New Lectionary

[Southern Comfort]

I wonder how much latitude will be allowed regarding modification/adaptation of texts.

Even now, aren't we supposed to use just authorised translations. And yet where would we be without settings like Walker's "Teach me, O God" and Farrell's "My soul is thirsting"? Might we end up in the position of not being able to use these within the Liturgy of the Word but able to use them post-communion? Still, all this conjecturing is making my head hurt.

Not to mention Bob Hurd's "As the deer longs", one of the most beautiful settings of modern times, or Charles Watson's "Like as the deer", (same psalm), or Marty Haugen's "Your love is finer than life".

Historically, there has been some latitude in what is used in practice, from GIA's Psalms for the Church Year series and elsewhere to the Psallite Songs for the Word which some parishes are using as a resource for the psalm at Mass.

I think we may well see a publishing distinction between
(a) what is allowed to be published as a setting of the Lectionary responsorial psalm text, which may have to stick to the wording in the Lectionary, and
(b) what will doubtless be published, as now, as a setting based on a psalm text — call it a "psalm song" if you like — which in practice folk may choose to use instead of an "official" setting.

Having said that, I agree with presbyter about "Preserve me, God". I always think of being pickled..... And what will happen to settings like "Centre of my Life", where the verses use Grail but the response itself is an original non-psalmic text (although in the tradition of the psalmist) ?

A different problem for many of us will be the exclusive-language "children of men", which occurs 13 times, and "sons of men" (7 times).

[Nick Baty]

And what of those refrains which are simply too short for the assembly time to get in and out again? At random: "The Lord upholds my life".

[johnquinn39]

Does L.A. fly in the face of Dei Verbum?

How are they going to translate from the original Latin when none of the texts were originally in Latin?

[JW]

I may be wrong, but I understood from the "Guide to Composers" that Antiphons and Responsorial psalms may be "Model" texts rather than "Prescribed" texts (sections 19 to 23). Section 58 regarding responsorial psalms ends:

" It is presumed that composers will set the text as given in the Lectionary. To allow 'meditation on the Word of God' the text of the response may be repeated and even in some cases expanded with further text from the psalm itself. Any question of adapting the text must be approached with caution and sensitivity."

I think the examples given above could all be justified, assuming we agree that the composers concerned have adapted the texts "with caution and sensitivity". The problem that Nick Baty identifies with short respsonses can be overcome by repetition of the response, or by adding further text - "The Lord Hears the Cry of the Poor, Blessed Be the Lord." I have a hunch we'll be using the best of the settings composed over the last 50 years for a long time yet, as well as such paraphrases as the "Crimmond" setting of 'The Lord's My Shepherd.

Once the new lectionary is in place, is the "Panel" actually going to want to approve every new psalm, gospel acclamation and antiphon setting that's published? Are they planning to recruit more people to cope with all the work or will the whole process become totally bogged down? It's enough of an ordeal getting the Mass settings.
approved.

[Nick Baty]

No, the Panel is concerned with ICEL texts only. Psalm settings will, I presume, be approved (or at least seen) by GIA which is administering the new Grail translation.

[Southern Comfort]

No, the Panel is concerned with ICEL texts only. Psalm settings will, I presume, be approved (or at least seen) by GIA which is administering the new Grail translation.

But one of the criticisms levelled at the new antiphons is precisely that where they are psalm texts they in fact now use the revised Grail version, which of course is a translation from Hebrew not the Latin and thus shows quite clear differences in meaning and therefore does not follow the provisions of (God bless it!) Liturgiam Authenticam.

The question of whether those antiphon texts should be administered by GIA (since they have been "pinched" from the new Grail version) or ICEL may therefore provide us all with some amusement before the day is over. The 2008 antiphon texts were not Grail; this only happened in the 2010 modifications to the Missal.

[Nick Baty]

Has there ever been such a response to a Papal document on liturgy? From what I can see, it appears that every pontifical statement on liturgy (music in particular) since Pius X has been ignored – or, perhaps, wasn't know about. Yet LA has caused quite a stir. Is the Internet to blame? Should we all unplug and remain in blissful ignorance?

[alan29]

Or maybe they were "obeyed" at first, but soon circumvented? The problem with LA is that it results in printed texts which can be used to beat people alongside the ear with. Not that anyone associated with worship could be accused of being in any way legalistic, you understand.

[Nick Baty]

Have just had my first conversation with GIA about copyright – a very straightforward and pleasant experience. For use in your own community, no charge. For commercial use, a percentage based on sales. I'm sure many will experience problems here and there, but GIA's initial response was much more positive and helpful than Collins/Fount used to be. Could this be because GIA has a better understanding of liturgical usage?

[Peter Jones]

before Nick settles down to compose the complete three-year psalm cycle for the revision of Lectionary Volume One ........ can anybody tell us for certain about the status of the RESPONSES to the new Grail psalms that GIA have made available on their website? Are these what we will be presented with in England and Wales?

But one of the criticisms levelled at the new antiphons is precisely that where they are psalm texts they in fact now use the revised Grail version, which of course is a translation from Hebrew not the Latin and thus shows quite clear differences in meaning and therefore does not follow the provisions of (God bless it!) Liturgiam Authenticam.

The question of whether those antiphon texts should be administered by GIA (since they have been "pinched" from the new Grail version) or ICEL may therefore provide us all with some amusement before the day is over. The 2008 antiphon texts were not Grail; this only happened in the 2010 modifications to the Missal.

Fascinating as this is, it doesn't answer my question.

[Southern Comfort]

:lol: before Nick settles down to compose the complete three-year psalm cycle for the revision of Lectionary Volume One ........ can anybody tell us for certain about the status of the RESPONSES to the new Grail psalms that GIA have made available on their website? Are these what we will be presented with in England and Wales?

No, they are not. These are the present ICEL responses, about whose genesis a whole sordid story remains to be written some day. They are used in the USA, and also in Australia. Their problem is that they are a stand-alone translation that bears little, and sometimes no, relationship to the translation of the psalms being used, though they are often closer to the Grail than to the New American Bible translation (the sordid story would reveal the reasons why).

Current information is that when the new Lectionary is implemented (Advent 2016?), complete with the revised Grail psalms (Grail IV — although there does appear to be some doubt as to whether this will actually happen: we may preserve Grail I), UK responses will tie in with the Lectionary translations used: in other words, psalmic responses will use Grail IV (or Grail I), and non-psalmic ones will use NRSV (instead of JB in the JB lectionary and RSV in the RSV lectionary).