Is a vernacular gradual (chant) licit?
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 794
    I don't know. It's an interesting question.
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 772
    Francis, if these are leading questions designed to imply the superior pedigree of the EF, then yes, the EF clearly is a much more historical and organic (and dare I say better) form of the Mass. I don't think that anyone disputes that the Ordinariate form is essentially a new creation, regardless of how old some of the sources are from which it draws. But it's a marked improvement upon the Novus Ordo.

    Anyway, we're digressing again on a thread which itself was a digression.
    Thanked by 4davido ServiamScores tomjaw LauraKaz
  • francis
    Posts: 11,175
    Why do you think this is a digression? If we understand the foundation of each Rite and the rules that apply, would that not partly clarify the reason we we are having this discussion to begin with? Hence to come to some kind of clarity about swapping graduals and pertaining rules from Use to Use?

    And now you bring up yet ANOTHER USE? The EF? (which by the way, is also a new creation.)

    So to be clear, do we have “four uses of the Roman Rite” with their own complete Missal and Graduale? Or are we borrowing from one to the other at our own whims?

    And of course, this leads me to the rhetorical question, how many “Uses” can we create? (do any of the other Catholic Rites of the church condone a variety of “Uses”?)

    I suppose you see where this is going and my reasons for thinking this is a question that has no resolution but only creates a landscape of varying opinions.
  • DOAdvocate
    Posts: 26
    I’m firmly with @MatthewRoth’s take, I can’t stand psalm-tone propers. I’ve never a heard a choir use them that isn’t capable of singing the GR. One of the things V2 was set up to combat was things like psalm-tone propers!

    I suppose if a very new and beginner level schola genuinely can’t manage the GR, then they’d be ok, but I’ve honestly never found this circumstance in the wild.
    Thanked by 2MatthewRoth tomjaw
  • liampmcdonough
    Posts: 326
    The question of whether your choir sounds better doing a psalm toned antiphon or the real thing is a prudential judgement. Why argue about that? We are on the same side that the GR is a more elevated and edifying musical thing. Let people apply these principals as they see fit. Assume the best! I for one have never led or sung in a parish choir which, at first, could sing every single GR antiphon at every single sung weekend Mass better than using the lesser form for some Masses.
    Thanked by 3davido trentonjconn ServiamScores
  • liampmcdonough
    Posts: 326
    As for the question of the gradual in the vernacular- I am in complete disagreement that a plain reading of the GIRM text makes it illicit on its face. I would go as far as to say it is plainly licit by the principles laid out by Serviam at the beginning of this discussion. At the very least there is evidence that some Bishops, who are the legitimate and canonical interpreters of liturgical law, have approved it. Judging by the length of this thread, there are many, many competent musicians as well who would argue it is licit or even a preferable option. They argue in good faith. So, if there is legitimate disagreement on this point, why would you not want to exercise vernacular plainsong for the gradual. Why argue against it? Those of us who want to reform the reform and beautify the NO as much as possible do not bear the burden of proof for the validity of these traditional forms. Let the actual enemy tear these things from us if they wish. I will continue to push the most traditional options that competent authorities reason are possible.


    The underlying argument here, I suspect, is the disagreement about the whole point of the reform of the reform and the role of vernacular plainsong to begin with. Because if you believe in these things, of course you would want use them at the gradual!
    Thanked by 3davido Dixit_Dominus_44 ServiamScores
  • DOAdvocate
    Posts: 26
    Because in the run up to V2, one of the big abuses said to have been occurring was rushed and/or low effort Masses. Psalm-toned antiphons were part of that. They are better than some ‘alternatives’ but an over reliance on them is not good.
    I think we are all on the same page really… it definitely isn’t the worst thing happening in Churches at the moment. On Sunday (thankfully not the place where I normally attend Mass) was a particularly scarring hymn to the tune of Deutschland Deustchland über alles. I can confirm I’d rather have psalm tone propers than that!
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • DOAdvocate
    Posts: 26
    Surely there has to be a concern for what is actually permitted. We are quite happy to tell progressives to follow the rules but if we don’t stick to them precisely then why should they?
    Thanked by 3MatthewRoth ServiamScores tomjaw
  • liampmcdonough
    Posts: 326
    Because I believe in vernacular plainsong, I believe the gradual is the best option between readings, I want to enrich the OF with this musical form, I have some competent authorities telling me it's OK, and a lot of reasonable musicians telling this is their plain interpretation. Why invite clarification?

    This is how tradition works; if you don't actively maintain it, it dies. We should let our tradition inform the implementation of the law.
    Thanked by 4davido trentonjconn ServiamScores LauraKaz
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 772
    the tune of Deutschland Deustchland über alles


    Mildly off topic, but there is nothing objectional about this tune. It predates the text you mention considerably.
    Thanked by 2Liam tomjaw
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,464
    Originally a Catholic hymn directed against that proto-totalitarian Napoleon:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBlDTJJqrxE
    Thanked by 2trentonjconn tomjaw
  • Dixit_Dominus_44
    Posts: 201
    But the gradual in translation is off limits.


    This is not accurate. And many bishops have given explicit permission for precisely that. The cardinal archbishop of Boston (one of the most prominent cardinals to vote in the recent conclave) is one. More importantly, the documents specifically say the gradual chant is an option. Some documents place it as 1st option while others suggest indicate the Responsorial Psalm has overtaken it … but regardless, no legislation contains a qualification that the gradual chant is an option “only when sung in Latin.” The gradual chant doesn't become 'something else' when it is sung, for example, in Vietnamese.
    Thanked by 2ServiamScores tomjaw
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,211
    @IanW I specifically tagged you and told you to knock it off. But also these propers are the ones which are neglected and where only something supernatural is going to allow for the choir to start singing the full propers, which…well, should not be sung as a psalm-tone given their character. It’s even worse to sing these as a psalm-tone than the introit, offertory, or communion, and I don’t even really get warm, fuzzy feelings when that happens.

    Like I get the practical reasons. People, I’ve been at this for half my life. (@trentonjconn, I think my problem is that I’ve seen how hard it is to get off of psalm tones, and you rely on them even for occasions where you can do better.)

    @Dixit_Dominus_44, please see every other comment where I responded to that objection. If they did give permission, then it’s ultra vires. It’s not the answer that we wish to hear, but a gradual is not a collection of psalms and antiphons on the plain reading (I did say on the plain reading, not the tortured reading). Notice that the Graduale Simplex does not have the psalm-toned propers and the vernacular. It has responsorial psalms etc.

    I already addressed this point. The gradual is taken from the Graduale Romanum, which is exclusively in Latin. You may also sing (or should sing, but can also use the chants from the GR) the psalm from the lectionary or the GS or may get (in the US) any diocesan bishop to approve a similar collection, or the episcopal conference may do so as a whole.

    err, yes, it does become something else in the vernacular. Look, I’m sorry that the answer isn’t what people want, but that’s just it, you want to do what you want: it’d actually be more honest if you said that the law is worth ignoring and that we should just do what we want. Although in that case I would prefer the scoldings to stop; I think that it’s a ripe area for scolding, however, since I get scolded all the time for thinking that we should go back to pre-1955 unilaterally. At least I never claimed that we had episcopal or pontifical backing to do so, or could easily get it based on a plain reading of the law.
    Thanked by 1DOAdvocate
  • GerardH
    Posts: 620
    To briefly entertain the off-off-topic-topic
    And of course, this leads me to the rhetorical question, how many “Uses” can we create? (do any of the other Catholic Rites of the church condone a variety of “Uses”?)

    @francis, we can see exactly where you're headed with this line of reasoning, but history doesn't back you up. There was a multitude of Uses within the Roman Rite before the Tridentine impoverishment; some even survived it (particular uses of religious orders mostly); heck, some weren't even in Latin!

    Since the Second Vatican Council, there has been a growing resurgence of Uses - Zaire Use, Ordinariate Use (replacing Anglican Use), Mass of the Land of the Holy Spirit. Through these Uses, the Roman Rite adapts to our diverse church, so that every land and every people may exalt in the name of the Lord in their own manner, rather than with the liturgy from the coffee-shops and curial offices of Rome. Long may they proliferate.

    (P.S. and don't come at me with "they should adapt to the church" - read Acts 15)

    (P.P.S. the Wikipedia article on Use (liturgy) does a pretty good job of explaining the term and providing examples and comparisons with the Eastern Rites)
  • Dixit_Dominus_44
    Posts: 201
    MatthewRoth: but that’s just it, you want to do what you want: it’d actually be more honest if you said that the law is worth ignoring and that we should just do what we want.


    Your arguments would perhaps be more persuasive if you'd stop pretending to know what others want. (Just my 2¢.) To hint they're being dishonest also seems to miss the mark.

    MatthewRoth: The gradual is taken from the Graduale Romanum, which is exclusively in Latin.


    That's incorrect. The Graduale Romanum contains a fair amount of Greek as well as Hebrew. But the key point to grasp (which you have assiduously avoided acknowledging) is that many bishops have approved vernacular settings of the gradual chant for liturgical use. You can go all the way back to the complete set by the Sisters of the Most Precious Blood, the set of propers by Fr Arbogast, etc. etc. The most recent set to receive explicit permission, to my knowledge, for liturgical use would be the St John's Gradual:

    https://www.chantcafe.com/2024/06/the-saint-johns-gradual/

    That collection received ecclesiastical approbation by Cardinal O’Malley a few months ago. Some have argued his explicit permission is 'overkill' but such arguments are above my pay grade.

    With respect to the idea that any of these approvals will be rescinded in the near future, no one has presented any evidence hinting at such an occurrence. The rationale given above by ServiamScores struck me as particularly helpful, straight-shooting, and welcome.
    Thanked by 3tomjaw OMagnumMysterium davido
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,211

    Your arguments would perhaps be more persuasive if you'd stop pretending to know what others want. (Just my 2¢.) To hint they're being dishonest also seems to miss the mark.


    People could actually read what I write. That’s not about persuasion, but again, you have already missed a lot of the conversation.

    I don’t care for your proverbial 2¢, given that I have been reading everything and trying to be fair insofar as I think that vernacular propers are bad and that we settle into them as a compromise never to move to Latin and more rarely something more complex. But I understand that some people don’t care or are otherwise stuck. Fine. But we just can’t do whatever we want — not every justification must be strictly legal.

    I mean, come on Dixit:

    The underlying argument here, I suspect, is the disagreement about the whole point of the reform of the reform and the role of vernacular plainsong to begin with. Because if you believe in these things, of course you would want use them at the gradual!


    That's incorrect. The Graduale Romanum contains a fair amount of Greek as well as Hebrew
    . Smarty pants. I’ve never met anyone so rude on this forum. You know well that it’s pronounced and often treated like Latin. I do not consider the reproaches to truly be Greek, for example or Hosanna to be Hebrew. They are borrowings just like we have borrowings.

    But the key point to grasp (which you have assiduously avoided acknowledging) is that many bishops have approved vernacular settings of the gradual chant for liturgical use.


    I have not actually, which really, really makes me angry that you insist on this.

    There is no permission for bishops to approve such a collection. It is not what is obviously intended by GIRM 61, and the Saint John’s Gradual is not a good thing to promote.
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 772
    Smarty pants. I’ve never met anyone so rude on this forum.



    ...is this necessary?
    Thanked by 2Roborgelmeister tomjaw
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,211
    I mean was the first comment necessary? He knew what I meant.
  • francis
    Posts: 11,175
    @GerardH

    Not off topic… “uses” have missals and Graduales. We are discussing borrowing from one into the other and if that is licit…

    before the Tridentine impoverishment
    Right. Got it loud and clear.

    The church apologizes for making you feel impoverished with its lack of diversity. (wow, that sounds very synodal…)

    Thank you for letting me know about even more “uses”. How many are we up to now? Zaire! O right. I forgot about that one! (Doesn’t that one have a rite - invocation and veneration of ancestors?) BTW… do THEY have a Missal or a Gradual? Or do they beg and borrow too?

    So what you are saying is that we should have as many “uses” as there are people? Or opinions? Or countries? Or languages? Or maybe all of the above?

    The church has a term for that. It’s called Protestantism. Been there done that.

    The more recent term for the exact same thing is ecumenism.

    I suppose you see where this is going and my reasons for thinking this is a question that has no resolution but only creates a landscape of varying opinions.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 3,180
    There is no permission for bishops to approve such a collection. It is not what is obviously intended by GIRM 61,
    what of the options which say “or a collection approved by the local ordinary”? This states clearly that an ordinary can approve music for mass.
    Thanked by 1Roborgelmeister
  • francis
    Posts: 11,175
    I may be incorrect, but isn’t it true that a Bishop can only approve text used inside a musical composition, not the music itself? (don’t remember where I got that from.)
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,235
    @francis it seems that #393 of the General Instruction assigns approval authority over the music to the Conference of Bishops, at least of the ordinary parts and the responses.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,211
    I have said a few times now that a book of vernacular graduals, alleluias, and tracts is not a collection of psalms and antiphons — the permission seems pretty clearly to be an extension of the lectionary, which is the first source for the responsorial psalm and verse (with Alleluia or one of the Lenten acclamations) and the psalms and antiphons in the Graduale Simplex. In fact, you could take the vast majority of the graduals, make some of the text (more like a psalter antiphon than the longer antiphons for the gospel canticles) into an antiphon (since the gradual is not always a psalm, this poses a bit of a problem when the gradual is from the NT as is the case in Holy Week: I can hardly think of a pairing of the NT with the psalms or OT canticles, so it’s a bit of a hurdle), insert the psalm from which the gradual is taken, or another appropriate one for a feast (ps 44 for the BVM, ps 26 for the Lord, for example) and get it approved.

    That doesn’t get you to alleluias (although the solution of a few American parishes is to take a few of the easier Gregorian alleluias including the jubilus, pair them with the lectionary verse, and teach them to the congregation: the rubrics don’t exactly envision totally excluding the people). It also doesn’t get tracts. But it may be a step up on the responsorial psalm in the lectionary as conceived independently of the propers or as a seasonal psalm in the Graduale Simplex.

    Rome needs to approve the implantation of such a collection of vernacular graduals etc., not necessarily every last translation therein, but it would be good if ICEL at least reviewed and then issued it for folks to use. Like everything else.

    (Yes, yes, the non-Scriptural texts are trivial to translate but I didn’t come up with the rule that requires approvals.)

    @Andrew_Malton true for most of the world. The U.S. has permission for an individual bishop to approve music that can then be used in the whole of the U.S. My contention is simply that he is allowed to approve more options for responsorial psalms, not vernacular propers, when it comes to the chants between the readings. For various reasons, in the U.S. at least, it is less problematic to either sing vernacular propers based on the Latin chant propers for the introit, offertory, and communion (minus the offertory and only in the U.S.) the missal propers.
  • davido
    Posts: 1,150
    the permission seems pretty clearly to be an extension of the lectionary


    I would tend to agree with this statement. I don’t think the crafters of the NO missal and the GIRM were too mindful of graduals. But the Responsorial Psalm genre of the Lectionary includes texts from other scripture sources than the book of psalms, including the New Testament.

    Also, isn’t the gradual an antiphon with a psalm verse (in the broad definition of antiphon, just as we might refer to the introit as an antiphon + verse)?
    Thanked by 1Roborgelmeister
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,211
    No. It’s a responsory even though the form is not entirely respnsorial, that is, the cantors begin and the schola comes in, then the cantors sing the verse, and it is resumed at the asterisk, traditionally: the NO practice suppressed the asterisks, and even Dom Gajard did so for part of the Alleluia. The choir comes back for the jubilus at the repetition.

    I think the idea is to encourage repetition of the response, which is most acute on June 24 when the response is the text that would logically follow the verse. The old rubrics allow this, but hardly anyone does this regularly.
  • RoborgelmeisterRoborgelmeister
    Posts: 307
    The history of the Gradual Chant would tend towards considering it to be responsorial in its origins: but no one knows for certain. What is a near certainty is that multiple verses got lost, perhaps when the music became more elaborate (or was it always elaborate ?? no one knows for certain).
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,211
    well, even so: one verse with all of those melismas gives it a responsorial character, and you are perfectly free to repeat the response, no matter what missal is on the altar.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,627
    I don't know all the history behind the gradual chant, or its recent replacement the 'Responsorial Psalm', but the first publication of a 'responsorial psalm' for official (optional) use at Mass is presumably the Graduale Simplex in September 1967. That for the First Sunday of Advent is very clearly a responsary.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,627
    1/ However the above does not mean that I accept MatthewRoth is correct in supposing that the authors of GIRM are excuding responsaries from their expression 'psalms and antiphons'.
    2/ the respond may be a cause of arm waving cantors, as they see a need to signal which part of their chant is to be echoed by the congregation.
  • GerardH
    Posts: 620
    Again, "...a collection of antiphons and Psalms" is USA specific, and doesn't come from the authors of the GIRM. Its interpretation, therefore, must rest with the USCCB.

    For the rest of us, the last paragraph of GIRM 61 reads
    Instead of the Psalm assigned in the Lectionary, there may be sung either the Responsorial Gradual from the Graduale Romanum, or the Responsorial Psalm or the Alleluia Psalm from the Graduale Simplex, as described in these books.
    Thanked by 1a_f_hawkins
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,676
    All of this discussion will be put to rest soon with an official announcement. I think the correct answer is, no you shouldn’t sing a vernacular Gradual at a normal OF Mass presently. But as that song says, soon and very soon.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,211
    @GerardH but it is a Roman modification.

    And basically as I have said: go get Roman approval no matter what I think of it.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,090
    Regarding the question about whether a diocesan bishop could approve a musical work, or whether express USCCB approval was necessary, let me point back to a thread from some years ago.

    At the time, the USCCB had an approach of leaving the decision to the diocesan bishop of the place of publication. This was the stated policy as given by the Executive Director of the USCCB Secretariat for Divine Worship in 2012, quoted in the following thread (in 2017):

    https://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/7149/usccb-secretariat-of-divine-worship-responds-to-question-about-general-instruction-of-roman-missal/p1

    In short: as long as the diocesan bishop at the place of publication granted approval, the USCCB Secretariat accepted that as sufficient review, and they considered the work to be approved for the whole country.

    How long that approach remained in place -- well, I don't know that. It's not in place any longer. The Committee isn't following that approach any more, and their staff does process requests for approval.

    So if you want to publish something now and have it accepted for widespread use, by all means it's best to seek approval from the USCCB CDW. But there's no reason to find fault in regard to older works whose authors or publishers were following the Secretariat's procedure at the time.
    Thanked by 5CHGiffen tomjaw Liam ServiamScores francis
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 794
    @Francis, when Latin Europe was still Catholic (before ever Protestantism was), there were many variants and local uses of the Roman Rite, both in particular places and in religious orders. The Council of Trent did not prohibit this - it merely restricted it to well-established forms. Some of are still active today. This is a very Catholic pattern.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw a_f_hawkins
  • liampmcdonough
    Posts: 326
    There is this: https://addeumquilaetifica.wixsite.com/chaumonot/post/interesting-correspondence-with-usccb-secretariat-of-divine-worship-re-graduale-in-english
    Thanked by 1Richard Mix
  • francis
    Posts: 11,175
    @ianw

    Yes, but all those forms were never codified until the 1500s. The ones that were in existence for over a certain many years were allowed to continue. The various uses were part of the act of codification. That is why we have the various uses, Dominican, Benedictine, etc. But all of their roots are in the Latin Roman Rite.

    Here is a very obvious example:
    The new ones that are being “fabricated” after Vatican II are not in those roots and begin to include novelties, For instance the “Zaire Use” which includes elements that are diametrically opposed to the doctrine of saints.
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,235
    @liampmcdonough

    Unfortunately Chaumonot’s question is ambiguous in at least two ways (“can” : may, or able? “you” : anyone, or a cantor at Mass, and if at Mass then when?)

    I wish the question had been “is it permitted to sing the Gradual psalm, Tract, or Alleluia from the Roman Gradual, in an English translation, replacing the Responsorial Psalm or Gospel Acclamation from the lectionary? If so, what translation may be used?”

    For that is the point.
    Thanked by 4Liam MatthewRoth francis CHGiffen
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,464
    Yes. It would be unfortunate if the official response were to treat it as if it were what I call a "Divide By Zero" question.
  • francis
    Posts: 11,175
    is it permitted to sing the Gradual psalm, Tract, or Alleluia from the Roman Gradual, in an English translation, replacing the Responsorial Psalm or Gospel Acclamation from the lectionary? If so, what translation may be used?”


    Yes, this is much clearer, however, I would go so far as to say, you need to use the word “licit” instead of permitted. Anyone can “permit”, but only law can allow something that is licit.
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 794
    @francis wrote:

    Yes, but all those forms were never codified until the 1500s. The ones that were in existence for over a certain many years were allowed to continue. The various uses were part of the act of codification. That is why we have the various uses, Dominican, Benedictine, etc. But all of their roots are in the Latin Roman Rite.


    That's really rather my point, Francis. You previously expressed discomfort at there being a number of Graduales within the wider Roman Rite, but that's a very Catholic thing; and there still are, even allowing for the standardisation that came with printing and ultramontane tendencies.

    The new ones that are being “fabricated” after Vatican II are not in those roots and begin to include novelties, For instance the “Zaire Use” which includes elements that are diametrically opposed to the doctrine of saints.


    I can't speak for the Zaire Rite, of which I have no detailed knowledge, but can confirm that the mass in Divine Worship (the liturgy of the Ordinariates) is rooted in the present form of the Roman Rite, with the addition of some well-loved post-Reformation prayers that are consonant with the faith, and elements of the Old Rite that didn't make it into the new, such as the prayers at the foot of the altar and the last gospel; and the Roman Canon is normative for Sundays and feasts. That's hardly surprising, given it was developed on the initiative of Benedict XVI.

  • francis
    Posts: 11,175
    You previously expressed discomfort at there being a number of Graduales within the wider Roman Rite...
    no, we have graduales that preceed VII... it's the fabricated ones after VII that make me more than uncomfortable.

    Is not the Mass in Divine Worship in English? It may have some roots in the Roman Rite, but not the Latin Roman Rite. Latin is required. To say it in post conciliar terms, it mirrors Cranmer. Actually, I think Cranmer would be jealous.

    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 772
    My distaste for the inclusion of Cranmerian prayers aside, I think that there are many things in the Ordinariate Mass which would dismay Cranmer greatly...
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • francis
    Posts: 11,175
    Yea… I guess it goes both ways
  • Dixit_Dominus_44
    Posts: 201
    Andrew_Malton wrote: Unfortunately Chaumonot’s question is ambiguous in at least two ways (“can” : may, or able? “you” : anyone, or a cantor at Mass, and if at Mass then when?) I wish the question had been “is it permitted to sing the Gradual psalm, Tract, or Alleluia from the Roman Gradual, in an English translation, replacing the Responsorial Psalm or Gospel Acclamation from the lectionary? If so, what translation may be used?” For that is the point.


    The question linked above by @liampmcdonough was:
    Can the Graduale Romanum be sung in English, or only in Latin?

    You suggest the questioner wrote to the USCCB secretariat on liturgy to find out whether one can do something illicitly. Such an interpretation strikes me as contrary to the natural reading of that sentence. People don't write to the USCCB secretariat in order to ascertain whether it's possible to do something illicit. If I wrote the police-station asking 'Can I cross the street when the light turns red?' would there be any doubt what's being asked? Or am I missing something?

    The answer linked by @liampmcdonough was a clear, surprisingly warm, and wholehearted 'yes' … and I see nowhere in that message where the secretariat says: “but when doing this, one mustn't sing the items where they are assigned to be sung by the Graduale Romanum.” Again, the earlier comments by ServiamScores strike me as well-worth reading and considering.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,211
    The secretariat does not always know what it is talking about, and the staff, as opposed to the consultants, are not exactly interested in chant. (The documents on the papal interregnum were appalling.) I think that they answer to just answer. Their job is at least in part to deal with dubia and sometimes those can be answered by reference to earlier, similar questions, and then to formulate new ones to send to Rome, then to disseminate the answer to the conference members (and therefore chanceries and priests etc.) There is no doubt that one may sing certain chants from the Graduale Romanum in the vernacular, since there are various ways that this may be considered licit in the dioceses of the United States. I think that the problem is that you don’t want to ask questions to which you don’t have the answer already, either because it’s doubtful or it’s definitely the answer that you don’t actually want to hear. (It is the latter, in this case, the merits of singing the vernacular gradual etc. aside.)

    Meloche is right: it’s illicit at present. I don’t see why that’s hard to accept!
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,235
    I'm not quite sure what it seemed that I suggested. I certainly didn't second guess what Chaumonot actually meant. I thought it was clear that I wished that a different question had been asked.

    I think that regardless of the music, the texts of the Lectionary propers cannot be replaced with other texts. There are several places where this is stated, for example GIRM 358 and 362. This probably also covers alternate translations. But as is well known, the other propers can be replaced.

    Now bcause the Graduale Romanum is explicitly listed as a source for both the above categories (viz. irreplaceable Lectionary texts, and replaceable propers), and since the Graduale has no approved translation, it’s debatable whether the Graduale Romanum, adapted into vernacular text, may licitly be used for the irreplaceable texts category.

    That's what I wish had been asked.
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,676
    since the Graduale has no approved translation


    Currently
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,627
    GIRM 358 and 362 explicitly apply to the scripture readings and not to the chants between the readings.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,627
    it’s illicit at present. I don’t see why that’s hard to accept!
    One reason is diversity of understanding of the nature of liturgical law.
    Another is that some of the US versions of GIRM.61seem to be drafted to allow for the possibility.:-
    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,
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,211
    Asked and answered counselor.
Add a Comment