Regulation of New Hymnals and their use

Well it does to the people who post here... dispassionate and reasoned debate, with a good deal of humour thrown in for good measure.

Moderators: Dom Perignon, Casimir

User avatar
keitha
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:23 pm

Re: Regulation of New Hymnals and their use

Post by keitha »

It is quite hard to find a definitive answer as to what psalm translations are licit for use as the Responsorial Psalm at Mass. I tend to side with SC on this. GIRM para 391 states that it is for Conferences of Bishops "to attend to the translations of the biblical texts to be used in the celebration of Mass..." In England & Wales and Scotland the respective Bishops Conferences have prescribed the Lectionary for use in 'their' territories with the 1963 Grail Psalm translations being applied.

Art 61 of GIRM then says "The Responsorial Psalm should correspond to each reading and should usually be taken from the Lectionary". It then goes on to say "Instead of the Psalm assigned to 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...".

IMHO (!) Stephen Dean's Taste and See is not appropriate as the Responsorial Psalm for Lent 4C because he has "adapted" the Grail text, so it is not being taken from the Lectionary (and I note that in Laudate it is 'billed' as a Communion Chant). On the same basis, the translations of the psalms used in the Chabanel Psalms are not from the correct Lectionary and nor are metrical versions of psalms, and so they should not be used in England, Wales or Scotland as Responsorial Psalms at Mass.
Keith Ainsworth

John Ainslie
Posts: 385
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:23 am

Re: Regulation of New Hymnals and their use

Post by John Ainslie »

The Responsorial Psalm in the Liturgy of the Word has a very particular status. It is an integral part of the proclamation of the Word of God from the Bible. That is why it must be taken to the letter from the version of Holy Scripture approved for the purpose by the local Bishops' Conference (or the explicit alternatives permitted in GIRM).

The use of psalms in the Entrance and Communion Antiphons is different and much more relaxed - and if you look at them closely you'll find that many of them are quite loose compilations of scriptural texts. They are in any case accompaniments to the liturgical processions at which they are sung - and all accompaniments are secondary to whatever they are accompanying. That is why there is much more latitude permitted in their usage of texts.

User avatar
musicus
Moderator
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 8:47 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Regulation of New Hymnals and their use

Post by musicus »

JW wrote:Many of the psalm resources listed in the SSG planner don't have concordat or imprimatur

We changed our policy on this several issues ago and now only include settings that stick to the Lectionary text (although a few paraphrased exceptions might slip through unnoticed from time to time).
musicus - moderator, Liturgy Matters
blog

User avatar
keitha
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:23 pm

Re: Regulation of New Hymnals and their use

Post by keitha »

No-one is currently getting insistent upon parishes only using Responsorial Psalm collection that have an imprimatur for use with the present Lectionary - but the texts should be identical to that used in the Lectionary for the relevant Celebration (see above). Publishers of new collections of psalm (whether Responsorial Palms for use between the Readings or for other uses in the liturgy) should apply for imprimatur in relation to the text. For example, Psallite was published in 2008 and has an imprimatur.

There is likely to be a stricter approach when the new Lectionary is introduced (which seems to be at least 5 years off), probably akin to the 'permission to publish' process - but that is speculation on my part!
Keith Ainsworth

Post Reply