New Translation of the Lectionary incoming

[alan29]

https://www.cbcew.org.uk/new-lectionary ... lIhX8i34Lc
Lets hope musicians get sight of it early enough to adjust/re-write responsorial psalms.

[Peter]

Thanks, Alan, for posting this. It is not just Responsorial Psalms that are affected; presumably there will be new Gospel acclamations as well, which composers will also need to set. Given that the referenced document says …

This is a new publication of the Lectionary using different scripture translations — the content remains the same.

… we can presumably look up the acclamation texts in the ESV (or the RSV, hoping the texts are not part of the 6% that has changed), using the same scriptural references as in the existing Lectionary, and set those, at least as a first step.

Several questions arise.

The same document says of the Psalm texts to be used:

This text is now owned by USCCB who have renamed it Abbey Psalms and Canticles ... This text will be used in the Lectionary…

Is Abbey Psalms and Canticles available to purchase now? If so, where can we get it? Likewise the ESV.

Will composers need to seek permission from USCCB to use these Psalm texts (where they would previously have asked The Grail or HarperCollins), or do they simply need to acknowledge their copyright? This question also applies to the Gospel Acclamations, whose copyright Crossway presumably own as publishers of the ESV – or do USCCB also own these?

The same document also says:

It is normal practice in the Roman Rite that there is only a single edition of a liturgical text in use in a particular territory. So in the same way as only the third edition of the Roman Missal (2010) may be used in the celebration of Mass (in the Ordinary Form), the same will be true for the Lectionary.

Does this mean that settings of the Psalms and Gospel Acclamations will need to be approved by a Panel from either USCCB or BCEW before they can be published, as was the case for the Ordinary of the Mass in the 2010 Missal?

GIRM, para. 61, allows substitution of the Responsorial Psalm specified in the Lectionary by items from the Graduale Romanum or Graduale Simplex. Will this still be the case? The document Alan cites makes no mention of either of these, so presumably they are remaining unchanged.

Are our days of singing “Crimond” in place of the Responsorial Psalm, when Psalm 22/23 is specified for that day, or “O flock of Christ” (e.g. Laudate 259) in place of the Easter Sequence numbered?

[Southern Comfort]

Thanks, Alan, for posting this. It is not just Responsorial Psalms that are affected; presumably there will be new Gospel acclamations as well, which composers will also need to set. Given that the referenced document says …

This is a new publication of the Lectionary using different scripture translations — the content remains the same.

… we can presumably look up the acclamation texts in the ESV (or the RSV, hoping the texts are not part of the 6% that has changed), using the same scriptural references as in the existing Lectionary, and set those, at least as a first step.

Several questions arise.

The same document says of the Psalm texts to be used:

This text is now owned by USCCB who have renamed it Abbey Psalms and Canticles ... This text will be used in the Lectionary…

Is Abbey Psalms and Canticles available to purchase now? If so, where can we get it? Likewise the ESV.

Will composers need to seek permission from USCCB to use these Psalm texts (where they would previously have asked The Grail or HarperCollins), or do they simply need to acknowledge their copyright? This question also applies to the Gospel Acclamations, whose copyright Crossway presumably own as publishers of the ESV – or do USCCB also own these?

The same document also says:

It is normal practice in the Roman Rite that there is only a single edition of a liturgical text in use in a particular territory. So in the same way as only the third edition of the Roman Missal (2010) may be used in the celebration of Mass (in the Ordinary Form), the same will be true for the Lectionary.

Does this mean that settings of the Psalms and Gospel Acclamations will need to be approved by a Panel from either USCCB or BCEW before they can be published, as was the case for the Ordinary of the Mass in the 2010 Missal?

GIRM, para. 61, allows substitution of the Responsorial Psalm specified in the Lectionary by items from the Graduale Romanum or Graduale Simplex. Will this still be the case? The document Alan cites makes no mention of either of these, so presumably they are remaining unchanged.

Are our days of singing “Crimond” in place of the Responsorial Psalm, when Psalm 22/23 is specified for that day, or “O flock of Christ” (e.g. Laudate 259) in place of the Easter Sequence numbered?

I wouldn't bank on anything until this publication, whose basic principles have already been heavily criticised ahead of its arrival, actually appears. Only then will we be able to see how it has been edited.

Taking Peter's points one by one:

(1) I wouldn't be spending time looking up Gospel Acclamation texts in ESV, since we don't know what sort of editing they may have been subjected to.

(2) Abbey Psalms and Canticles is only available in printed form, not electronic form, and needs to be ordered from the USA.

(3) ESV is widely available from almost any church book shop or supply service — but see caveat above. We don't yet know what editorial procedures will have been adopted for readings and other non-psalmic scriptural texts.

(4) Yes, copyright permission will need to be obtained for psalm texts from USCCB. I'm quite sure that when the Bishops of England Wales approved the text of RGP without even knowing what it would look like in its final version, they had no idea that this would now be the situation. Permission will also need to be obtained for use of the response texts, which may or may not be derived from the psalm text itself — we don't know whether the editors are using this principle or not. Where you will need to apply for permission will depend on the answer to that.

(5) Yes, copyright permission will need to be obtained from the owners of ESV, if setting unaltered ESV texts to music.

(6) The reference to a single edition of a liturgical text means that the bishops can impose the new Lectionary and outlaw existing versions. Good luck with that, since many parishes are strapped for cash during the pandemic and priests are already saying that they will not order or use a new Lectionary that does not use inclusive language and an up-to-date text (ESV is 50 years behind the times). The Tablet has carried correspondence about this for many weeks now.

Indeed, there are some parishes that are still using their 1970 RSV lectionaries and never made the change to the 1981 three-volume edition of the JB lectionary. I suspect/hope that there will be a significant period of overlap between the publication of a new version and the disuse of older ones.

(7) At the moment there is no requirement for settings of Lectionary texts to go before an anonymous panel. That is not to say that this situation may not change, but in view of the principles adopted for approval of Missal text settings and the furore they gave rise to it is to be hoped that the bishops will leave well alone.

(8) GIRM 61 is not affected by the advent of a new Lectionary. The Gradual and Simple Gradual options will remain. It is interesting to note that other countries have additional options. For example, in the USA, you can use "an antiphon and Psalm from another collection of Psalms and antiphons, including Psalms arranged in metrical form, providing that they have been approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop."

(9) In general, using hymns and psalms instead of the responsorial psalm has been out for a long time. The US bishops even specify "Songs or hymns may not be used in place of the Responsorial Psalm." But pastoral reasons may dictate a certain flexibility in this, as has always been the case.

(10) The Sequence is a different case. It is optional except at Easter and Pentecost, and latitude is allowed in order to provide settings that are people-friendly. I think the attitude of the bishops would be that it is is preferable to have it sung, even if the text is a hymn paraphrase, than simply omitted altogether (which happens in a number of parishes).

To sum up once again, I would suggest that composers not start setting texts for a new Lectionary to music until it can be clearly seen exactly what those new texts turn out to be.

I am also watching with interest what is happening in Ireland, where the bishops have announced a consultation on which version of scripture to use (RNJB is favoured by some, and not by others) — far preferable to rushing out a new Lectionary which very few people actually want. It seems likely that Ireland will end up with something different from England and Wales and Scotland, unless what is currently going on for E&W/S is halted and reviewed.

[alan29]

Thanks for that excellent full reply. So its the usual bungling with no thought for the consequences then.
With almost all parishes worrying about their futures in any form post Covid, and with returning parishioners in all states of worry and grief, the episcopal shepherds would do well to concentrate on healing and encouraging their flocks and put this flawed exercise on the back burner. The Church really does have far more important things to be worrying about than this.

[Peter]

Thanks, SC - very comprehensive and helpful reply. As Alan said when opening this thread, let's hope we can see a "final" draft of the texts in time to get some settings ready in time for their introduction - or, failing that, a long enough grace period to write new ones while still using the old as a stop-gap.

Given that copyright of the new Psalm texts will be held by an American organisation, is there a better chance that they may be covered by the OneLicense scheme than was the case with those owned by The Grail (England)? That way we could try out home-grown settings without seeking approval each time. I won't hold my breath, though.

[gwyn]

I wonder will we see the departure of "world without end."?

[Southern Comfort]

I wonder will we see the departure of "world without end."?

That is the final phrase of the "Glory be", and so has nothing per se to do with a new Lectionary (or even an old one).

The traditional wording for the "Glory be" runs:

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

There's also the ICET version (1971), used a lot in the USA:

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit:
as it was in the beginning, is now, and will be for ever. Amen.

which Gwyn might find preferable.

The Gospel Acclamation verse for Trinity Sunday in the UK Lectionary, based on Apocalypse 1:8, runs:

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit,
the God who is, who was, and who is to come.

but here the phrase per omnia seacula saeculorum does not even appear.

[JW]

I'm still hoping that they might develop sufficient pastoral sensibility to adapt the lectionary to use inclusive language! Worth debating!

[Southern Comfort]

I'm still hoping that they might develop sufficient pastoral sensibility to adapt the lectionary to use inclusive language! Worth debating!

Pastoral sensibility is not the major attribute of the two prelates who are intent upon steamrollering this through before they retire (and don't have to deal with the fallout).

[Nick Baty]

I will probably remain something of a psalm refusenik. In the present lectionary, the text of the refrain is rarely long enough to sing and it frequently has no obvious link to the preceding reading, to which is responds. In my (alas, now former) parish, we often sang eight-bar refrains. We developed a series of flexible psalms – one refrain for several psalms or one psalm with several refrains. Were we wrong? Well, we had an assembly which could respond in song the liturgy and could sing from the heart.

[Southern Comfort]

I will probably remain something of a psalm refusenik. In the present lectionary, the text of the refrain is rarely long enough to sing and it frequently has no obvious link to the preceding reading, to which is responds. In my (alas, now former) parish, we often sang eight-bar refrains. We developed a series of flexible psalms – one refrain for several psalms or one psalm with several refrains. Were we wrong? Well, we had an assembly which could respond in song the liturgy and could sing from the heart.

Tend to agree with this, for two reasons: (i) it's much easier to get a memorable refrain if it's longer than just a snippet, and (ii) modifying the balance between the length of the assembly response and the cantor's verses has the advantage of indicating to the assembly that its part in the whole is not only important but essential.

If you only ever give a snippet to the assembly, like a kind of sop, then it will be more difficult for them to believe that you really care if they sing or not. If, as in some of Stephen Dean's settings, the assembly's response is the same length as, or even longer than, the verses, then it's very clear that the assembly is vital: without it, the whole thing falls to the ground.

The art of the responsorial psalm is that it's more than just a vehicle for conveying the text in the Lectionary. It's more than just a reflection on the 1st Reading. It's a response by the entire community to the 1st Reading. It sets up the mood of the Liturgy of the Word.

In an extreme case, it can even be remedial, helping to rectify the damage done by the preceding reader. (And in that context, I have noticed during the pandemic that the quality of readers has declined noticeably, aided by the necessity to have the same reader for both readings and the intercessions on a Sunday. It's quite usual to hear the Word of God slaughtered these days.)

[alan29]

There are compositional tricks that can overcome the impression that the peoples response is an also ran. I quite like ending psalm verses on the dominant so the response, even when short comes as the completion of what has come before.
Our lot are accustomed to singing the lectionary responses Sunday by Sunday. It keeps them on their toes! But I must admit that some of the responses are so short that its hard to avoid exessive repetition in order to get enough syllables to actually form a musical phrase.

[Keraulophon]

The Tablet reports, quoting Archbishop George Stack, that, "The translation of the Bible to be used in the new edition of the lectionary for Mass in England and Wales is being amended to use gender-inclusive language where contextually appropriate ... ... a number of adaptations are being made to the ESV-CE to make it appropriate for use in a UK context, including spelling, punctuation and the Anglicisation of words and phrases where appropriate."

So the words in an existing copy of the ESV will be misleading for composers!

https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/14115/ ... e-language

[Southern Comfort]

The Tablet reports, quoting Archbishop George Stack, that, "The translation of the Bible to be used in the new edition of the lectionary for Mass in England and Wales is being amended to use gender-inclusive language where contextually appropriate ... ... a number of adaptations are being made to the ESV-CE to make it appropriate for use in a UK context, including spelling, punctuation and the Anglicisation of words and phrases where appropriate."

So the words in an existing copy of the ESV will be misleading for composers!

https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/14115/ ... e-language

Abp Stack is trying to give the impression that inclusive language will no longer be an issue, but in fact the number of adaptations carried out by incorporating some of the ESV footnotes into the text is tiny compared with those that could (and should) be made — and in fact have already been made in the NRSV (which is what we ought to be using).

And quite apart from all that, the fact is that the scholarship behind ESV is now 50 years out of date.

There is also an extremely unhelpful article in the same issue of The Tablet by a retired PP who will not have to live with the damage done by the new Lectionary. Anyone who thinks 'face-to-face' ought to be literally translated as 'mouth-to-mouth'.... well, there we are. It's an attack on the principles of dynamic equivalence, which is designed, as all good translators know, to help the reader/listener by making it sound as if the text is not a translation but was actually written in the language you are now listening to or reading it in, with concepts that are familiar and not alien.

[blackthorn fairy]

Is the ESV the same as - or dfferent from - the NRSV Catholic Edition which is what I thought we were supposed to be using? If it is not the same how is it different? And if so, why is it different?