Combining psalm verses

CatholicZ09

A practice I’ve noticed in several parishes I visit is the combining of the second-to-last and last verse of the psalm, particularly if the psalm has a metrical refrain and chanted verses (Alstott, Guimont etc).

What’s the purpose of combining the two verses instead of doing Refrain—Verse 3–Refrain—Verse 4–Refrain? I see a lot of Refrain—Verse 3 & 4–Refrain. Is this a common practice? I see it in a variety of parishes. I wonder if it could be a local thing...

a_f_hawkins

CatholicZ09 : ¿ Is this question just about the OF Responsorial Psalm? If so for the Responsorial Psalm in English, I think this practice is not approved, after all a Responsory with the response omitted would be nonsense.
But there are four/five psalms at Mass, according to the rubrics, and different ways of treating them. And there are psalms in the Office, with again different treatment. Also over the centuries practice has varied, including selective omission of antiphons.
The practice of omittting the Response between some or all Psalm verses is OK in the Liturgy of the Hours. In the Mass the rubrics in English do not suggest it for any of the four psalms* AFAIK, but they do allude to psalms sung in directum, i.e. straight through without an antiphon. In Latin in both GR and GS some psalms are sung in directum and are listed as Tracts. AND for Introit and Communion there is an option of adding the Gloria Patri ... as a verse but without a preceding antiphon.
Maybe it is a device to confuse the PIPs, inhibit their singing so that the choir can do it without encumbrance
* Things are of course more complicated in the Triduum.

chonak

I'm surprised at a_f_hawkins' interpretation of the rubrics: that it is licit to omit the antiphon before and after all the verses, but not to omit it after only some of the verses. Does anyone know whether the question's ever been addressed officially?

CHGiffen

I'm not sure what is meant by not combining verses in singing the Responsorial Psalms. It seems to be common practice for verses often to be grouped in pairs throughout the R.P. For example, for Lent 2B, the R.P. is specified to be: R. (9) I will walk before the Lord, in the land of the living. V. Ps. 116:10, 15, 16-17, 18-19. Notice the three groupings 10,15 -- 16-17 -- 18-19:

R. I will walk before the Lord, in the land of the living.
I believed, even when I said,
"I am greatly afflicted."
Precious in the eyes of the LORD
is the death of his faithful ones.
R. I will walk before the Lord, in the land of the living.
O LORD, I am your servant;
I am your servant, the son of your handmaid;
you have loosed my bonds.
To you will I offer sacrifice of thanksgiving,
and I will call upon the name of the LORD.
R. I will walk before the Lord, in the land of the living.
My vows to the LORD I will pay
in the presence of all his people,
In the courts of the house of the LORD,
in your midst, O Jerusalem.
R. I will walk before the Lord, in the land of the living.

This is far from being an isolated instance; in fact, it is quite pervasive.

a_f_hawkins

My post above attempts to answer the OP's question, and then indicate why the phrasing of the question is unclear.
@chonak - I don't know in what circumstances this applies, but -

GIRM 61 ... while the whole congregation sits and listens, normally taking part by means of the response, except when the Psalm is sung straight through, that is, without a response. ...

@CHGiffen, I think that CatholicZ09 is asking about omitting the response where it is indicated between the blocks of words in a translation such as Revised Grail. And thus using the term 'verse' to refer to those blocks. Such translations usually blur the verse boundaries we use to navigate the Vulgate. As you will know those verse boundaries are not integral to the original texts, but devised as a shorthand for reference purposes. The oldest biblical texts as written down contain no punctuation to demarcate sentences, and indeed not always clearly defined boundaries between one word and another. And no distinction between rubrics, commentary, and text :

NAB Ps. 45:1 For the leader; according to "Lilies." A maskil of the Korahites. A love song.
2 My heart is stirred by a noble theme, as I sing my ode to the king. My tongue is the pen of a nimble scribe.

NJB Psalm 45:1 For the choirmaster Tune: 'Lilies . . .' Of the sons of Korah Poem Love song My heart is stirred by a noble theme, I address my poem to the king, my tongue the pen of an expert scribe.

Richard Mix

An egregious example is coming up, Ps. 122 for Christ the King C/ and again for Advent I A:

Jerusalem, built as a city with compact unity. To it the tribes go up, the tribes of the Lord…4/4 Let us go rejoicing to the house of the Lord …according to the decree for Israel, to give thanks…

We do not honor the Lectionary's placement of the respond in cases that would outrage grammar.

a_f_hawkins

Perhaps I am missing your point, but as printed in texts I have looked at, I see no outrage to grammar.

Let us go rejoicing to the house of the Lord. According to the decree for Israel, to give thanks…

It does perhaps violate common sense to use English in a way so susceptible to misunderstanding, with the confusion between the very common use of 'according to' as a preposition and the uncommon use of 'according' as a synonym of 'conforming'. But that is a different rabbit hole.

Richard Mix

I don't see a self-standing sentence in

According to the decree for Israel, to give thanks to the name of the Lord.

Do you?

a_f_hawkins

No, true. - I could say 'poetic licence', I could say the effect of Liturgicam Authenticam has been pernicious (in part). I will say that joining this text with the antiphon makes both logical and gramatical sense.
And, more strongly, I will suggest using Grail Psalms when singing. Imposing one uniform biblical translation for all purposes is a bad idea, IMHO. There is good sense in the long tradition of using different translations for the psalms for singing.

Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!

Categories