Why is it ok to change the Resp. Psalm?

[In_Petto]

Why is it okay to change the words of the Responsorial Psalm? We’ve all heard these crazy and/or watered-down variations on the text. If the R.P. is part of the Liturgy of the Word, why are cantors etc. allowed to seemingly change it at will? Can anyone tell me the rules on this?

 

[buffalo]

From Redemptionis Sacramentum

[62.] It is also illicit to omit or to substitute the prescribed biblical readings on one’s own initiative, and especially “to substitute other, non-biblical texts for the readings and responsorial Psalm, which contain the word of God”.[138]

 

[Della]

As long as the meaning is not changed it is not an abuse. As a musician and singer I know that to try to sing the Psalms with Western music sensibilities is hard because the Eastern rhythm of words in a stanza just doesn’t jive. So, some words are changed to better fit the musical form. But, it’s not a problem unless the wording is changed to mean something other than what it should.

 

[mosher]

Della:

As long as the meaning is not changed it is not an abuse. As a musician and singer I know that to try to sing the Psalms with Western music sensibilities is hard because the Eastern rhythm of words in a stanza just doesn’t jive. So, some words are changed to better fit the musical form. But, it’s not a problem unless the wording is changed to mean something other than what it should.

This is not correct see the above post.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Just a clarification here (as a liturgist and a muscian). Della is correct that the directives allow a certain amount of musical interpretation of the Responsorial Psalm. What RS prohibits is substituting a non-scriptural reading for the psalm. It was not intended to prevent working the words of the psalm into a musical setting. As Della pointed out, such reworking should be as faithful as possible so that the full meaning of the psalm is brought out. Anything that alters the meaning would be problematic.

Deacon ed

 

[mosher]

Deacon Ed:

Just a clarification here (as a liturgist and a muscian). Della is correct that the directives allow a certain amount of musical interpretation of the Responsorial Psalm. What RS prohibits is substituting a non-scriptural reading for the psalm. It was not intended to prevent working the words of the psalm into a musical setting. As Della pointed out, such reworking should be as faithful as possible so that the full meaning of the psalm is brought out. Anything that alters the meaning would be problematic.

Deacon ed

As I have never seen an instruction that allows for this could you please direct me to this permission Deacon. I would highly appreciate it as I would like to share it with some people. The only exception I have ever seen is that the Graduale or Simplex can be used in place of the Psalms.

 

[In_Petto]

Della:

As long as the meaning is not changed it is not an abuse. As a musician and singer I know that to try to sing the Psalms with Western music sensibilities is hard because the Eastern rhythm of words in a stanza just doesn’t jive. So, some words are changed to better fit the musical form. But, it’s not a problem unless the wording is changed to mean something other than what it should.

Sounds good in theory, but in practice—what is the definition of “mean something other than what it should”? It would come down to the cantor deciding how close he/she is to the Psalm. The cantor (or whoever changes it) is thinking “this sounds better, and is close to the meaning of the original.” Meanwhile the people in the pews (those who care, anyway ) are sitting there saying “here we go again!.”

What I’m getting at is:

No one would get up there and “do” one of the readings extemporaneously. Why is it allowed with the R.P.s?

 

[puzzleannie]

it is also an option to use one psalm response throughout the liturgical season, rather than varying the response each week.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

mosher:

As I have never seen an instruction that allows for this could you please direct me to this permission Deacon. I would highly appreciate it as I would like to share it with some people. The only exception I have ever seen is that the Graduale or Simplex can be used in place of the Psalms.

mosher,

This is covered in the GIRM:

The Responsorial Psalm

1. After the first reading comes the responsorial Psalm, which is an integral part of the Liturgy of the Word and holds great liturgical and pastoral importance, because it fosters meditation on the word of God.

The responsorial Psalm should correspond to each reading and should, as a rule, be taken from the Lectionary.

It is preferable that the responsorial Psalm be sung, at least as far as the people’s response is concerned. Hence, the psalmist, or the cantor of the Psalm, sings the verses of the Psalm from the ambo or another suitable place. The entire congregation remains seated and listens but, as a rule, takes part by singing the response, except when the Psalm is sung straight through without a response. In order, however, that the people may be able to sing the Psalm response more readily, texts of some responses and Psalms have been chosen for the various seasons of the year or for the various categories of Saints. These may be used in place of the text corresponding to the reading whenever the Psalm is sung. If the Psalm cannot be sung, then it should be recited in such a way that it is particularly suited to fostering meditation on the word of God.

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.

I’ve put the approriate text in bold, but have included most of this section to provide a fuller understanding.

Deacon Ed

 

[axolotl]

So, would it be appropriate to say, substitute the 23 (22) psalm with the hymn “Shepard Me O God”? Or would that violate the rules?

(Yes it’s a Haughen)

R. Shepard me O God, from all my wants, from all my fears, from death into life

1.God, is my shepherd, so nothing shall I want,
I rest in the meadows of faithfulness and love,
I walk by the quiet waters of peace.

2.Gently you raise me and heal my weary soul,
you lead me by pathways of righteousness and truth,
my sprit shall sing the music of your name.

3.Though I should wander the valley of death,
I fear no evil, for you are at my side,
your rod and your staff, my comfort and my hope.

4.You have set me a banquet of love in the face of hatred,
crowning me with love beyond my power to hold.
Surely your kindness and mercy follow me all the days of my
life, I will dwell in the house of my God for ever-more.

 

[mosher]

Deacon Ed:

mosher,

This is covered in the GIRM:I’ve put the approriate text in bold, but have included most of this section to provide a fuller understanding.

Deacon Ed

Thank you Deacon I missunderstood that it was a wanton modification of the Psalms that was under discussion but as it states in the GIRM such modifications must receive the aprobation of the respective Bishops Conference. Now I think that we are on the same page. My apologies.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Axoloti,

You’re going to get two schools of thought on this. Some (including me) will say it’s acceptable (but certainly stretches the concept) while others, because of that stretch, will say it’s not.

Deacon Ed

 

[buffalo]

axolotl:

So, would it be appropriate to say, substitute the 23 (22) psalm with the hymn “Shepard Me O God”? Or would that violate the rules?

(Yes it’s a Haughen)

R. Shepard me O God, from all my wants, from all my fears, from death into life

1.God, is my shepherd, so nothing shall I want,
I rest in the meadows of faithfulness and love,
I walk by the quiet waters of peace.

2.Gently you raise me and heal my weary soul,
you lead me by pathways of righteousness and truth,
my sprit shall sing the music of your name.

3.Though I should wander the valley of death,
I fear no evil, for you are at my side,
your rod and your staff, my comfort and my hope.

4.You have set me a banquet of love in the face of hatred,
crowning me with love beyond my power to hold.
Surely your kindness and mercy follow me all the days of my
life, I will dwell in the house of my God for ever-more.

Look at the last sentence of Deacon Ed’s post:

Songs or hymns may not be used in place of the responsorial Psalm.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

buffalo:

Look at the last sentence of Deacon Ed’s post:

Songs or hymns may not be used in place of the responsorial Psalm.

Buffalo,

The reason this particular piece comes up is that it’s a muscial setting of the 23rd psalm. Since it is a psalm (as opposed to a composed hymn) it qualifies. Where some find a problem is that it does more than simply set the psalm to music, even allowing for adjustments for meter. It rephrases the psalm. I find that it carries the meaning of the psalm and, therefore, have included it in my plans for my funeral Mass (not that I want to be the “guest of honor” at that event any time soon).

When the term “hymn” is used it generally refers to a piece of music that is composed, both words and music. Thus, for example, one could not use Salve Regina as a responsorial Psalm because it is not a psalm. Does that help clarify?

Deacon Ed

 

[In_Petto]

mosher:

Thank you Deacon I missunderstood that it was a wanton modification of the Psalms that was under discussion but as it states in the GIRM such modifications must receive the aprobation of the respective Bishops Conference.

I was talking about some pretty serious modifications in the text. The Mrs. and I enjoy going to different parishes for mass and some of the RPs are very modified. I’m not talking about for ease of singing–I’m talking about deliberate changing of words and phrases to make it more “current” or whatever the excuse is.

There’s no way these have been approved by the diocese. Certainly there are more people who see this than us. Perhaps not too many people actually own a missal or read along with the one provided, and don’t notice or don’t care.

 

[Nan_S]

What about the refrain words of the Responsorial Psalm?

Specifically, is it legit to sing a refrain verse that is from a completely different psalm? At my church, we had "Taste and see the goodness of the Lord" as the refrain every week for the entire summer. The psalm verses were the appropriate ones in the lectionary each week, but I got very tired of that refrain.

Now, in my new missalette, I find little tiny print that gives the music leader the option to select a refrain from 6 or more other psalms. Is that really legit?

 

[C_S_P_B]

Another Question:

Is it acceptable to substitute a different Psalm for the one intended for that day?

I have experienced this substitution often. It usually seems that the substituted Psalm is not as pertinent to the Old Testement, Epistle and Gospel Readings as if the intended Psalm were used.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Nan S:

What about the refrain words of the Responsorial Psalm?

Specifically, is it legit to sing a refrain verse that is from a completely different psalm? At my church, we had "Taste and see the goodness of the Lord" as the refrain every week for the entire summer. The psalm verses were the appropriate ones in the lectionary each week, but I got very tired of that refrain.

Now, in my new missalette, I find little tiny print that gives the music leader the option to select a refrain from 6 or more other psalms. Is that really legit?

Nan,

The basic options are to use the psalm of the day (perhaps slightly adjusted for musical settings to make the meter work) or to use a “season psalm.” I don’t know of any permission to mix refrains from psalm A while using the verses from psalm B. While I suppose it is possible under certain circumstances, it doesn’t seem to fit the clear meaning of the GIRM’s directions. It would appear to be an attempt to mix the option of a seasonal response with the scheduled psalm. The risk here is that we do grave damage to the integrity of the psalm, especially since the psalm is supposed to be our response to the reading that has preceded it.

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed]

C S P B:

Another Question:

Is it acceptable to substitute a different Psalm for the one intended for that day?

I have experienced this substitution often. It usually seems that the substituted Psalm is not as pertinent to the Old Testement, Epistle and Gospel Readings as if the intended Psalm were used.

CSPB:

Yes, there is an option for a “seasonal responsorial psalm” that may be used in place of the one that is selected by the Church for that day.

Deacon Ed

 

[kmktexas]

Deacon Ed:

Axoloti,

You’re going to get two schools of thought on this. Some (including me) will say it’s acceptable (but certainly stretches the concept) while others, because of that stretch, will say it’s not.

Deacon Ed

I think the real answer depends on whether the particular Bishop or the Bishops’ conference has previously approved that song as a substitute for the 23rd Psalm during Mass.

It is a real far cry from what the GIRM says

providing that they have been approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop

(or substituing a synonym to better fit the meter) to the idea that cantors and music ministers are free to use “thier own discretion” to make substitutions of entire pieces.

Using Shepard Me, Oh God ( a beautiful song, BTW) as a hymn would clearly be under the perrogative of the music ministers but using it as a substitute for Psalm 23 would need prior approval.