Responsorial Psalms and Cantor / Organist Scores

[Southern Comfort]

Water muddying not intended, SC. In 2004 I wrote a piece which proved quite popular. Fount kept refusing permission to publish – I was using the text as it appears in the lectionary – they would only give permission for the full text as in the psalter. It's one of the texts which is unaltered in RGP so I asked permission of GIA and a licence was issued – and I discovered the paragraph I quote. That's how the conversation came began. And, yes, the final par is correct.

Sounds as if you gave Fount too much information. In general, a request to a publisher to use Psalm such-and-such, verses x to y, is all that they need to know, along with what proportion of the whole work the text represents, and how much you are selling it for.

The reason I think that final paragraph is nonsense is because they are clearly trying to differentiate between an official Lectionary text (and ours does not use Grail IV yet) and a psalm to be used at Communion. But the implication in this particular case is that Psalm 41(42) never appears in the Lectionary psalms, and we know that in fact it does. Furthermore, in the future when all this is history there will be no difference between whatever text you use for Communion and what is in the Lectionary, except that the Communion Psalm may include more verses.

[Nick Baty]

Yes, Fount wanted to know exactly how much I was using. And then pointed me to a clause which said the text had to be used complete – I know I'm not the only person to have had this problem with them.

But the implication in this particular case is that Psalm 41(42) never appears in the Lectionary psalms, and we know that in fact it does.

That's not how I read it in the context of the full correspondence.

Furthermore, in the future when all this is history there will be no difference between whatever text you use for Communion and what is in the Lectionary.

Well, there could be if Liturgy of the Word psalms are limited to exactly what is in the Lectionary and communion processionals are taken from an approved collection of songs, some of which might be based on the psalms. To be honest, I suspect the Powers That Be didn't really think this all through.

[Hare]

I am prepared to be shot down in flames here, but in selecting versions of psalms to use at mass I think to myself that if it is acceptable to substitute a "common" psalm for the one specified in the Lectionary, is it not better to use the correct psalm but with "unofficial" wording....?

And another point I have touched on before: how, and by whom is the "policing" being done / going to be done? I have used Chabanel psalms on a number of occasions and I am still doing bthe job, and the church is still open for business...............

[Nick Baty]

In practical terms, policing is done at the time of publishing. Thereafter, it's down to the integrity of musicians and clergy.

[JW]

In practical terms, policing is done at the time of publishing. Thereafter, it's down to the integrity of musicians and clergy.

I disagree. What goes on in our local churches is surely the responsibility of the bishop for that area and it is part of their remit to ensure that policing occurs, if not to police it themselves. For a bishop to say that "I thought the local clergy were policing this" doesn't absolve them, as it wouldn't if an unauthorised Bible translation was being used for the readings.

[alan29]

Do local bishoips have any responsibility for the liturgy these days?
I thought they had rolled over and handed that to Rome.

[JW]

Just to clarify, here is 'Sacrosanctum Concilium':

22. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

Whatever your views, it seems clear that bishops have not been excercising their oversight to Rome's satisfaction and therefore Rome has stepped in as the umbrella organisation.

[Nick Baty]

What goes on in our local churches is surely the responsibility of the bishop for that area and it is part of their remit to ensure that policing occurs...

But in terms of which texts we can and can't sing, that's now being policed by the DCW of the Bishops' Conference, hence my comment that policing happens at publication stage – at least where some texts are concerned.

[Southern Comfort]

What goes on in our local churches is surely the responsibility of the bishop for that area and it is part of their remit to ensure that policing occurs...

But in terms of which texts we can and can't sing, that's now being policed by the DCW of the Bishops' Conference, hence my comment that policing happens at publication stage – at least where some texts are concerned.

This is only true for hymnbooks. Individual items — say psalm settings, hymns, songs, whatever, not to mention material published online — are not being policed and cannot be policed.

The only people who are subject to the vetting are the hymnbook publishers; and it's worth noting that in fact the Bishops' Conference agency never actually formally notified any of them, with a single exception, that they had to conform to this requirement. The fact that they are complying is a gesture of goodwill on the part of those who are (not all of them). The legal instrument was never manifested to them. Perhaps it was expected that they would somehow hear about it (as one or two did — the others didn't). Some suspect that the said instrument does not in fact exist.

In addition, there are many non-catholic publishers producing material that is being used in RC churches who are completely outside the ambit of the current approval procedures.

Publication-level policing is a myth, except for hymnbooks originated in England and Wales, and even in that area not all hymnbooks are conforming to the supposed requirements.

[Southern Comfort]

in selecting versions of psalms to use at mass I think to myself that if it is acceptable to substitute a "common" psalm for the one specified in the Lectionary, is it not better to use the correct psalm but with "unofficial" wording....?

I think the primary criteria would be (i) that the psalm is within the capabilities of those performing it, and (ii) that it is actually enabling the assembly to reflect on the reading they have just heard as well as preparing them for the Gospel reading.

Having said that, most people seem to use a small number of collections as their basic resource. A proportion of these conform to the Lectionary texts.

[Nick Baty]

Publication-level policing is a myth, except for hymnbooks originated in England and Wales, and even in that area not all hymnbooks are conforming to the supposed requirements.

I think I'm right in saying that the only collections which are being policed are those which contain official translations? So if I wish to include a Holy fitted to the tune of Four-and-twenty Virgins then I can so do. It's only if I wish to include the Memorial Acclamations that anyone will look at the whole collection.

(btw You can just about sing the 2008 Holy to the above tune – but it's a tad trickier to adapt to the Memorial Acclamations!)