)
  • Steve CollinsSteve Collins
    Posts: 1,003
    Semantics! It's the last Feast Day of the Season. It was permanently transferred to the Sunday next after Epiphany "Sunday", itself permanently transferred from Jan. 6th. Wait! Maybe that does amount to a mistake. Oh, maybe not - at least the priest still wears white! Green starts the next day - Monday of the first week of Ordinary time.

    It's all just semantics, and that confuses just enough right minded folks for our esteemed "liturgists" to come in and save the day with their solutions.

    And the Christmas carols have already been boxed up by that time anyway, so who cares!
  • Felipe Gasper
    Posts: 786
    Jules, yes, that site is in error....although it’s probably more accurate to say that whoever made the site made a mistake, rather than to say that the USCCB erred. Check any official liturgical book of the modern Roman Rite. This feast is in the Christmas Season section; it takes the place of the First Sunday of Ordinary Time, just as the Solemnity of Christ the King takes the place of the 34th Sunday of Ordinary Time—except there is no change of liturgical season there, as there is with the Baptism of the Lord.

    Steve, Baptism of the Lord is “the Sunday after January 6th”. In places (like the U.S.) where Epiphany has been moved to the nearest Sunday, whenever “Epiphany Sunday” falls on January 7th or 8th, Baptism of the Lord is bumped to the next day, in accord with the general norms for the Church year.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    Jules, let me give a shot to answer this:

    In the dioceses of the United States of America, the following may also be sung in place of the Psalm assigned in the Lectionary for Mass:

    In other words, the first thing that's allowed is what's in the current Lectionary:

    HERE IS THAT TEXT

    Some people say the current version is from 1998:

    Lectionary for Mass for Use in the Dioceses of the United States, second typical edition, © 1998, 1997, 1970, Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, D.C.

    But the USCCB seems to say that the most recent edition is 2001/2002:

    Lectionary for Mass for Use in the Dioceses of the United States, second typical edition, Copyright © 2001, 1998, 1997, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine; Psalm refrain © 1968, 1981, 1997, International Committee on English in the Liturgy, Inc.

    I do not know what changes were made to the 1998 edition in the 2001 version. Maybe someone on this forum does. But you can find the current Lectionary here.

    either the proper or seasonal antiphon and Psalm from the Lectionary, as found either in the Roman Gradual or Simple Gradual or in another musical setting;

    OK, well, the Graduale Simplex setting is right here (thanks, Noel) --- it is from Psalm 109, while the Lectionary was from Psalm 96. I'm assuming this is the case, because these Propers given in the Simple Gradual have to suffice for the ENTIRE Christmas season. By the way, the Simple Gradual introduction says, "When several settings are given for a season, one may be chosen at will according to what seems best. Some parts of the Mass may be chosen from different settings." (thanks for the translation, Mr. Penkala!! People if you buy the Simple Gradual, do it from CanticaNova publications, because it comes with an English translation.)

    I am not sure why the GIRM is worded why it is. Who can fully explain this sentence??? I don't understand why they don't just say, "the Responsorial Psalm with antiphon from the simple Gradual" --- I don't understand that business about the "proper or seasonal" --- I thought the entire book of the Graduale Simplex was seasonal Psalms. In other words, I thought the Simple Gradual is nothing BUT seasonal propers. I also don't understand why they mention the Lectionary. The Lectionary has nothing to do with this stuff at all. It really doesn't. These are alternatives to what's in the Lectionary. The sentence also fails to mention the possibility of Seasonal Psalms (from the Lectionary), and fails to mention exactly when they can be applied. I can see Jule's frustration. Felipe, do you have documentation to back up what you are claiming with regard to this? And what is this secret letter you refer to above, if I may ask? Furthermore, a lot of clarification needs to be done in this area, especially when you start talking about bi-lingual Masses, like we have here in Corpus Christi, because the Seasonal Psalms are DIFFERENT in Mexico than our English Lectionary gives. To me, that is stupid. The Seasonal Psalms in the Official Catholic Lectionary should not vary from country to country.

    Dr. Paul Ford appears to provide an English translation and setting of the Simplex Resp. Psalm in By Flowing Waters --- therefore, I guess this Responsorial Psalm from By Flowing Waters can be used anytime during Christmastide.

    The Roman Gradual option is right here, but it is strange that this book (1974 Solesmes GRDAULE ROMANUM) is specifically referred to by Solesmes as a "private edition." I'm glad the shorter form (Gregorian Missal) makes no reference to itself as an "editio privata." Could it be that they are referring to the 1908 Graduale Romanum????

    Furthermore, the sentence doesn't say anything about how to render these chants IN ENGLISH (which translation to use). Bruce Ford and Dr. Paul Ford have both done English versions of this. Here is Bruce's If find it very strange that the USCCB has not given an official version of the English Propers (of course, with alius cantus adaptus, why would they for the other Propers?), but I am guessing Dr. Ford and Bruce would have used such a translation, had the USCCB made it available. (I am just guessing on this one).

    or an antiphon and Psalm from another collection of the psalms and antiphons, including psalms arranged in metrical form, providing that they have been approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop. Songs or hymns may not be used in place of the responsorial Psalm.

    This sentence . . . baffles me. Brace yourself: you ready for the implications?? It seems to say that I, Jeff Ostrowski, could make my own translation of a Psalm, get it approved, and use it at every single Mass of the entire liturgical year, so long as it was approved by the USCCB.

    Here is an example of Responsorial Psalms recently approved by the USCCB that were TRANSLATED & COPYRIGHTED by the composer !!!!! I don't understand why they are doing this.

    I am told that Dr. Ford's BY FLOWING WATERS has been approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (since it uses a different translation than the one in the Lectionary) but I have not seen the approval, or if I have, I accidently lost it. Dr. Ford, if you send it to me, I will gladly post it online.
  • Pes
    Posts: 623
    Jeff, that's threadworthy at NLM.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,860
    Jeff, there was a thread about BFW's approval a couple of weeks ago, so you can see the approval letter there.
  • Jeff wrote, "I don't understand that business about the "proper or seasonal" --- I thought the entire book of the Graduale Simplex was seasonal Psalms. In other words, I thought the Simple Gradual is nothing BUT seasonal propers." The only thing I can think that could justify the wording is that for Lent, each Sunday in the Grad. Simp. has its own mass. I suppose these could be thought of as propers. More likely, I don't think that the person who composed this section had a really knowledgeable idea of what was in the Grad. Rom. or Grad. Simp.

    In terms of the 1998 v. 2002 Lectionary issue, perhaps this will clear it up: http://www.catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Editions.htm
  • P.S. Thanks for answering the mix-and-match issues in the Grad. Simp.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    Thank you, Ioannes! It sure did clear it up. it truly is a 1998/2002 edition
  • Paul F. Ford
    Posts: 799
    Jules has every right to be confused about the U.S. application of Article 61 of the GIRM about the responsorial psalm.

    Here is the original Latin:

    Psalmus responsorius

    61. Post primam lectionem sequitur psalmus responsorius, qui est pars integralis liturgiae verbi et magnum momentum liturgicum et pastorale prae se fert, cum Verbi Dei meditationem foveat.

    Psalmus responsorius unicuique lectioni respondeat et e Lectionario de more sumatur

    Praestat psalmum responsorium cantu proferri, saltem ad populi responsum quod attinet. Psalmista proinde, seu cantor psalmi, in ambone vel alio loco apto profert versus psalmi, tota congregatione sedente et auscultante, immo de more per responsum participante, nisi psalmus modo directo, idest sine responso, proferatur. Ut autem populus responsum psalmodicum facilius proferre valeat, textus aliqui responsorum et psalmorum pro diversis temporibus anni aut pro diversis ordinibus Sanctorum selecti sunt, qui adhiberi valent, loco textus lectioni respondentis, quoties psalmus cantu profertur. Si psalmus cani non potest, recitatur modo aptiore ad meditationem verbi Dei fovendam.

    Loco psalmi in Lectionario assignati cani potest etiam vel responsorium graduale e Graduali Romano, vel psalmus responsorius aut alleluiaticus e Graduali simplici, sicut in his libris describuntur.


    The line in italics is new to this edition of the GIRM and is borrowed from the Lectionary for Mass: Introduction (LMI). The last paragraph was changed, with Rome’s permission, to the following:

    In the dioceses of the United States of America, the following may also be sung in place of the Psalm assigned in the Lectionary for Mass: either the proper or seasonal antiphon and Psalm from the Lectionary, as found either in the Roman Gradual or Simple Gradual or in another musical setting; or an antiphon and Psalm from another collection of the psalms and antiphons, including psalms arranged in metrical form, providing that they have been approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop. Songs or hymns may not be used in place of the responsorial Psalm.


    By the way, the responsorial and alleluia psalms of BFW have been approved by the USCCB, and similarly those of the Psallite project have been approved by the publisher’s diocesan bishop (The Liturgical Press, in the diocese of Saint Cloud). Both repertories have imprimaturs.

    There seems to be great confusion about the 113 chants in the responsorial repertory of the Graduale Simplex. (Ioannes Andreades is correct in his assumption: “I don't think that the person who composed this section had a really knowledgeable idea of what was in the Grad. Rom. or Grad. Simp.”)

    I have attached a list to this posting so that you can see that there are indeed proper responsorial psalms and proper alleluia psalms (and they should be used on these occasions), but that these can sometimes also be used in the appropriate seasons and for commons as well as ritual and votive masses. All the rubrics of the GS are there in BFW in my translation and extra guidance is given in the Suggested Uses section of the back matters, and amplified on my website.

    Richard R. is correct in saying that “psalm” means any psalm or canticle (from the Old and New Testament—see the list in Thesaurus Liturgiae Horarum Monasticae.

    Jeffrey Tucker says: “I've yet to read Peter Jeffery's critique of Liturgiam. Maybe he has some good points in there.”

    Peter Jeffery is magnificent on Liturgiam Authenticam. This is a must read. I haven’t heard that a re-translation of the GS is on anyone’s radar. In BFW I used the still official translation, the one with the concordat cum originali from Rome, prepared by (among others) Father Stephen Somerville. But I assured the USCCB that I would revise any part of BFW that has received an official revision.

    This post doesn’t address all the issues raised in the past few days on this matter. I’d be happy to continue the dialogue.

    Blessings,
    Paul
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    "By the way, the responsorial and alleluia psalms of BFW have been approved by the USCCB, and similarly those of the Psallite project have been approved by the publisher’s diocesan bishop (The Liturgical Press, in the diocese of Saint Cloud). Both repertories have imprimaturs."

    Is there any way that you can send me those sheets of paper, so I can post them online? I would be happy to do this, if it is not too much trouble.

    Also, this raises a question: say a Bishop approves a text:

    (1) Does that mean other dioceses can use that text liturgically?

    (2) When does the approval expire? I have hymnals from the 1970's that have Ecclesiastical approval. Are all those Resp. Psalms still valid to be used throughout the USA?


    "In BFW I used the still official translation, the one with the concordat cum originali from Rome, prepared by (among others) Father Stephen Somerville."

    Where does one find this translation? I was under the impression that there WAS no official translation of the Mass Propers.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    [ By the way, how do you get the blue background in your post? ]
  • Felipe Gasper
    Posts: 786
    Jeff O.: Use the <blockquote> HTML tag to get the blue background.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    By the way, it's kinda funny how hard the simple Gradual is to use . . . :-)
  • Felipe Gasper
    Posts: 786
    Jeff O. wrote:
    Felipe, do you have documentation to back up what you are claiming with regard to this?
    Intro the Order of Readings (Lectionary), §89: “But to make it easier for the people to join in the response to the psalm, the Order of Readings lists certain other texts of psalms and responses that have been chosen according to the various seasons or classes of Saints. Whenever the psalm is sung, these texts may replace the text corresponding to the reading.”

    And what is this secret letter you refer to above, if I may ask?
    I assume you refer to the email discussion I had with Dr. Jeffery to which I made reference. My point isn’t that I told him anything. My point is that nowhere in his very well-footnoted critique does he even indicate awareness of the Vatican’s own response to the dubia that he and other scholars raised about the Nova Vulgata and Liturgiam Authenticam. That point alone should be a big red flag to anyone reading the critique.

    Which, I agree with Dr. Ford, is excellent reading, and very informative. I simply think he has failed to present a cogent argument against most of Liturgiam Authenticam because he ignores the fundamental linguistic differences between “days of yore” and the modern Roman Rite.

    Furthermore, a lot of clarification needs to be done in this area, especially when you start talking about bi-lingual Masses, like we have here in Corpus Christi, because the Seasonal Psalms are DIFFERENT in Mexico than our English Lectionary gives.
    This can be resolved easily. Buy, or otherwise obtain access to, a copy of the Ordo Lectionum Missæ.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    Felipe,

    There has been some confusion, and I apologize for this. I can't go into all the details right now, but PART of the confusion is that there are three people named Jeffrey, to whom you've been referring. My mistake.

    I assume you refer to the email discussion I had with Dr. Jeffery to which I made reference. My point isn’t that I told him anything. My point is that nowhere in his very well-footnoted critique does he even indicate awareness of the Vatican’s own response to the dubia that he and other scholars raised about the Nova Vulgata and Liturgiam Authenticam. That point alone should be a big red flag to anyone reading the critique.


    Can you elaborate on this? (If not, for want of time, I understand)

    This can be resolved easily. Buy, or otherwise obtain access to, a copy of the Ordo Lectionum Missæ.


    I'm afraid this doesn't even begin to address the issue. The problems occur because the Seasonal Responsorial Psalms are different in Spanish speaking countries than they are in English, but we frequently have Spanish/bi-lingual Masses in America.
  • Felipe Gasper
    Posts: 786
    Jeff O.,

    I’m not sure what elaboration you would like....read his book (“Translating Tradition” by Peter Jeffery), and note that although half-ish of it is devoted to critiquing LA’s statements about the Nova Vulgata Editio translation of the Bible, not one sentence or footnote refers to the Vatican’s own response to many of the issues that he and other scholars raised. (And the Vatican’s response came fairly quickly—MUCH earlier than Jeffery’s critiques.)

    They should correspond to the OLM. Whichever Lectionary doesn’t, presumably, is in error, although the Vatican may have approved the regional differences.

    This points to a bigger problem I see: that “regional differences” are increasingly obscured in a world where communication is ever freer.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    I assume each conference chooses their own seasonal Psalms: I assume that's why they are so very dfferent (the psalms selected)
  • Paul F. Ford
    Posts: 799
    Jeff Ostrowski asks:
    "In BFW I used the still official translation, the one with the concordat cum originali from Rome, prepared by (among others) Father Stephen Somerville."

    Where does one find this translation? I was under the impression that there WAS no official translation of the Mass Propers.


    The copy I own is a letter-size, light blue cover stock, 80-page comb-bound book, published in 1968 by the old International Committee on English in the Liturgy, Toronto, Canada. I imagine copies are very rare.
  • WJA
    Posts: 237
    I suppose this 1968 translation was and remains under copyright? I wonder who has the authority to authorize re-printings?

    WJA
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    Dr. Ford,

    I think I speak for many when I say we would LOVE to see some scans of that book, if that is possible
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    Wait, is this the translation used for the 1965 Missal? I have that right here. I've been threatening to put that online for a long time.
  • Felipe Gasper
    Posts: 786
    Jeff O. wrote:
    I assume each conference chooses their own seasonal Psalms: I assume that's why they are so very dfferent (the psalms selected)
    The seasonal psalms are referenced in the Ordo lectionum Missæ, along with the rest of the texts in the Lectionary.

    The OLM is a “blueprint”, from Rome, for making a Lectionary. It has Scripture citations and incipits for readings, Responsorial psalm responses and Scripture citations for verses, and Verses before the Gospel. All is in Latin. The 2nd edition, the latest, was published in 1981.

    I suppose different regions could make variations. But, the OLM gives the “defaults”; they are not chosen at will, necessarily, by individual conferences.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    Felipe,

    If you examine & compare the Seasonal Psalms given in the English Lectionary and the Spanish lectionary, you will see that many are completely different.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    Dr. Paul Ford said, "The last paragraph was changed, with Rome’s permission, to the following"


    The "last paragraph" he referenced is here:

    Loco psalmi in Lectionario assignati cani potest etiam vel responsorium graduale e Graduali Romano, vel psalmus responsorius aut alleluiaticus e Graduali simplici, sicut in his libris describuntur.

    . . . with two translations (from two friends of mine):

    "Instead of the psalm assigned in the Lectionary one may also sing a responsorium graduale [Responsorial Gradual] from the Graduale Romanum or a responsorial or alleluia psalm taken from the Graduale simplex, as is described in these books."

    "In place of the psalm, assigned in the lectionary, one can sing as well either a gradual responsory for the Roman Gradual or a responsorial or alleluia psalm from the simple Gradual, as they are respresented in these books."
  • i seem to have opened up a can of worms

    that was not my intent

    ( at least i don't feel so dumb for being confused ! )
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,574
    BCL Newsletter (February 1967, Vol 3 No 2)

    International Committee on English in the Liturgy

    English in the Mass: Part II

    [...]

    Program for 1967

    The Committee's program for 1967 may be explained under three main headings: (1) projected programs
    of translation; (2) subcommittee on the Ordinary of the Mass; (3) Simple Gradual.
    [...]
    1. [...]
    2. [...]
    3. Simple Gradual

    The forthcoming Graduale Simplex is to be an official liturgical book of chant for the Roman rite. In
    accordance with art. 117 of the Constitution on the Liturgy, it provides Latin texts (with Gregorian chant
    melodies) as simpler, optional, and experimental alternatives to the proper chants of the present Roman
    Gradual and Missal (antiphons and psalms of entrance, offertory, and communion; chants between the
    lessons).

    The formularies are so arranged that one may serve for several Sundays of the year, for a season, etc.
    Each chant consists of psalm verses together with brief refrain or antiphon assigned to the congregation.
    (An excerpt from the Graduale Simplex was used at the daily Masses of the 1965 session of the Council.)

    It does not seem possible to complete a translation of the entire psalter into English, according to the
    principles already accepted by the Advisory Committee, in time to provide the basis for adaptations of the
    Graduale Simplex in English during the interim period, i.e., before the completion of the Roman liturgical
    books in general. It is therefore recommended that the existing English psalters, approved for liturgical use
    in the various countries, be employed for the present. These should of course be suitable for singing.

    The immediate project of the Committee is rather a translation or adaptation of the brief antiphons
    (refrains), responses, etc., about 200 in all--for interim use with existing, approved psalters.

    The Advisory Committee is taking immediate steps to furnish such a translation of antiphons, etc. In the
    interest of uniformity the Episcopal Committee agreed to ask the various Episcopal Conferences not to
    authorize other translations of the antiphons of the Graduale Simplex, even for interim use.

    The Committee will follow these guidelines in the preparation of an English version of the Graduale
    Simplex
    :
    (a) The liturgical use of the brief antiphons as refrains, responses, or acclamations of the people may
    demand a free translation or adaptation of these texts.
    (b) The suitability of the antiphons for musical settings is an essential consideration,m although it is not
    the function of the International Committee to commission or propose such settings.
    (c) The development of hymns or other forms of sacred song as additional options in the place of the
    proper chants of Mass is to be expected in the future, but it is distinct from the direct purpose of the
    experimental Graduale Simplex, namely, to provide simpler alternative proper chants, consisting
    of psalm verses with brief refrains.