psalm singing

[malachi3]

I listen to the novus ordo mass often on the radio. This psalm is sung often: “Sing to the Lord a new song, for God has done marvelous deeds”. Doesn’t that make it sound like Lord and God were 2 different entities?

 

[amgp]

Of course, Psalm 98 actually says, “sing to the Lord a new song, for He has done marvelous things” (RSV). That’s one of the many problems with changing the text to make it gender neutral; while shoving a militant feminist agenda down our throats, they mess up the grammar.

 

[OraLabora]

I prefer:

Cantate Domino canticum novum,
quia mirabilia fecit.



I agree with the previous poster though, “gender neutral” language is an abomination. Worst case I saw: my son once was playing viola in a concert that was being held in a United Church (as in United Church of Canada). While waiting for the concert to begin I picked up the “missal” in the pew and started to flip through it to see what their Sunday service was like, as I have never been to a United service other than a couple of funerals. Well they had different versions of the “Our Father”… one of which read “Our father-mother who lives in the sky” or some sort of bi-gender nonsense like that… but then there never was a cause that the United Church could refuse. See this for instance:

united-church.ca/beliefs/overview

In other words they believe in anything if it’s popular…

 

[kristie_m]

I didn’t get that same sense from the psalm mentioned, but one that I absolutely detest (and refuse to sing in the new pc language) is Cry of the Poor. They changed the line “For He hears the cry of the poor” to “Who will hear the cry of the poor”. It totally makes it sound like a question…yeah, who WILL hear the cry of the poor, anyway???

 

[benedictgal]

Actually, it is against the norms of the liturgy to change the words of the official texts of the Church. In fact, Liturgiam Authenticam, the authoritative document of the Church on translations specifically 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.

f) The grammatical gender of angels, demons, and pagan gods or goddesses, according to the original texts, is to be maintained in the vernacular language insofar as possible.

g) In all these matters it will be necessary to remain attentive to the principles set forth above, in nn. 27 and 29.

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.

It is not necessarily the fault of the parish that uses this stuff. Rather, the blame falls on the publishing houses for their lack of quality control over the works submitted to them by the composers. OCP is blatantly notorious for this.

 

[agapewolf]

I didn’t get that same sense from the psalm mentioned, but one that I absolutely detest (and refuse to sing in the new pc language) is Cry of the Poor. They changed the line “For He hears the cry of the poor” to “Who will hear the cry of the poor”. It totally makes it sound like a question…yeah, who WILL hear the cry of the poor, anyway???

I don’t like the pc versions of anything, and anytime a song changes the text to avoid “he”, I change it right back in our singing. But let’s be fair.

If you read the phrase before it, you’ll see its not a question.

“Let my soul glory in the Lord who hears the cry of the poor.” In each verse, its obvious who the subject is that is doing the hearing.

However…when sung as a psalm, the exact text should be used.

 

[tinalewis]

I listen to the novus ordo mass often on the radio. This psalm is sung often: “Sing to the Lord a new song, for God has done marvelous deeds”. Doesn’t that make it sound like Lord and God were 2 different entities?

Gee, then what do you make of this?

God, come to my assistance.
- Lord, make haste to help me.

This isn’t ambiguous, is it?

 

[japhy]

This psalm is sung often: “Sing to the Lord a new song, for God has done marvelous deeds”. Doesn’t that make it sound like Lord and God were 2 different entities?

As others have pointed out, this is the result of “gender-inclusive” or “gender-neutral” language, which avoids the use of masculine pronouns for God when producing “translations”, despite the fact that the Scriptures use those masculine pronouns.

What’s worse than the example you gave, changing “He” to “God”, is the very next line of that same psalm, where they’ve changed references to God to references to us. Instead of “His right hand has won the victory for Him, His holy arm”, they make it say, “Whose right hand was the victory for us, God’s holy arm”!

 

[benedictgal]

I don’t like the pc versions of anything, and anytime a song changes the text to avoid “he”, I change it right back in our singing. But let’s be fair.

If you read the phrase before it, you’ll see its not a question.

“Let my soul glory in the Lord who hears the cry of the poor.” In each verse, its obvious who the subject is that is doing the hearing.

However…when sung as a psalm, the exact text should be used.

Ah, but the original lyrics, if I recall, are:

Let my soul glory in the Lord, for he hears the cry of the poor.

Unfortunately, there are some parishes that use this particular song as the responsorial psalm. My late grandma’s parish in Austin would do this frequently.

 

[japhy]

Gee, then what do you make of this?

God, come to my assistance.
- Lord, make haste to help me.

That’s an accurate translation of the words, addressing God by various titles, rather than an avoidance of an accurate translation by means of replacing pronouns with titles.

Deus, in adiutorium meum intende; Domine, ad adiuvandum me festina. (Ps 70[69]:2)

 

[malachi3]

Gee, then what do you make of this?

God, come to my assistance.
- Lord, make haste to help me.

This isn’t ambiguous, is it?

No. I think the difference is that your invocation is a complete sentence, and the response is a complete sentence. “Sing to the Lord” … is one sentence with “for God” in a dependent clause.

 

[kristie_m]

I don’t like the pc versions of anything, and anytime a song changes the text to avoid “he”, I change it right back in our singing. But let’s be fair.

If you read the phrase before it, you’ll see its not a question.

“Let my soul glory in the Lord who hears the cry of the poor.” In each verse, its obvious who the subject is that is doing the hearing.

However…when sung as a psalm, the exact text should be used.

What can I say? The line actually reads: “Let my soul glory in the Lord, who will hear the cry of the poor.”

When you sing it, it sounds like this:

“Let my soul, glory in the Lord
Who will hear the cry of the poor”

When you use the phrase “For He hears the cry of the poor” it’s not nearly as ambiguous. That’s all I’m saying.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I listen to the novus ordo mass often on the radio. This psalm is sung often: “Sing to the Lord a new song, for God has done marvelous deeds”. Doesn’t that make it sound like Lord and God were 2 different entities?

Not to anyone with any sense.

 

[pnewton]

I have done that Psalm enough to know those are the wrong words. Like it was said earlier, changing the wording is forbidden. What the singer did was illicit. If I were responding, I would have stuck with the correct words rather than join the singer in their sin.

 

[agapewolf]

I have done that Psalm enough to know those are the wrong words. Like it was said earlier, changing the wording is forbidden. What the singer did was illicit. If I were responding, I would have stuck with the correct words rather than join the singer in their sin.

Holy cow. Wow…you can read hearts?

Let’s not judge ok? You have no idea whose decision it was, or even if it was a decision to use those words. It could be the music directors, or the priest’s.

As a music director, many times I am told by the priest to do a certain song or psalm, and that is the last word. When I have the freedom to direct, I make the decisions to use the correct texts. My singers follow my lead.

To state “join the singer in their sin” is a outright judgement of a person’s soul.

 

[benedictgal]

Holy cow. Wow…you can read hearts?

Let’s not judge ok? You have no idea whose decision it was, or even if it was a decision to use those words. It could be the music directors, or the priest’s.

As a music director, many times I am told by the priest to do a certain song or psalm, and that is the last word. When I have the freedom to direct, I make the decisions to use the correct texts. My singers follow my lead.

To state “join the singer in their sin” is a outright judgement of a person’s soul.

However, agapewolf, the composer is at fault. In the case of the SLJ, for example and the “I Know You Are Near” song, the composer, Dan Schutte, although having been forced to change the lyrics to conform to LA, pretty much all but stated that the CDWDS was wrong and he was right in his rather lame explanation on his website.

OCP does not have good quality control. Unsuspecting parishes and pastor assume that because it is OCP and because the word “Catholic” appears in the company’s middle name, everything is kosher. It is not. OCP will let just about everything into their books without checking to see that things are in order. They repeatedly do this for the Spanish-language settings (I counted nine illicit versions of the Gloria, along with Bob Hurd’s ilicit Spanish-language version of the Agnus Dei) and questionable pslam settings by Mary Frances Reza.

For a company that claims to be “in the know” on the latest liturgical trends, OCP is abysmal when it comes to following the basic guidelines set forth by the Church. That is wrong and totally without a defense.

 

[pnewton]

Holy cow. Wow…you can read hearts?
…To state “join the singer in their sin” is a outright judgement of a person’s soul.

(sigh) This always gets the same response so I will explain further, since obviously I can not read hearts. I was speaking objectively, not subjectively. The difference is, that to know something is wrong and to do it anyway makes sin subjective. I know that we are to be obedient to the Church. When I deliberately and with knowledge am disobedient to the Church, that is sin. Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say “join the singer in *this *sin”, but when one is typing, such things frequently happen. Someone who is clueless to the difference is not committing any sin, even a venial one.

Let us not let fear of being labeled “judgemental” ever deter us from calling a sin a sin. If we can not freely acknowledge these little sins we do everyday, then we hamper our ability for spiritual growth. I have for expediency sake gone against what the Church demands for liturgy, especially when I was starting. If I were not willing to recognize that what I was doing was sinful, I would not have been motivated to correct my disobedient.

Again, disobeying the Church and abusing the liturgy is objectively sinful. The extent such a sin applies, or even if any burden of sin is applicable is a determination no one can make, except the person himself. I hope this clears up your concern.

 

[agapewolf]

(sigh) This always gets the same response so I will explain further, since obviously I can not read hearts. I was speaking objectively, not subjectively. The difference is, that to know something is wrong and to do it anyway makes sin subjective. I know that we are to be obedient to the Church. When I deliberately and with knowledge am disobedient to the Church, that is sin. Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say “join the singer in *this *sin”, but when one is typing, such things frequently happen. Someone who is clueless to the difference is not committing any sin, even a venial one.

Let us not let fear of being labeled “judgemental” ever deter us from calling a sin a sin. If we can not freely acknowledge these little sins we do everyday, then we hamper our ability for spiritual growth. I have for expediency sake gone against what the Church demands for liturgy, especially when I was starting. If I were not willing to recognize that what I was doing was sinful, I would not have been motivated to correct my disobedient.

Again, disobeying the Church and abusing the liturgy is objectively sinful. The extent such a sin applies, or even if any burden of sin is applicable is a determination no one can make, except the person himself. I hope this clears up your concern.

I know exactly what you are saying, but the way you said it is repeating what often happens here, is completely judgmental of an actual specific person laying blame in a specific place which is not necessarily where the blame lies…often even unlikely

SOOOOO many times I’ve seen people here blaming the music director for something when I’ve been in the same place instructed and sometimes demanded by a priest to do something and its out of my control.

It needed to be said. I’m tired of the judgemental and sarcastic comments here made about specific roles or people that have no control over some decisions.

 

[zab]

I know exactly what you are saying, but the way you said it is repeating what often happens here, is completely judgmental of an actual specific person laying blame in a specific place which is not necessarily where the blame lies…often even unlikely

SOOOOO many times I’ve seen people here blaming the music director for something when I’ve been in the same place instructed and sometimes demanded by a priest to do something and its out of my control.

It needed to be said. I’m tired of the judgemental and sarcastic comments here made about specific roles or people that have no control over some decisions.

Right on.

 

[agapewolf]

However, agapewolf, the composer is at fault. In the case of the SLJ, for example and the “I Know You Are Near” song, the composer, Dan Schutte, although having been forced to change the lyrics to conform to LA, pretty much all but stated that the CDWDS was wrong and he was right in his rather lame explanation on his website.

OCP does not have good quality control. Unsuspecting parishes and pastor assume that because it is OCP and because the word “Catholic” appears in the company’s middle name, everything is kosher. It is not. OCP will let just about everything into their books without checking to see that things are in order. They repeatedly do this for the Spanish-language settings (I counted nine illicit versions of the Gloria, along with Bob Hurd’s ilicit Spanish-language version of the Agnus Dei) and questionable pslam settings by Mary Frances Reza.

For a company that claims to be “in the know” on the latest liturgical trends, OCP is abysmal when it comes to following the basic guidelines set forth by the Church. That is wrong and totally without a defense.

I wasn’t commenting on OCP, I was replying to the poster who said “joining the singer in their sin”

It amazes me how you look at every opportunity, and something that has absolutely no connection and use it to defame a publisher… This had absolutely NOTHING to do with what i was commenting on.