So what’s the situation with all the various sets of english propers such as Fr. Weber’s?

I was thinking he had the RP & Gospel acclamation.

Ah, but ! The 1965 Missal was an authorised translation of the 1962 Missal. As such it contains approved translations of all the texts. (Indeed in some places, such as Baltimore, only those texts could be used from ¿1965? until the OF was available in English in 1973, Latin was forbidden.)

July 1. Precious Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ

Gradual I John 5, 6 and 7-8 This is he who
came in water and in blood, Jesus Christ;
not in the water only, but in the water and
in the blood. V. There are three that bear
witness in heaven: the Father, the Word,
and the Holy Spirit; and these three are
one. And there are three that bear witness
on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the
blood; and these three are one.

Alleluia, alleluia. V. Ibid., 9 If we receive
the testimony of men, the testimony of God
is greater. Alleluia.

Fourth Sunday in Lent
Gradual Ps. 121, 1 and 7 I rejoiced because
they said to me, "We will go up to the house
of the Lord." V. May peace be within your
walls, prosperity in your buildings.
Tract Ps. 124, 1-2 They who trust in the
Lord are like Mount Sion, which is immovable;
which forever stands. V. Mountains
are round about Jerusalem; so the Lord is
round about his people, both now and
forever.

[ADDED] You can download it from https://www.ccwatershed.org/2013/11/15/1965-missale-romanum-online/

Jackson, how are the processional propers not ritual but the inter-lectionary propers are?

Bruce, are you talking about the P&B gradual translations? Or English gradual translations in general?

I ask because Ostrowski has graduals in his Lalemant Propers and Fr Nicholls also in his Graduale Parvum.

I’m sure this has been discussed before, but I can’t remember the details.

@Gamba - I would say as a general rule a newer translation displaces it's predecessor, but absent approved Gradual translations,† these are the most legitimate we have.
As it happens I live in the Diocese of Liverpool so my archbishop, like all the English hierarchy, has an indult to permit occasional use of the 1967 Missal; not that anyone has asked since JPII granted access to the 1962.
† ICEL published an approved translation of the GS antiphons and refrains in 1968.

I find your #1 argument rather compelling; if it is licit for us to take the Latin text and set it in a motet, or to sing a translation of that text as set by any composer, then why on earth would it be illicit to sing a direct translation of the propers themselves? Especially when it is clearly preferable to sing the text or a translation of the proper to any other substitution such as a completely non-related hymn.

...provided that their translation has been approved by the local bishop or the local biship congerence.

This is the crux of the matter. The gradual (in approved Latin of the GR) or the Resp Ps are integral to the ritual text and must be approved words. Not so with Introit, Offertory, ad Communion, which, as it seems to me, are extraneous to the ritual text and, as just other cantus alius options like hymns or anthems, do not have to be approved texts. So, one can sing Int., Off., or Communion to any text, Latin or English, which has not been 'approved'. Not so with Latin gradual or Resp Ps, which, as they are conceived of as integral to the ritual text, must be in the approved Latin, or in the English of the official ritual text. I see not other way of interpreting this situation, but would be delighted if someone could demolish my argument. The absurd problem in all of this is the Roman fetish for legalism and legislation, which puts all it touches in shackles. This is very strange to this Ordinariate Catholic. Anglicans don't suffer under such picky-picky rules about what translations can and cannot be used for the propers and other music which is not integral to the ritual text. Of course, this leads to a certain (and often regrettable) laxity in Anglicandom, which being the mirror image of fetishistic legalism in the Roman Church, can be misused and abused. How do we find a (if I may say so) via media in all this? Or, is there one? It is irresponsible and thoughtless that our bishops have not seen fit to provide approved translations for the propers - all five of them - and requiring them, said or sung, at every mass, thus making them (as they should be) integral to the rite. The current 'entrance' and 'comunion antiphons' in the missal should be discarded altogether. It is foolishness that some now are setting these 'antiphons' to music and calling them 'propers'. They aren't, and this is not only a deceit but bald disobedience to the plain reading of the relevant rubrics. In the Ordinariate Use all the propers - all five of them - are integral to our rite, and when not sung are said by the celebrant. They may not be omitted!

MJO I don't completely blame the Roman authorities, much of this attitude can be traced to Napoleon. I didn't really take root in Rome for another 50 years. And then it is tempered by an Italian/Roman attitude that the law sets out a goal or ideal, not that we neccessarily expect to achieve it. In fact Italians blame this attitude on the Anglo-saxons.
I don't understand your quotation though, which surely refers to the Entrance etc.. c.f. GIRM§48.
The words allius cantus never AFAIK occur in a legislative text without the qualifier , thus from GIRM1969

sive alius cantus, actioni sacra;, diei vel temporis indoli congruus, cuius textus a Conferentia Episcopali sit approbatus.

I’ll be frank:
I consider many imprimaturs to be exceedingly dubious. Something authorized two centuries ago is one thing, but anything post-conciliar needs scrutinizing, even when it is “approved”. We all know the inverse is too as well: that various aspects of once-common liturgical life were either expressly suppressed or were deliberately not endorsed after the council to discourage their use for demonic reasons even though they were, and still are, perfectly legitimate.

I have a prayer book that has a nihil obstat and imprimatur that honest to God contains prayers to Egyptian Pharaohs, a muslim litany to the many names of God (including overtly heretical ones), Buddhist reformers and many more. It’s an absolute scandal and this book is still published by the “Catholic book publishing Corp.”

Thank you Hawkins, but I do think your analysis is very pertinent. It’s ludicrous and legalistic to say that we must use a vernacular responsorial psalm that is 50 years old because it has an official translation, but not use a 1500+ year old gradual because it has no “official” vernacular translation, especially when we are allowed to sing any old schlock for the rest of the mass. Our very litigious society values the rulings of the living authority, rather than the common, ancient tradition of our fathers, even when the living authority is in conflict with the tradition.

The message of the gradual, hallowed by centuries of use, has been translated accurately several times as outlined above. It’s not like we want to make up something new and “sing a new church into being.”

Chesterton, and democracy of the dead and all that.

Eschewing the above choice of words describing the Resp Ps, I will agree that nearly all musical settings of it are utter and highly insulting rubbish. Set to good music, it is not at all objectionable and can be quite beautiful as musical form and spiritual exercise. I have written and performed settings of it with chant responsorries for the people and mildly polyphonic verses for choir, as well as composed chant settings with simple chant responsories for the people and melismatic verses of varying richness, and with distinctive melodies for each verse, for the cantor - thus adopting a Gregorian form. Both of these have been very positively received, even by priests, who don't ordinarily show that much appreciation of music.

I have always seen the Resp Ps, as a form, as a restoration of the responsorial psalmody (a form peculiar to the Roman Church) of which the uniquely Roman gradual seems to me to be a truncated remnant. As the gradual as we know it consists of a responsory and one verse, it seems apparent that it is quite possibly the remnant of responsorial psalmody.

All that is not to suggest that the gradual itself is inferior or that the Resp Ps should take precedence over it, quite the very opposite. It is only to assert that the resp ps, like the OF itself is not inherently awful - only the music and liturgical praxis to which they are near universally subject are indescribably awful.

According to my analysis, if a collection of vernacular Graduals, Alleluias & Tracts were to be approved by the local Bishop or by a Bishop's Conference, it would be fully licit to use it.

For one example of how the Resp Ps can be beautifully done google midnight mass at buckfast abbey youtube This is a sort of modern choral treatment, but the same can be done with chant (each verse having its own melody), or with polyphonic or choral verses. The Alleluia and Verse is the Gregorian one proper to the mass. The vestments are a wonder to behold - even down to the appareled amices - the choir's Charpentier and Palestrina are excellent, the plainsong done very nicely - even by the people - and the organ is really good. The only disappointing thing is the absence of sung dialogue and collects - still, the NO liturgy is celebrated with great dignity and reverence. The striking surplices with red stripes around their skirts and sleeve cuffs would seem to be peculiar to Buckfast Abbey.

Very beautiful indeed! The OF and Responsorial psalm done right!

I have always seen the Resp Ps, as a form, as a restoration of the responsorial psalmody (a form peculiar to the Roman Church) of which the uniquely Roman gradual seems to me to be a truncated remnant. As the gradual as we know it consists of a responsory and one verse, it seems apparent that it is quite possibly the remnant of responsorial psalmody.

I have some doubts about that theory, but that does not make the RP aweful per se.

MJO - I think there is some support in the scholarly literature (unless I am misreading it). See Joseph Jungmann's The Mass of the Roman Rite and the section on "The Intervenient Chants" in Volume 1 beginning on page 421 (in the recent reprint by Christian Classics).

They do, and with good reason, though some of his works are a bit old and need to be updated.

Well, I realized today that we'd all overlooked another resource as far as official translations of the gradual are concerned: "The Gregorian Missal for Sundays and Solemnities" published by Solesmes in 2012. It has all the authentic gregorian propers as shifted for the N.O. calendar, with english translations sourced from ICEL.

"Concordat cum originalibus approbatis; imprimatur: Die 3 iunii 2012, †Yves Le Saux, Cenomanensis episcopus."

Crap. You're right.

I don't see it as disingenuous. A translation that is intended specifically to help the singers comprehend the text is very different in style than a singable translation, and Solesmes doesn't want to be seen as encouraging use of a text that isn't officially approved for use.

The Responsorial psalm of this Mass is beautiful to hear (from 9:22): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzX8pIl1wE4&t=114s

The Cologne Midnight Mass in 2020 had "Engeln auf den Feldern singen" in loco Gloria in excelsis, a Gradual Es ist ein Ros' and a straightforward 4-fold Alleluja. A brass quintet is in attendance; counterintuitive as it seems, more aerosols are safely collected in a spit valve than would be exhaled by a masked string player.
2019 with the full church has a Shepherd's Mass in C by Ignaz Reimann, the above described Gradual "Lobt Gott ihr Christen" and Alleluja In dulci Jubilo, unchanged from 2018. (I rather prefer it to the usual thin gruel.)

Trenton,

I have asked in these fora before whether, given the nature of the OF, anything can be declared actually illicit. I'll renew that question here.

Given the frequency of "options" and "these or other similar words" in the rubrics of the Ordo Missae itself and in its implementing document, the IGRM, isn't there supposed to be adequate suppleness to rule "in" nearly anything a local community wishes to do, except invalidate the sacrament?

In fairness, I don't think the Gloria and Credo should be replaced by a German chorale, and I'm not advocating that what you experienced should become the norm, in Germany or anywhere, but I don't see how it is legally possible to restrict such practices.

Chris,
I've wondered about this too. I once spoke to a priest about some abuses at the spanish masses at that parish (sorry, Masses in Spanish) as it is the typical terrible mariachi band music. Considering the style and instruments that were supposedly banned by T.L.S., I wondered why there wasn't more pressure for change. I posited the idea that what they were doing was actually illicit but he challenged me that whilst certainly unpreferable, they weren't technically doing anything "illegal" in the strict sense.

This leads to the obvious question: what legislation or documents actually carry force/rule of law? People reference TLS but that apparently is outmoded or doesn't carry the rule of law (so they say). There's GIRM but it doesn't deal adequately with these more practical questions. You have various pastoral letters like the excellent one out of portland, but those aren't universally binding... S.C. also doesn't adequately deal with many of the more practical questions. Where does that leave us if not T.L.S.?

Trenton,

I grant you that the text seems explicit enough to prevent the behavior in question, but one must consider that there are adaptations of the Ordo itself, varying by country. "In the dioceses of the United States of America......" probably has equivalents in other countries.

CGZ
The Vatican website does not have the German translation. It is possible that it has not yet been agreed, the conference was objecting to the (mis)translation of pro multis. The French and Italians both got their way on this and their translations are given below, along with Swahili which has the same meaning. Absent a new translation the 1975 text is still in force AFAIK and it does not have that sentence, which would make the substitution currently licit in German.

On ne peut jamais remplacer le texte de cette hymne par un autre.

Il testo di questo inno non può essere sostituito con un altro.

Maneno ya utenzi huu hayawezi kubadilishwa na matini nyingine.

The Vatican website does not have the German translation. It is possible that it has not yet been agreed...

Exactly. By the end of BXVI's pontificate the German bishops' conference wanted to do him a favor and have the latest revision of the revision accepted by the Holy See (which would probably have happened). The editors of the new (delayed) 'Gotteslob' were so confident that this was a 'go' that they included some eucharistic prayers in the new translation with pro multis="für viele".

The Austrian bishops however didn't agree, and many German bishops shared their objections, so in fall 2014 (?) they decided to not submit to Rome (for Germany alone) and to resolve these questions first.
Probably the final decision won't be taken without pressure from pope Benedict XVII.

What an accurate summation of my own feelings as well. Additionally, the risk of hard work being swept aside with a boss change is much higher than it would be in an EF or Ordinariate parish.