trying to make sense of GIRM

[contrabordun]

After several years sitting on the sidelines (well, on various organ benches, actually), I'm going back to actually being in charge of music somewhere. I will have resources, namely a choir, a pretty decent (IIIP/50) digital organ, a very enthusiastic PP and some budget and I thought I'd go back to first principles and see what 'ought' to be being done.

So I have some questions, some of them no doubt pretty dumb, and this seems like a place to ask 'em. (Don't think I'd get much help from Damian's blog)

a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, the text of which has been approved by the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales

Is there such a collection, or do we just assume it means 'hymn book, and if so, do all hymn books count'? And does "a song" mean any song, or should it be a psalm/antiphon?

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.

If there is an option to sing the Ps straight through without a response, why is it called a Responsorial Psalm? Does anybody have any experience of using this option? Is this a better or a worse option than the typical solo vs/tutti response one? Why?

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.

Is this what I've seen here described as a Common Psalm?

These may be used in place of the text corresponding to the reading whenever the Psalm is sung.

What does this mean?

Did somebody say recently round here there were several possible translations of the Psalms that one can use?
Para 63(a) makes reference to the "Alleluia Psalm" as disinct from the Responsorial one. Is that the same thing as "another psalm [or tract]" in Para 62b, or is that different again.

The priest breaks the Eucharistic Bread,

. Is this a typo, or can we now dispense with interminable discussions as to whether particular items are appropriately timed for Offertory and/or Communion

Paras 86 and 88 make reference (the only specific ones so far) to 'hymns' (postcommunion). Does this mean that this is the only place where hymns should be used? (although 'hymnal' is mentioned at 118 as something to be prepared as needed next to the priest's chair). 119 makes reference to 'other ministers' wearing albs, and Psalmist/Organist/Schola Cantorum are listed as 'Other Roles' in 'Particular Ministries' (98ff). Does this answer the 'should choirs robe?' question?

There are odd little fragments that don't relate to anything else - eg at 142 it says "If, however, there is no Offertory chant and the organ is not played", which implies that (solo?) organ is optional at this point - however this is not suggested anywhere else. Is this so? Does it apply to other points (eg as is the custom in France?)

The Conference is likewise to judge which musical forms, melodies, and musical instruments may be admitted in divine worship, provided that these are truly suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use.

Has it? Where can I find its judgement(s)?

[docmattc]

Thats a lot of questions!

a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, the text of which has been approved by the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales

Is there such a collection, or do we just assume it means 'hymn book, and if so, do all hymn books count'? And does "a song" mean any song, or should it be a psalm/antiphon?

Might be worth having a skim through this thread in order to not answer the question with a clear answer at all! I think future hymnbooks are likely to have an imprimatur, current ones don't. Suddenly ditching hymns however is likely to cause ructions across the board. You'll be banning both 'Gather us in' and 'Soul of my Saviour'!

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.

Is this what I've seen here described as a Common Psalm?

Yes

These may be used in place of the text corresponding to the reading whenever the Psalm is sung.

What does this mean?

Surely just replace given psalm text for common one. 'text corresponding to the reading' means 'psalm in the lectionary chosen to correspond to 1st reading and Gospel'

Para 63(a) makes reference to the "Alleluia Psalm" as disinct from the Responsorial one. Is that the same thing as "another psalm [or tract]" in Para 62b, or is that different again.

Don't know. Think this means refer to one or the other Graduale and do what that has instead of what the lectionary has. I don't have copies, but I can't see the Graduale being big on involving the congregation with singing a response!

I thought I'd go back to first principles and see what 'ought' to be being done!

Good luck with taking on the music. My advice would be to make changes only slowly and move gently, in spite of how wayward from good practice things might be now, look to years rather than months to affect improvements. When I took over music I think I tried to alter things too quickly and did not make myself popular on some fronts. "Because the church would like us to" cuts no ice with the old ladies who've "been doing it that way for years"!

[dmu3tem]

Just an attempt to answer the first question:

My understanding (and it may be flawed) is that eventually Responsorial Psalms should either be sung to plainchant or from an approved series of settings produced under the auspices of the Bishops. I heard at the Panel of Monastic Musicians (PMM) summer school at Quarr last month that these are being prepared by a committee of three which includes O'Donnell (ex Director of Music at Westminster Cathedral).

Whether this means that no other settings can be used is (as far as I can tell) a moot point. For a start, if you composed a new setting for use the following week there would be no way you could get the necessary copyright permissions for the use of the text and approval of the music from the relevent committee in time. If you have the necessary copyright permissions you may think you could go ahead and use your own setting. However, if you tried to get it published then the publisher would have to get copyright permission for the use of the text and this would probably be contingent on the music being approved by the relevant committee.

An important factor here might be the fidelity to the text in the setting you use. As a result of 'Liturgiam Authenticam' there is currently a strong emphasis on sticking to every iota of the text. If your setting just uses repetitions of words or phrases even this might be frowned upon. The roots of such thinking lie in the concept (first articulated by Gueranger, founder of Solesmes) that liturgical texts constitute a 'cycle of praise'. They are sacred because they are produced/inspired by God and therefore should not be tampered with. This fits in with the propitiatory sacrificial character of the Mass. However, for different reasons, such restrictive attitudes are not confined to church authorities. If you look at the copyright threads on this site you will see that Collins tried to take the same line because obviously an amended text would affect the copyright status of 'their' translations.

Next there is the question about whether earlier psalm translations are still permitted. For instance I was told at another PMM summer school a few years ago that permission for use of the pre 1970 English Mass texts has never been rescinded. There is also the difference between the law of the land and instructions given by church authorities. Even if the answer given by the latter is 'No', under the law of the land there is in practice nothing to stop a publisher (or you yourself) producing a musical setting to a translation that is either out of copyright (i.e. pre 1938) or for which copyright permission has been given without the composition being inspected by the musical committee. The question will then be whether parishes and centres up and down the land use such settings.

The implications of these GIRM instructions are therefore profound:

(1) Inspection of every composition by a committee is a recipie for sluggish output of new settings and a further blow to the compositional vitality of the English Catholic musical scene.

(2) The production of a list of approved compositions by a committee is also a recipie for a 'play it safe' musically anodyne repertoire. This is because compositions with real creative musical power usually (but not always) have something unusual or distinctive about them, if only because they are a reflection of the creative personality of the composer. In particular it is likely that compositions that experiment with the use of instruments other than organs will have a thin time. You will also notice that musical approaches to psalmody often dominated by 'monastic' thinking with its strong emphasis on personal abnegation and suspicion of direct responses to the enormous and sometimes rapidly changing 'mood swings' inherent in so many psalms. This reinforces the tendency towards a musically bland approach.

(3) An anodyne repertoire of psalm settings is likely to result in - at best - dutiful but uninspired performance by cantors/Choirs/congregations. At the same time the possible reduction in the use of instruments other than organs noted above will reduce the ability of communities to make use of this crucial source of musical talent.

(4) It marks a recurdesence of the centralising practices of the past at the expense of the promotion of local initiative. It suggests that the authorities would rather have pale imitations of a (probably imagined) uniform standard of excellence. This means that the ability of particular parishes to adapt to local social circumstances and tastes will be constricted.

[Southern Comfort]

a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, the text of which has been approved by the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales

Is there such a collection, or do we just assume it means 'hymn book, and if so, do all hymn books count'? And does "a song" mean any song, or should it be a psalm/antiphon?

No, there isn't such a collection, which is one of several reasons why eyebrows went up several miles when Rome suddenly pitched its own version of GIRM-for-GB upon us.

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.

If there is an option to sing the Ps straight through without a response, why is it called a Responsorial Psalm? Does anybody have any experience of using this option? Is this a better or a worse option than the typical solo vs/tutti response one? Why?

No, the norm remains the responsorial form. But this extract has been used to justify the view that it's not just called a responsorial psalm because it's got a response, but also because it is a response. I.e. if Rome can still call it a responsorial psalm even when there's no response, then it's not just the musical form which determines the name.

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.

Is this what I've seen here described as a Common Psalm?

Yes.

These may be used in place of the text corresponding to the reading whenever the Psalm is sung.

What does this mean?

It basically means you can use any psalm you like as long as it's in the Lectionary. Obviously you'll select something that corresponds with the readings. The Common Psalms are an example of what to use.

Did somebody say recently round here there were several possible translations of the Psalms that one can use?

We have Grail 1 at the moment, but when the new Lectionary comes along, the psalm version will be Grail 4, which has recently received a thumbs-up from Rome. (Grail 3 is what the Psallite project uses, in anticipation of Grail 4.)

Para 63(a) makes reference to the "Alleluia Psalm" as disinct from the Responsorial one. Is that the same thing as "another psalm [or tract]" in Para 62b, or is that different again.

An Alleluia psalm is quite simply a psalm with one or more Alleluias as a response instead of any other response. You can construct your own by taking an existing psalm and adding an alleluia response which fits. There are plenty of examples of psalms with two responses, one an alleluia response, in publications such as Geoffrey Boulton Smith's A Responsorial Psalm Book - see the Eastertide sections.

A tract is a chant which was formerly used during Lent and now no longer exists except in the Graduale Romanum.

The priest breaks the Eucharistic Bread,

. Is this a typo, or can we now dispense with interminable discussions as to whether particular items are appropriately timed for Offertory and/or Communion

Not quite sure what your question means. No, it's not a typo.

Paras 86 and 88 make reference (the only specific ones so far) to 'hymns' (postcommunion). Does this mean that this is the only place where hymns should be used? (although 'hymnal' is mentioned at 118 as something to be prepared as needed next to the priest's chair).

Actually para 86 talks about communion chants, rather than hymns. There is a significant difference. An extreme view would say that hymns as such are alien to the Roman Rite of Mass, and are better suited to the Divine Office.

119 makes reference to 'other ministers' wearing albs, and Psalmist/Organist/Schola Cantorum are listed as 'Other Roles' in 'Particular Ministries' (98ff). Does this answer the 'should choirs robe?' question?

No, it doesn't.

There are odd little fragments that don't relate to anything else - eg at 142 it says "If, however, there is no Offertory chant and the organ is not played", which implies that (solo?) organ is optional at this point - however this is not suggested anywhere else. Is this so? Does it apply to other points (eg as is the custom in France?)

This is saying quite simply that if there is music at this point, the "formulas of blessing" are not recited aloud. In point of fact, these are not formulas of blessing, they are prayers accompanying the presentation of the gifts. There is no longer an Offertory chant, except in the Graduale Romanum and the Graduale Simplex.

The Conference is likewise to judge which musical forms, melodies, and musical instruments may be admitted in divine worship, provided that these are truly suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use.

Has it? Where can I find its judgement(s)?

No, it hasn't. There's the composers' guide on the Liturgy Office website, and there was a recent national consultation which may result in something; but nothing resembling a list of approved items exists (thank goodness!). Many years ago, the National Music Commission policed new liturgical music; but the flow soon became so enormous that it ceased to do this (and then ceased to exist - actually it was reabsorbed into its parent, the National Liturgical Commission.)

[contrabordun]

Thanks all 3 of you for the enlightenment. If I'm honest, it still seems somewhat ambiguous and for various reasons unachievable in practice, but at least I know that's not just me...

Not quite sure what your question means. No, it's not a typo.

All I meant was, we have a recurrent theme in this forum that any song mentioning the word 'Bread' should not be used at Communion, on the grounds that the consecration has now taken place. I was suggesting, a little tongue in cheek, that if it's good enough for GIRM then it's good enough for St Ogberts-by-the-Gasworks.

Actually para 86 talks about communion chants, rather than hymns.

No, it specifically goes on to mention a hymn after Communion, and it was the postcommunion I was asking about.

[asb]

All I meant was, we have a recurrent theme in this forum that any song mentioning the word 'Bread' should not be used at Communion, on the grounds that the consecration has now taken place.

Er, so why can we sing "When we eat this bread and drink this cup........." after the consecration.

[contrabordun]

If I promise not to mix attempted wit and serious questions in the same post in future, can we drop this one, please?

[asb]

If I promise not to mix attempted wit and serious questions in the same post in future, can we drop this one, please?

Actually, it was a serious question on my part, so please let's not drop it!

[Southern Comfort]

Actually para 86 talks about communion chants, rather than hymns.

No, it specifically goes on to mention a hymn after Communion, and it was the postcommunion I was asking about.

OK. It may seem like splitting hairs, but a hymn after Communion is not a Communion hymn, which is what I thought you were talking about. It's something else. Para 88 refers to a psalm or other canticle of praise, or a hymn. It's a postcommunion song of praise/thanksgiving.

[Southern Comfort]

All I meant was, we have a recurrent theme in this forum that any song mentioning the word 'Bread' should not be used at Communion, on the grounds that the consecration has now taken place.

Er, so why can we sing "When we eat this bread and drink this cup........." after the consecration.

A great answer, but unfortunately somewhat mitigated by the fact that it's the whole Eucharistic Prayer that is consecratory, not just the "magic words" in the middle. In other words, you can't identify a specific moment when God "zaps" the bread and wine.

But having said that, yes, GIRM 81, 83-84, not to mention 319-324, all talk about bread.

[asb]

John 6 v.35........?

[contrabordun]

Er, so why can we sing "When we eat this bread and drink this cup........." after the consecration.

OK then, you're right, it is odd. Who ever managed to drink a cup?

[asb]

Er, so why can we sing "When we eat this bread and drink this cup........." after the consecration.

OK then, you're right, it is odd. Who ever managed to drink a cup?

But I do take Southern Comfort's point about the Eucharistic Prayer, although I would argue that the "Invocation of The Holy Spirit" early in the prayer is of enormous significance................

[Southern Comfort]

But I do take Southern Comfort's point about the Eucharistic Prayer, although I would argue that the "Invocation of The Holy Spirit" early in the prayer is of enormous significance................

You're in good company. The Orthodox like us believe that the whole prayer is consecratory, but would say that if they had to be pinned down to identifying a more likely moment for transubstantiation than any other then they would reluctantly point to the first epiclesis. "Let your Spirit come upon these offerings....." etc.

[mcb]

The Orthodox like us believe that the whole prayer is consecratory, but would say that if they had to be pinned down to identifying a more likely moment for transubstantiation than any other then they would reluctantly point to the first epiclesis.

Not sure "reluctantly" is the right word. Orthodox faithful certainly treat the Epiclesis as a moment of particular reverence during the Liturgy. But you're right about the Eastern view of the whole prayer being consecratory. There's even one ancient Eucharistic Prayer (in use in the Assyrian Church of the East) that doesn't contain the words of institution at all.

Your "like us", SC, is perhaps a bit tendentious! Traditional Catholic theology seems to be quite happy with the idea that the words of institution are 'the moment' at which the sacrament is effected:

The sacramental character of the Eucharist is established by the presence of the three essential elements. The outward sign consists in the Eucharistic forms of bread and wine and the words of consecration. Its institution by Christ is guaranteed both by the promise of Christ and by the words of institution at the Last Supper.

- that's the Catholic Encylopedia of 1912. Traditionalists were up in arms when Rome (the CDF, I think?) not many years ago recognised the validity of that Assyrian Eucharistic Prayer. It seems that Catholic theology is developing on this point. ISTR Adoremus called it a 'development of doctrine'. A pleasing one, to my mind.