Constant Substitution of Songs for the Responsorial Psalm

[jefmurray]

Greetings!

At our local parish, we have, for about 11 years now, had a liturgist
who substitutes a song, usually partially based on the responsorial psalm (RP)
of the day, for the full chanted psalm.

I understand from the GIRM that songs and hymns cannot be substituted
for the RP. But, what constitutes a song or a hymn? Our liturgist has claimed
that all of his substitutions are approved by GIA, OCP, and/or WLP, and that
he has never been “called” on these substitutions in 30 years of inculcating…er…
serving the Church.

So, here’s the quandary: are the David Haas-styled psalm “settings”, which
usually are partial settings of the RP at best, songs, or are they legitimate
substitutions?
Jef

 

[Gorgias]

From the paragraph of the GIRM to which you allude (#61 – emphasis mine):

In the Dioceses of the United States of America, 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, or an antiphon and Psalm from another collection of Psalms and antiphons, including Psalms arranged in metrical form, providing that they have been approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop. Songs or hymns may not be used in place of the Responsorial Psalm.

Wouldn’t your liturgist’s selection fall under the option highlighted above?

 

[jefmurray]

Perhaps it would…I suppose that would depend on whether our local
Bishop had approved the specific “settings” in question.

 

[rkrispies]

Greetings!

At our local parish, we have, for about 11 years now, had a liturgist
who substitutes a song, usually partially based on the responsorial psalm (RP)
of the day, for the full chanted psalm.

I understand from the GIRM that songs and hymns cannot be substituted
for the RP. But, what constitutes a song or a hymn? Our liturgist has claimed
that all of his substitutions are approved by GIA, OCP, and/or WLP, and that
he has never been “called” on these substitutions in 30 years of inculcating…er…
serving the Church.

So, here’s the quandary: are the David Haas-styled psalm “settings”, which
usually are partial settings of the RP at best, songs, or are they legitimate
substitutions?

         Jef

I don’t know what to say about substitution in general, but you may want to point out that GIA, OCP, and/or WLP are not the USCCB or the CDW, and therefore have no actual authority.

 

[jefmurray]

Yes. Thanks. I’ve already done that, but was told that these
publications had the imprimatuer of the USCCB. Not sure, honestly,
whether that’s true…
Jef

 

[rkrispies]

There is a big difference from having the imprimatur (and nihil obstat, meaning there are no doctrinal errors) and being approved for use as a substitute.

 

[J_Peterson]

What’s the point of the substitution? That would bother me quite a bit and I’m not a traditionalist by any means. Can the Psalms be improved upon?

 

[OraLabora]

What’s the point of the substitution? That would bother me quite a bit and I’m not a traditionalist by any means. Can the Psalms be improved upon?

Yes, by the musical settings of the gradual. It’s still the psalm. The setting enhances it. But the gradual doesn’t always use the same psalm as in the missal.

 

[Elizabeth779]

I appreciate this question and the responses. I was looking at the other psalms that are in the accompaniment materials that can be used instead of Respond & Acclaim, and wondering how they could be substituted.