"Breaking Bread" hymnal and Psalms?

[frommi]

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.

No, it did pass by the ‘necessary vote’, but the bishops chose not to submit it as a document of ‘law’ which would require a recognito…and there reasons for doing so were that they basically didnt think music choices should be a matter of venial sin.

And, we keep going down this road, that document is still a most important guide that uses LA and the GIRM as it’s support. There is nothing in the document that contradicts the GIRM or LA…and LA was not a document of law either, those were translation guidelines.

It’s the document we have, so it’s the document we follow at this point.

But I’m slowly learning how this works for you…just keep throwing an argument against the wall until one sticks in regards to promoting your personal tastes.

 

[benedictgal]

No, it did pass by the ‘necessary vote’, but the bishops chose not to submit it as a document of ‘law’ which would require a recognito…and there reasons for doing so were that they basically didnt think music choices should be a matter of venial sin.

And, we keep going down this road, that document is still a most important guide that uses LA and the GIRM as it’s support. There is nothing in the document that contradicts the GIRM or LA…and LA was not a document of law either, those were translation guidelines.

It’s the document we have, so it’s the document we follow at this point.

But I’m slowly learning how this works for you…just keep throwing an argument against the wall until one sticks in regards to promoting your personal tastes.

Actually, there is something in that document that contradicts Liturgicam Authenticam and Redemptionis Sacramentum:

1. 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."

Redemptionis Sacramentum and Liturgicam Authenticam indicate that such is not allowed. This is something that the NPM and the FLDC wanted to include in order to justify something that is grossly incorrect in Breaking Bread and the other songbooks published by houses like OCP.

 

[frommi]

Actually, there is something in that document that contradicts Liturgicam Authenticam and Redemptionis Sacramentum:

Redemptionis Sacramentum and Liturgicam Authenticam indicate that such is not allowed. This is something that the NPM and the FLDC wanted to include in order to justify something that is grossly incorrect in Breaking Bread and the other songbooks published by houses like OCP.

Your quote comes not from “sing to the lord” but from the American adaptations to the Roman Missal, which DID receive the necessary recognito from Rome.

 

[japhy]

Your quote comes not from “sing to the lord” but from the American adaptations to the Roman Missal, which DID receive the necessary recognito from Rome.

The word “paraphrase” does not show in the US GIRM as far as I can tell.

 

[benedictgal]

The word “paraphrase” does not show in the US GIRM as far as I can tell.

Thank you, japhy. I was typing late last night and should not have been careless with my sources. Here is what the US Adaptation from the GIRM indicates:

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.

The word “paraphrase” does not appear in this section of the GIRM. Therefore, it should not be done in the manner recommended by A New Song to the Lord.

 

[frommi]

Thank you, japhy. I was typing late last night and should not have been careless with my sources. Here is what the US Adaptation from the GIRM indicates:

The word “paraphrase” does not appear in this section of the GIRM. Therefore, it should not be done in the manner recommended by A New Song to the Lord.

“provided they have been approved by the diocesan bishop”

That bishop can approve a paraphrase, I know of some that don’t and some that do.

 

[frommi]

And as another question…here is compilation of psalms from OCP

spiritandsong.com/store/music/20237

That uses verbatim translations…given your affinity for such things, am I to believe that you would be okay with these settings being used at your church?

 

[benedictgal]

And as another question…here is compilation of psalms from OCP

spiritandsong.com/store/music/20237

That uses verbatim translations…given your affinity for such things, am I to believe that you would be okay with these settings being used at your church?

OCP does not have any ecclesial authority whatsoever. Just because it has the word Catholic in its middle name, doesn’t mean that it necessarily promotes liturgical norms. Furthermore, I have read the “experts” listed in Spirit and Song, and, none of them appear to be bishops or have anything to do with the Committee on Divine Worship.

Furthermore, if a bishop approves something that is contrary to what the documents of the Holy See say, then there is a serious problem. Sorry, frommi, but finding loopholes doesn’t change things.

 

[frommi]

OCP does not have any ecclesial authority whatsoever. Just because it has the word Catholic in its middle name, doesn’t mean that it necessarily promotes liturgical norms. Furthermore, I have read the “experts” listed in Spirit and Song, and, none of them appear to be bishops or have anything to do with the Committee on Divine Worship.

Furthermore, if a bishop approves something that is contrary to what the documents of the Holy See say, then there is a serious problem. Sorry, frommi, but finding loopholes doesn’t change things.

You are missing my point. I’m not suggesting and ecclesial approval of the collection I pointed out.

I’m pointing out that the collection I showed you has verbatim settings from the lectionary. So it should be good enough by your standards and the standards of the girm for mass? no?

 

[japhy]

And as another question…here is compilation of psalms from OCP: spiritandsong.com/store/music/20237

That uses verbatim translations…given your affinity for such things, am I to believe that you would be okay with these settings being used at your church?

I listened to a couple of them, and while the words may be right, their musical composition just… isn’t. They don’t sound liturgical. They are not at all based on the musical tradition of the Church, as far as I can tell.
Highlights include “My Soul Is Thirsting,” a vivacious new setting of Psalm 63, and “Justice,” which slinks along to a very cool groove. The title track features great harmonies and a refrain that invites full and exuberant participation.
I listened to the 30-second excerpts of those three songs. Some of them sound like elevator music, or like they’re being performed by a lounge singer in a smoky martini bar. Some sound like they’re from animated movies about the Bible (like “Prince of Egypt”). Some sound like they’d be on the Lite FM with Delilah (and that’s the closest they’d get to the radio). I can’t picture a church environment around those songs!

And what is with the repetition of the response of the responsorial psalms? (I’ve never really figured this out.) “My soul is thirsting for you, O Lord, my God” is said four times, as if trying to fill the role of the “refrain” of a pop song. “Fill us with your love, O Lord, and we will sing for joy” is said twice (like most responsorial psalms I’ve ever heard).

 

[frommi]

I listened to a couple of them, and while the words may be right, their musical composition just… isn’t. They don’t sound liturgical. They are not at all based on the musical tradition of the Church, as far as I can tell.Highlights include “My Soul Is Thirsting,” a vivacious new setting of Psalm 63, and “Justice,” which slinks along to a very cool groove. The title track features great harmonies and a refrain that invites full and exuberant participation.I listened to the 30-second excerpts of those three songs. Some of them sound like elevator music, or like they’re being performed by a lounge singer in a smoky martini bar. Some sound like they’re from animated movies about the Bible (like “Prince of Egypt”). Some sound like they’d be on the Lite FM with Delilah (and that’s the closest they’d get to the radio). I can’t picture a church environment around those songs!

And what is with the repetition of the response of the responsorial psalms? (I’ve never really figured this out.) “My soul is thirsting for you, O Lord, my God” is said four times, as if trying to fill the role of the “refrain” of a pop song. “Fill us with your love, O Lord, and we will sing for joy” is said twice (like most responsorial psalms I’ve ever heard).

Okay…fair enough.

But the settings follow the general instruction, even if they possibly don’t quite conform to “Sing to the Lord”.

However, Benedictgal, et al would say that you have to follow the GIRM because it has a recognito from Rome

 

[benedictgal]

I listened to a couple of them, and while the words may be right, their musical composition just… isn’t. They don’t sound liturgical. They are not at all based on the musical tradition of the Church, as far as I can tell.
Highlights include “My Soul Is Thirsting,” a vivacious new setting of Psalm 63, and “Justice,” which slinks along to a very cool groove. The title track features great harmonies and a refrain that invites full and exuberant participation.
I listened to the 30-second excerpts of those three songs. Some of them sound like elevator music, or like they’re being performed by a lounge singer in a smoky martini bar. Some sound like they’re from animated movies about the Bible (like “Prince of Egypt”). Some sound like they’d be on the Lite FM with Delilah (and that’s the closest they’d get to the radio). I can’t picture a church environment around those songs!

And what is with the repetition of the response of the responsorial psalms? (I’ve never really figured this out.) “My soul is thirsting for you, O Lord, my God” is said four times, as if trying to fill the role of the “refrain” of a pop song. “Fill us with your love, O Lord, and we will sing for joy” is said twice (like most responsorial psalms I’ve ever heard).

Unfortunately, our parish uses this song book for one of the Masses. Sometimes, the music director gets too into the music and starts swaying and the choir performs many of the pieces as though they were putting on a show. A lot of Spirit and Song’s music comes from those Praise and Worship CD’s (Protestant, I mght add) that are promoted by Time-Life, not exactly the powerhouse of Sacred, let alone, liturgically appropriate music. OCP markets both Spirit and Song and its sister volume as a way to “sing a new church into being” allowing young people to worship God in their own style. Gee, what about the style fostered and engendered by the Church?

 

[frommi]

Unfortunately, our parish uses this song book for one of the Masses. Sometimes, the music director gets too into the music and starts swaying and the choir performs many of the pieces as though they were putting on a show. A lot of Spirit and Song’s music comes from those Praise and Worship CD’s (Protestant, I mght add) that are promoted by Time-Life, not exactly the powerhouse of Sacred, let alone, liturgically appropriate music. OCP markets both Spirit and Song and its sister volume as a way to “sing a new church into being” allowing young people to worship God in their own style. Gee, what about the style fostered and engendered by the Church?

Now your just knocking around Spirit and Song and not answering the question…not fair.

The music I pointed out is verbatim from the lectionary…it follows the approved documents from Rome governing the liturgy.

Yet you would still take issue with it?

 

[benedictgal]

Now your just knocking around Spirit and Song and not answering the question…not fair.

The music I pointed out is verbatim from the lectionary…it follows the approved documents from Rome governing the liturgy.

Yet you would still take issue with it?

The settings themselves are problematic. The pslams are set to a pop music tone that is squarely against sacred music. You forget that both the text and the settings must conform to the liturgy. If not, then you could have approved texts set to something featuring Eddie Van Halen guitar rifts and Roger Taylor (Queen) drum solos. Liturgicall appropriate? Highly doubtful.

 

[frommi]

The settings themselves are problematic. The pslams are set to a pop music tone that is squarely against sacred music. You forget that both the text and the settings must conform to the liturgy. If not, then you could have approved texts set to something featuring Eddie Van Halen guitar rifts and Roger Taylor (Queen) drum solos. Liturgicall appropriate? Highly doubtful.

I’m looking squarely at the GIRM which has the recogntio. That’s what you said makes a document something we need to listen to and follow, everything else is optional apparently.

So, based on what is stated in the GIRM, these settings are just fine.

 

[tngail]

does it not say to make a joyful noise unto to Lord.

 

[benedictgal]

does it not say to make a joyful noise unto to Lord.

But, not in the manner where rock music invades the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Evidently, frommi has not read all of the musical documents issued forth by the Holy See. Had he done that, he would have learned that according to Musicam Sacram:

. It is to be hoped that pastors of souls, musicians and the faithful will gladly accept these norms and put them into practice, uniting their efforts to attain the true purpose of sacred music, "which is the glory of God and the sanctification of the faithful."1

(a) ***By sacred music is understood that which, being created for the celebration of divine worship, is endowed with a certain holy sincerity of form.2

(b) The following come under the title of sacred music here: Gregorian chant, sacred polyphony in its various forms both ancient and modern, sacred music for the organ and other approved instruments, and sacred popular music, be it liturgical or simply religious.3***

The GIRM is not the only regulatory document pertaining to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The last time I checked, Musicam Sacram was still in force and to be followed.

As I said before, while the translations are approved, the musical settings are highly questionable and lamentable.

 

[japhy]

But the settings follow the general instruction, even if they possibly don’t quite conform to “Sing to the Lord”. However, Benedictgal, et al would say that you have to follow the GIRM because it has a recognito from Rome

Wait, I don’t see the problem. You do have to follow the laws and norms when non-legal and non-normative texts differ. These psalm settings (although musically atrocious) use the exact texts of the psalms, and are acceptable in that regard. (But they have to be acceptable in both regards: the music and the words.)

They aren’t paraphrases, which Sing to the Lord seems to say are acceptable. I don’t know where Sing to the Lord finds the permission for allowing paraphrases, though. You said the Bishop can approve paraphrasings of the psalms… can you back that up? Can the Bishop approve paraphrasings of the other texts in the Lectionary? Can the Bishop approve paraphrasings of other liturgical texts? Can we hear “a summary of the Gospel according to Mark”, or a paraphrase of the Creed, or of the Eucharistic Prayer?

 

[frommi]

But, not in the manner where rock music invades the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Evidently, frommi has not read all of the musical documents issued forth by the Holy See. Had he done that, he would have learned that according to Musicam Sacram:

The GIRM is not the only regulatory document pertaining to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The last time I checked, Musicam Sacram was still in force and to be followed.

As I said before, while the translations are approved, the musical settings are highly questionable and lamentable.

Lamentable in your opinion. Now, I wouldn’t use a lot of them as a music director simply because I’d have a tough time finding a cantor to sing them (with the exception of a couple of them).