"Breaking Bread" hymnal and Psalms?

[catechizeme]

Our parish uses the Breaking Bread hymnal. One section is titled “Psalms and Canticles” . From what I can tell (I haven’t done an exhaustive review yet) these appear to be songs that are “based” on psalms (i.e. - the words are revised - the meaning is close). Instead of singing the actual psalm from the lectionary/missalette or an allowable substitute psalm from the lectionary on Sundays, our liturgy coordinator will often use one of these songs instead of an actual psalm.

Is this allowed? Is anyone familiar with “Breaking Bread”?

 

[m134e5]

Our parish uses the Breaking Bread hymnal. One section is titled “Psalms and Canticles” . From what I can tell (I haven’t done an exhaustive review yet) these appear to be songs that are “based” on psalms (i.e. - the words are revised - the meaning is close). Instead of singing the actual psalm from the lectionary/missalette or an allowable substitute psalm from the lectionary on Sundays, our liturgy coordinator will often use one of these songs instead of an actual psalm.

Is this allowed? Is anyone familiar with “Breaking Bread”?

I’m not sure it’s forbidden, but I would advise against it (and I think it should be forbidden!). Did Marty Haugen, Rory Cooney, Cary Landry, Tom Conry, David Haas, or any of the others really think they could do better than King David?!

 

[rosebudsal]

Yes, I’m familiar with that Hymnal. We use it in our parish. We also use one that’s entirely in Spanish. We’ve sung the responsorial psalms from both from time to time.

It seems to me that these are acceptable accorrding to the text in the Breaking Bread. And that seems to conform to what the GIRM says. It indicates it is preferable to sing the Responsorial Psalm.

 

[puzzleannie]

actually we have discussed this before and I believe the Resp psalm must be the actual psalm, not a stylized version. those are acceptable (not my choice, but acceptable) sung at the appropriate times for congregational singing, but not to replace the actual psalm with the prescribed response or alternate seasonal response.

found the recent discussion, with citation
does not mention your hymnal but does say songs cannot be substituted in the quote
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=240753

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

Breaking Bread is one of the many publications of Oregon Catholic Press (OCP), which is infamous for taking theological liberties with Scriptural translations in hymns and psalms. The general motive seems to be both “horizontal” and “vertical” inclusive language, and my best advice is to purchase different hymnals. My two favorites are the Adoremus and St. Michael Hymnals, because they retain the original hymn texts, have superior organ arrangements (not “keyboard”), and include more of the Latin Mass parts that the Church has been asking for since Vatican II.

 

[frommi]

The latest document from the bishops “sing to the lord: music in divine worship”, does allow for psalms to be paraphrased and used in liturgy.

 

[m134e5]

The latest document from the bishops “sing to the lord: music in divine worship”, does allow for psalms to be paraphrased and used in liturgy.

If this is true, I don’t think *all *bishops would agree. I somehow doubt the Vatican would agree either. Whatever the case may be, I haven’t heard of this document before and I know similar documents have been published that are just a few bishops’ ideas and aren’t really anything authoritative. I don’t know if these are allowed or not, but they’re not the Psalms. Psalms are paraphrased all the time- that’s how many hymn texts were written. There are also plenty of motets/anthems that are paraphrased psalms. I’m not sure anything other than the Latin, or the approved translation in the vernacular language is appropriate for the Psalm of the day (the specific part of the liturgy).

 

[Spiller]

GIRM #61 * “…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.”*

What exactly does that mean?

 

[Spiller]

Sing to the Lord:
Music in Divine Worship

*The Responsorial Psalm

1. The Responsorial Psalm follows the first reading. Because it is an integral part of the Liturgy of the Word, and is in effect a reading from Scripture, it has great liturgical and pastoral
   significance. Corresponding to the reading that it follows, the Responsorial Psalm is intended to foster meditation on the Word of God. Its musical setting should aid in this, being careful to
   not overshadow the other readings.
2. “As a rule the Responsorial Psalm should be sung. Preferably, the Psalm is sung responsorially: “the psalmist, or cantor of the psalm, sings the psalm verses and the whole
   congregation joins in by singing the response. If this is not possible, the Psalm is sung completely without an intervening response by the community.
3. The proper or seasonal Responsorial Psalm from the Lectionary for Mass, with the congregation singing the response, is to be preferred to the gradual from the Graduale
   Romanum. When the Latin gradual is sung in directum (straight through) by choir alone, the congregation should be given a vernacular translation.
4. Because the Psalm is properly a form of sung prayer, “every means available in each individual culture is to be employed in fostering the singing of the Psalm at Mass, including the extraordinary options provided by the Lectionary for Mass. In addition to the proper or seasonal Psalm in the Lectionary, the Responsorial Psalm may also be taken from the Graduale
   Romanum or the Graduale Simplex, or it may be an antiphon and psalm from another collection of the psalms and antiphons, including psalms arranged in paraphrase or in metrical form,
   providing that they have been approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or the diocesan bishop."*

I wonder if they use that as an excuse to neuter the Psalms?

 

[benedictgal]

Now, the document, A New Song to the Lord, failed to get the 2/3 vote needed for the necessary recognitio from Rome. The document lists recommendations, but, it does not carry the force of law, anymore than its predecessor, Music in Catholic Worship.

This is the US adaptation from the 2002 edition of the GIRM, as approved by Rome:

Responsorial Psalm
This adaptation will be inserted at number 61, paragraph 4:
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.

There is nothing in this section that relates to paraphrasing.

Unfortunately, A New Song to the Lord was supposed to have brought the USCCB into conformity with Liturgical Authenticam, the document from Rome that looks at translations. Unfortunately, because both the NPM and the FLDC heavily lobbied for a weaker document, the bishops went ahead with what, pretty much, constitutes a paper tiger.

 

[benedictgal]

Spiller asked about “inclusive language”. This is what Liturgicam Authenticam has to say on the subject:

1. In many languages there exist nouns and pronouns denoting both genders, masculine and feminine, together in a single term. The insistence that such a usage should be changed is not necessarily to be regarded as the effect or the manifestation of an authentic development of the language as such. Even if it may be necessary by means of catechesis to ensure that such words continue to be understood in the “inclusive” sense just described, it may not be possible to employ different words in the translations themselves without detriment to the precise intended meaning of the text, the correlation of its various words or expressions, or its aesthetic qualities. When the original text, for example, employs a single term in expressing the interplay between the individual and the universality and unity of the human family or community (such as the Hebrew word 'adam, the Greek anthropos, or the Latin homo), this property of the language of the original text should be maintained in the translation. Just as has occurred at other times in history, the Church herself must freely decide upon the system of language that will serve her doctrinal mission most effectively, and should not be subject to externally imposed linguistic norms that are detrimental to that mission.

Furthermore, the document states that:

1. In particular: to be avoided is the systematic resort to imprudent solutions such as a mechanical substitution of words, the transition from the singular to the plural, the splitting of a unitary collective term into masculine and feminine parts, or the introduction of impersonal or abstract words, all of which may impede the communication of the true and integral sense of a word or an expression in the original text. Such measures introduce theological and anthropological problems into the translation. Some particular norms are the following:

a) In referring to almighty God or the individual persons of the Most Holy Trinity, the truth of tradition as well as the established gender usage of each respective language are to be maintained.

b) Particular care is to be taken to ensure that the fixed expression “Son of Man” be rendered faithfully and exactly. The great Christological and typological significance of this expression requires that there should also be employed throughout the translation a rule of language that will ensure that the fixed expression remain comprehensible in the context of the whole translation.

c) The term “fathers”, found in many biblical passages and liturgical texts of ecclesiastical composition, is to be rendered by the corresponding masculine word into vernacular languages insofar as it may be seen to refer to the Patriarchs or the kings of the chosen people in the Old Testament, or to the Fathers of the Church.

d) Insofar as possible in a given vernacular language, the use of the feminine pronoun, rather than the neuter, is to be maintained in referring to the Church.

e) Words which express consanguinity or other important types of relationship, such as “brother”, “sister”, etc., which are clearly masculine or feminine by virtue of the context, are to be maintained as such in the translation.

1. The translation should not restrict the full sense of the original text within narrower limits. To be avoided on this account are expressions characteristic of commercial publicity, political or ideological programs, passing fashions, and those which are subject to regional variations or ambiguities in meaning. Academic style manuals or similar works, since they sometimes give way to such tendencies, are not to be considered standards for liturgical translation. On the other hand, works that are commonly considered “classics” in a given vernacular language may prove useful in providing a suitable standard for its vocabulary and usage.

I hope this helps.

 

[frommi]

Now, the document, A New Song to the Lord, failed to get the 2/3 vote needed for the necessary recognitio from Rome. The document lists recommendations, but, it does not carry the force of law, anymore than its predecessor, Music in Catholic Worship.

This is the US adaptation from the 2002 edition of the GIRM, as approved by Rome:

There is nothing in this section that relates to paraphrasing.

Unfortunately, A New Song to the Lord was supposed to have brought the USCCB into conformity with Liturgical Authenticam, the document from Rome that looks at translations. Unfortunately, because both the NPM and the FLDC heavily lobbied for a weaker document, the bishops went ahead with what, pretty much, constitutes a paper tiger.

I find it so interesting how you dismiss the bishops when they do something you don’t agree with.

You aren’t telling the whole story here. The document in question was developed with (name removed by moderator)ut from SEVERAL music interests in the church (NPM, Adoreums, etc). It’s not something that anyone ‘lobbied’ for and ultimately won.

It is indeed a teaching document, that does not have the force of ‘law’. However, it’s not a paper tiger.

 

[benedictgal]

I find it so interesting how you dismiss the bishops when they do something you don’t agree with.

You aren’t telling the whole story here. The document in question was developed with (name removed by moderator)ut from SEVERAL music interests in the church (NPM, Adoreums, etc). It’s not something that anyone ‘lobbied’ for and ultimately won.

It is indeed a teaching document, that does not have the force of ‘law’. However, it’s not a paper tiger.

It is still a paper tiger because had the USCCB not bowed down to special interest groups, it would have been able to have the force of law. First of all, the bishiops were given five years to submit a document to conform to Liturgicam Authenticam. The deadline xpired last year and it was not met. Instead, the USCCB came up with a heavily-watered document that did not get the necessary 2/3 for it to be sent to Rome for the necessary recognitio.

The bottom line is that we are still bound by what is said in both the GIRM (the US adaptation which Spiller and I both quoted) and by Liturgicam Authenticam, which is a regulatory document. Neither document gives the green light to heavily paraphrasing psalms.

 

[frommi]

It is still a paper tiger because had the USCCB not bowed down to special interest groups, it would have been able to have the force of law. First of all, the bishiops were given five years to submit a document to conform to Liturgicam Authenticam. The deadline xpired last year and it was not met. Instead, the USCCB came up with a heavily-watered document that did not get the necessary 2/3 for it to be sent to Rome for the necessary recognitio.

The bottom line is that we are still bound by what is said in both the GIRM (the US adaptation which Spiller and I both quoted) and by Liturgicam Authenticam, which is a regulatory document. Neither document gives the green light to heavily paraphrasing psalms.

Since when is 88% not 2/3rds…only 12 bishops voted against the document.

 

[benedictgal]

Since when is 88% not 2/3rds…only 12 bishops voted against the document.

Frommi, where did you get your information? I watched the proceedings from the EWTN feed and it clearly indicated that the document failed to get the necessary 2/3 vote of the bishops in order to get the required recognitio from Rome. In fact one of the bishops asked after the vote: “Did we get away with doing anything?”

Nonetheless, the document doesn’t have the force of law, nor does it supercede Liturgicam Authenticam.

 

[japhy]

Since when is 88% not 2/3rds…only 12 bishops voted against the document.

Actually, 91.6%… 132 out of 144. Perhaps benedictgal is getting her facts mixed up. What is accurate is that “[t]he document had originally been proposed as a legislative document, but the bishops opted instead to issue it as an official statement of the USCCB, which still required a two-thirds vote of Latin rite bishops.” So it’s not legislative – it’s not law. That means, where it conflicts with existing liturgical laws and norms, it is superseded.

 

[benedictgal]

Actually, 91.6%… 132 out of 144. Perhaps benedictgal is getting her facts mixed up. What is accurate is that “[t]he document had originally been proposed as a legislative document, but the bishops opted instead to issue it as an official statement of the USCCB, which still required a two-thirds vote of Latin rite bishops.” So it’s not legislative – it’s not law. That means, where it conflicts with existing liturgical laws and norms, it is superseded.

Thanks, japhy. Unfortunately, since the USCCB is not a legislative body in the sense of a secular legiislature (meaning, they don’t act like the House or the Senate), they don’t have record votes in the way that those of us who have worked in that kind of environment would understand the term. In other words, you can’t pull up a roster to check how your bishop voted because they don’t have roll call or record votes.

Needless to say, that last point you made is quite correct and, it’s the kernel of this whole issue about responsorial psalm substitutions and incluisive language editing.

 

[frommi]

Thanks, japhy. Unfortunately, since the USCCB is not a legislative body in the sense of a secular legiislature (meaning, they don’t act like the House or the Senate), they don’t have record votes in the way that those of us who have worked in that kind of environment would understand the term. In other words, you can’t pull up a roster to check how your bishop voted because they don’t have roll call or record votes.

Needless to say, that last point you made is quite correct and, it’s the kernel of this whole issue about responsorial psalm substitutions and incluisive language editing.

Wait a second…the whole tentpole of your argument was that the document didn’t get a 2/3rds vote and should thus be discarded as unimportant.

Now, you’ve changed your tact out of what appears to be convenience.

Only 12 bishops voted against the document…it is a teaching document from the bishops…how can we simply discard such a thing because you like something else more?

 

[benedictgal]

Wait a second…the whole tentpole of your argument was that the document didn’t get a 2/3rds vote and should thus be discarded as unimportant.

Now, you’ve changed your tact out of what appears to be convenience.

Only 12 bishops voted against the document…it is a teaching document from the bishops…how can we simply discard such a thing because you like something else more?

But, the teaching document does not have the force of law. Furthermore, the documents issued by the Holy See that regulate the liturgy supercede teaching documents, especially when they seem to contradict the norms set forth by both the GIRM and Liturgicam Authenticam.

Finally, the document didn’t pass by the necessary vote required to secure the recognitio from Rome. Therefore, it is rendered a paper tiger.

 

[RosalieM]

We also have “Breaking Bread” and I’m resigned to it. It’s just that every so often I’m sad about an unnecessary change in text. For instance, what is wrong with “…and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord forever.” instead of “…and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord for years to come”? Also why in the world change St. Francis’ “Lord make me an instrument of thy peace” to “Lord make me a chanel of thy peace”. I don’t get it but I keep overlooking things like this for the sake of community. Do they think people are too stupid to understand the original text? I don’t.