Psalms during liturgy (Mass)

  • Thread starter Thread starter JRRTFAN
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JRRTFAN

Guest
It is my understanding that the Vatican would not allow the Psalms of the New American Bible to be used in the Liturgy and, thus, the Grail Psalms (an approved version) appears in the ICEL translation and version of the Mass we typically use in the USA.

In my parish the music “minister” chooses to use a Marty Haugen musical version of the Psalms (e.g. “We Celebrate” or 'Gather" hymnals) rather than the words of the Grail Psalms (which are regularly chanted in other local parishes with good effect).

I’m all for Marty, he’s a nice Lutheran guy, but how in the world do his Psalm translations/interpretations trump the ICEL and the Grail Psalms when the imprimatured NAB Psalms don’t cut the mustard?

I’m completely flummoxed by this.
 
sorry,
the Lectionary we use has the NAB listed for the readings and the psalms.

At our RCIA class when it comes to which “Catholic Bible” to use, we teach that if they want the reading to match the Mass then NAB, otherwise NABRE, and RSV-CE.

I just checked today’s reading PS40:7-8(et. all.) against the NAB online and they match exactly.

My lector’s workbook has this:
New American Bible readings are taken from Lectionary for the Mass for Use in the Dioceses of the United States of America, second typical edition (C) 1998,97,70

So I am not sure what is going on at your Parish; however, there are prescribed texts and they should be using them. Can you be more descriptive - perhaps I’ve misunderstood your question?
 
z_0101 said:
sorry,
the Lectionary we use has the NAB listed for the readings and the psalms.

At our RCIA class when it comes to which “Catholic Bible” to use, we teach that if they want the reading to match the Mass then NAB, otherwise NABRE, and RSV-CE.

I just checked today’s reading PS40:7-8(et. all.) against the NAB online and they match exactly.

My lector’s workbook has this:
New American Bible readings are taken from Lectionary for the Mass for Use in the Dioceses of the United States of America, second typical edition (C) 1998,97,70

So I am not sure what is going on at your Parish; however, there are prescribed texts and they should be using them. Can you be more descriptive - perhaps I’ve misunderstood your question?
Click to expand...
The readings ARE from the NAB and it may well be that today’s Psalm matches the NAB but the official Psalms used in liturgy in the USA are the Revised Grail Psalms, but that is not my point. My point is: how can the parish substitute a Marty Haugen, Dan Schutte et al song (e.g., Shepherd Me Oh God) in lieu of the Grail or NAB translation of Psalm 23? Marty Haugen’s song renditions were never approved by the Vatican.

Is there an “exculpatory clause” where a Protestant written rendition can be substituted for a recognized translation?
 
JRRTFAN said:
The readings ARE from the NAB and it may well be that today’s Psalm matches the NAB but the official Psalms used in liturgy in the USA are the Revised Grail Psalms, but that is not my point. My point is: how can the parish substitute a Marty Haugen, Dan Schutte et al song (e.g., Shepherd Me Oh God) in lieu of the Grail or NAB translation of Psalm 23? Marty Haugen’s song renditions were never approved by the Vatican.

Is there an “exculpatory clause” where a Protestant written rendition can be substituted for a recognized translation?
Click to expand...
How about this: They’re prettier.

Seriously (although I am serious in the above sentence)–in our diocese, these Psalms were re-instated by the very orthodox and extremely conservative bishop. He was officiating at a funeral, and afterwards asked the cantor why “Shepherd Me O God” wasn’t being sung instead of the very ugly, a-melodic “correct” version of the 23rd Psalm.

The cantor told the bishop that the rules had been changed and that these “pretty” Psalms were no longer allowed.

Our Bishop did something, pulled some strings, had some talks, and the result was that we are now singing the “pretty” Psalms again, and no one is complaining and no one is arguing with a bishop who is known for being a stickler for correct liturgy in the Mass and has managed to keep the sedevacantists OUT of our diocese, and who has a surplus of priests in the diocese.

Apparently the “rules” aren’t as straightforward as some of us think they are.
 
JRRTFAN said:
The readings ARE from the NAB and it may well be that today’s Psalm matches the NAB but the official Psalms used in liturgy in the USA are the Revised Grail Psalms, but that is not my point. My point is: how can the parish substitute a Marty Haugen, Dan Schutte et al song (e.g., Shepherd Me Oh God) in lieu of the Grail or NAB translation of Psalm 23? Marty Haugen’s song renditions were never approved by the Vatican.

Is there an “exculpatory clause” where a Protestant written rendition can be substituted for a recognized translation?
Click to expand...
Probably has to do with the fact that it’s approved by the US Episcopal Conference. I did some digging and found a PDF of the official newsletter from the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship on the Revised Grail Psalter receiving Recognitio of the Holy See in 2010. In it, the bolded part (my emphases) of the quote would probably answer your question.
While the New American Bible translation of the Psalms as contained in the Lectionary remains the official translation of the Responsorial Psalms, the Revised Grail Psalter is now considered approved for use within the liturgy, and may be included in seasonal and annual hymnals and participation aides. Composers of liturgical music can use the text of the Revised Grail Psalter especially in preparing arrangements of Psalms for the Lectionary for use at Mass…
Click to expand...
Full USCCB Divine Worship Newsletter found here: usccb.org/_cs_upload/7929_1.pdf
 
janeway529 said:
Probably has to do with the fact that it’s approved by the US Episcopal Conference. I did some digging and found a PDF of the official newsletter from the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship on the Revised Grail Psalms. In it, the bolded part (my emphases) of the quote would probably answer your question.

Full USCCB Divine Worship Newsletter found here: usccb.org/_cs_upload/7929_1.pdf
Click to expand...
I guess wherever there’s a loophole …
 
drforjc said:
Where exactly in the linked document addresses the original question? I do see language that indicates that changes need to receive recognitio from the Apostolic See.
Click to expand...
The original question is addressed in the second paragraph of 386, where “certain further adaptations are…entrusted to the judgment either of the Diocesan Bishop or of the Conferences of Bishops.” Since the USCCB allows for “composers of liturgical music [to] use the text of the Revised Grail Psalter (which has the recognitio of the Holy See) especially in preparing arrangements of Psalms for the Lectionary for use at Mass,” then it is within their legitimate authority to do so according to 386 of the GIRM.
 
janeway529 said:
The original question is addressed in the second paragraph of 386, where “certain further adaptations are…entrusted to the judgment either of the Diocesan Bishop or of the Conferences of Bishops.” Since the USCCB allows for “composers of liturgical music [to] use the text of the Revised Grail Psalter (which has the recognitio of the Holy See) especially in preparing arrangements of Psalms for the Lectionary for use at Mass,” then it is within their legitimate authority to do so according to 386 of the GIRM.
Click to expand...
Haugen doesn’t use the Revised Grail. “Shepherd Me” is a paraphrase.
 
Cat said:
How about this: They’re prettier.

Seriously (although I am serious in the above sentence)–in our diocese, these Psalms were re-instated by the very orthodox and extremely conservative bishop. He was officiating at a funeral, and afterwards asked the cantor why “Shepherd Me O God” wasn’t being sung instead of the very ugly, a-melodic “correct” version of the 23rd Psalm.

The cantor told the bishop that the rules had been changed and that these “pretty” Psalms were no longer allowed.

Our Bishop did something, pulled some strings, had some talks, and the result was that we are now singing the “pretty” Psalms again, and no one is complaining and no one is arguing with a bishop who is known for being a stickler for correct liturgy in the Mass and has managed to keep the sedevacantists OUT of our diocese, and who has a surplus of priests in the diocese.

Apparently the “rules” aren’t as straightforward as some of us think they are.
Click to expand...
“Pretty” is, of course, a matter of taste. There are a number of very nice musical settings for Psalm 23, both NAB and Grail versions. I happen to chant these frequently at funerals and funeral services, with or without instrumental accompaniment, and they sound quite pleasant (again, a subjective term), at least according to the feedback I’ve received from my priests, deacons, and those congregants who have come forward. If the refrain is easy enough to be sung by the congregation and the singer has some command of chant - especially important is that he or she can enunciate well while singing on one note - than the result can be rather “pretty.”

It’s too bad the cantor in your example was unable to pull off the Psalm assigned to him or her in a pleasant fashion. Please know, however, that it can be done with proper skill and practice.

Our pastor is the head liturgist for our diocese and he has put the nix in our parish on adapted psalms, such as “Shepherd Me O God”, being used as psalms during the Liturgy of the Word. There was a period of adjustment, naturally, but after six years we have done just that: adjusted. I, for one, am happy with it as learning a new Psalm each weekend is a welcome challenge. The congregation sings their part very well each Sunday so they seem to have adjusted, as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top