The most common way that the Responsorial Psalm is sung has the congregation repeating the antiphon after each verse, so that the antiphon is sung three, four, or even five times in a short period of time. Most choirs think nothing of this and never question it. They do it ever Sunday. However, last week, the Psalm was as follows:
R. (1a) He who does justice will live in the presence of the Lord.
One who walks blamelessly and does justice;
who thinks the truth in his heart
and slanders not with his tongue.
R. He who does justice will live in the presence of the Lord.
Who harms not his fellow man,
nor takes up a reproach against his neighbor;
by whom the reprobate is despised,
while he honors those who fear the LORD.
R. He who does justice will live in the presence of the Lord.
Who lends not his money at usury
and accepts no bribe against the innocent.
One who does these things
shall never be disturbed.
R. He who does justice will live in the presence of the Lord.
I’ve printed it here precisely as it appears on the USCCB website. And this is the way it is usually sung. But consider the text. Does it make sense this way? Or does it make more sense this way?:
R. (1a) He who does justice will live in the presence of the Lord.
One who walks blamelessly and does justice;
who thinks the truth in his heart
and slanders not with his tongue.
Who harms not his fellow man,
nor takes up a reproach against his neighbor;
by whom the reprobate is despised,
while he honors those who fear the LORD.
Who lends not his money at usury
and accepts no bribe against the innocent.
One who does these things
shall never be disturbed.
R. He who does justice will live in the presence of the Lord.
Our schola director, Arlene Oost-Zinner, who writes Psalms for Chabanel, immediately observed that the second makes more sense, and so, perhaps for the first time, we shifted so that we sang the antiphon once alone and once with the congregation, sang the verses straight through, and then concluded with the antiphon. In other words, we sang it the way the Psalms are sung in the office. I must say that it was an enormous success. I thought so anyway. I was not left with a sense of: wow, I really missed interrupting this text every 10 seconds with an insistence that people sing again! Not at all. It flowed beautifully and was very effective.
What does the GIRM say about this practice? “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.”
I know that you might be thinking: here we have the classic exposition that we’ve come to expect from the ordinary form: a rule that is advanced and followed by the exception that isn’t really depreciated but merely given as a choice. Yes, this approach is pervasive throughout the GIRM, and remains one of the most troubling aspects of the ordinary form. In this case, however, the presence of choice really is a benefit. Sometimes we really should sing the Psalm all the way through.
Why don’t we? I’m not entirely sure. My off-the-cuff theory is that the usual practice is an extension of the paranoia that we’ve all imbibed that if there is anything that we can plausibly expect the people to sing, we must demand that they do so, else the choir will be seen as elitist and forbidding, usurping the people’s role – and whether people actually do sing or want to sing, or whether it makes any sense for them to constantly sing, is totally irrelevant.
There might be a more substantive reason behind the conventional practice. Surely someone can enlighten me. Regardless, I do see a point behind singing some settings all the way through. It certainly made sense to me in this case.
Finally, I would like to say something about what it means to be a successful Psalm. To my mind, it means that it should be integrated with the Liturgy of the Word as much as possible, and certainly not stand out as something like a conspicuous musical interlude between the readings as something separate. The beauty of the Gradual from the Gregorian books is their stillness that call forth reflection, a sense of timelessness and beauty that instills an absolute quietness of deep prayer.
I would never expect a parishioner to come up after Mass and say: “hey, that was one heck of a Psalm today!” Not at all. It should be so much part of the fabric of the experience of this portion of Mass that it should leave an impression close to the perception that no performance took place at all.
The main trouble with Psalm singing today at Mass is that it is too often just a huge stylistic interruption, so that people feel bounced from words to a real toe tapper and back again. This can’t be good for the overall import of this portion of Mass. This observation leads me to think that when the text really doesn’t want to be interrupted, it should not be interrupted.
Perhaps.
But one can also take a clue from the selection of verses (often not consecutive) as well as the genre and structure of the psalm itself.
Psalm 136 is a litany, and I'd be inclined to sing it as such. Psalm 42-43 is structured as a responsorial song, and it makes sense to sing it with the refrain in the given text.
In my wife's JB, Psalm 15 is punctuated into three stanzas after an initial introduction. But in this instance, I can see your point: it makes good sense to sing it in its entirety in between two presentations of the antiphon as you suggest.
On the other hand, good Jewish poetry is in couplets, so I might take Paul Ford's occasional approach in BFW, and insert more refrains if the text called for it.
I think the reason why the psalm after the first reading is sung in such a standard way is less paranoia, and more just the way the bishops have presented the text. It's how composers have tackled it for the past forty years. You're right–many musicians are on autopilot. And sadly, they aren't tackling it with any sort of creativity or thought.
I think your option two is an excellent one for entrance or Communion. Have the choir sing the gregorian antiphon, if you will, for entrance. Then have people chant the psalm verses. The choir repeats the antiphon after an appropriate number of verses. If I could, I'd probably reverse the dialogue for Communion: people sing the antiphon immediately after the priest's Communion. Then have the choir chant verses, preferably in a literary way, during the people's procession. Then conclude with the antiphon by all.
Actually, I'm always looking out for exceptional psalm settings. I did have a woman say once, "That was a (heck)uva psalm–oh, sorry!"
I think I would prefer to hear the psalms sung in this straight-through way. I imagine there might be some who object on the grounds that it would decrease the number of times the congregation gets to say something, but I would hope they could reasoned with that word-count is not the heart of participation.
I am curious to the level of comprehension of the psalm, especially as it "responds" to the First Reading, there is among congregations. Sometimes psalms are sung in a way that makes it nearly impossible to understand the verses. Other times, the psalm itself gets "lost" in its setting, to the point where I don't remember what was being sung and how it was relevant.
(My other preference, probably too difficult and novel for a parish setting, would be to have the verses alternated between choir and congregation. It's probably also not allowed by the GIRM.)
Anglican congregations traditionally managed to chant psalms, though the practice wasn't universal or consistently well-done. The relatively small number of converts and Anglican Use parishioners aside, Catholics don't stand in this tradition, and no matter how hard we try we won't be any more successful at grafting on the practice than we have been in so many other attempts to get Catholics to sing like Protestants (worse, the majority would probably be irritated by the attempt). Better to go with the grain of the tradition by topping and tailing, as Jeffrey suggests.
As a practical matter, to the extent that the congregation is joining in the antiphon (and i don't think it is such a bad thing), it is often hard enough to remember the refrain after each verse, let alone if it is only repeated at the beginning and end.
The responsorial psalm is a vernacular substitution in the ordinary form for the gradual of the Propers. The Gregorian gradual was a responsorial form, with elaborate and more difficult verses generally sung by a cantor (or group of them). So, it was generally not an entire psalm or necessarily even an exact or complete quotation (like many chants, adaptations of the scriptures rather than quotations). I'm all for antiphonal psalm singing and for restoring the Divine Office in the parishes, but actually the responsorial psalm you quote above seems closer to the medieval liturgy than what you did.
One should also recall that the Introit was originally sung responsorially after every verse of a psalm, as was the Communion antiphon "Taste and See" during the late 4th century. Current chant books even assign a psalm that is to be sung responsorially after every verse for the Communion antiphon. Of course, these two are meant for schola, although the practice may have originated from monastic usage.
The responsorial psalmody of the Fore-Mass between the faithful and a cantor was a fairly short lived inovation during the 5th and 6th centuries.
I think Jeffrey centres on the fundamental issue here when he points out that:
"The beauty of the Gradual from the Gregorian books is their stillness that call forth reflection, a sense of timelessness and beauty that instills an absolute quietness of deep prayer."
If I may be permitted to be a bit polemical here, most of us know that there are two views of how to understand that ambiguous phrase "active participation" which was the leitmotif of Sacrosanctum Concilium. The first is that inner, that deep spiritual, active participation in the sacred liturgy which the traditional Gradual fosters as Jeffrey has explained. The other, is the physical, that idea that everyone must be peforming actions in the liturgy as the priest does, as if all the faithful are really priests, clearly a Protestant development that finds its exemplification in congregational hymn singing as an essential component of "worship". The Germans may have won out, as some have said, during the council, but definitely after it. And so today the faithful are encouraged to sing at every opportunity as if it were an essential part of Catholic worship, and the responsorial psalm is no exception.
I do not mean to exaggerate, but it is interesting that responsorial psalmody during the Fore-Mass stopped when the Byzantine influence intensified in the 7th century in the West (as people fled to Rome from Syria because of the Muslim invasions) with the formation of the Roman Schola, and with the subsequent spread of that new Roman chant throughout Europe. The Byzantines brought with them, apart from the Greek based models of music, that deep inner Spirituality, that mystical sense of prayer found in their liturgy and its music, which became reflected in the newly composed chant at Rome. I find it distressing that Ecumenism took on a very Western-Eurocentric tone after Vatican II when it meant, among other things, trying to obliterate the differences between the Protestants and the Catholics. Catholicism has so much more in common in its essentials with Byzantium, and it is scandalous that both East and West are still "separated", as otherwise both could gain from each other and the Catholics especially with regards to the current typical practice of Roman liturgy.
"And so today the faithful are encouraged to sing at every opportunity as if it were an essential part of Catholic worship …"
This is a caricature of the progressive argument. One only has to listen to the recordings of 1970's liturgical music to see that dialogues between congregation, choir, and cantor are respected–much more so than in the organ+choir tradition.
SC 30 removes the alleged ambiguity of "active participation." The documents are important. We should reread them regularly.
I guess I am trying to see why this (the structuring of the antiphon – without regard to musical style) is a problem in search of a fix.
I heartily agree that the tone of the psalm should not be that of a musical interlude, but complement the readings.
That said, it would seem to me that the unspoken predicate of the problem is that the readings themselves are often proclaimed in a conversational tone, delivered quickly and perfunctorily (amplification encourages, but does not require, this). I am *not* looking for acting, but if readers imagined that their speaking was just a different form of cantillation, they might be more likely to strike the right tone for proclamation.
Todd's observations about taking the natures of different psalms into account is very on point. Maybe the other unspoken dimension of the problem is the perceived need for a uniform approach.
Todd:
Of course, I am speaking of today, not 1970.
As for SC30, I do not see your point. On the one hand, the first part of the article repeats Pius X's idea of "active participation" in terms of singing during the Mass here extended to other liturgical occasions, while the second part concerns the unity of body and soul so the actions and gestures of the faithful conform with what is going on in the souls: avoid saying the rosary during Low Mass, for instance. Both are referring to that fully conscious participation required of a "community" (a notion very popular in the 1960's) in SC14. This inner kind of active participation may be fostered through those two outward elements as well as education to help focus their atttention on what is going on in the sanctuary, especially if the liturgy is to remain in Latin, but there is no necessity for them, and not a dfenition of "active participation"; SC30 even points out the need for reverent silence, and meditating on the readings while the Gradual is sung by the schola can be one such moment of active participation: the key word in SC30 is "foveantur", not "fiant". In any case, many have interpreted SC30 to mean that everyone must be doing some physical activity during the liturgy for "active participation" to obtain. This has been discussed so often that the issue is clearly ideological: nothing will convince one side or the other.
Ted, even today's composers: Ed Bolduc, Matt Maher, Tony Alonso, and others have recordings with dialogue between people, choir, and singer. No serious liturgist has espoused your quote, either literally or in theory. Honestly, I don't know where you people get this.
Anyway, active participation is mentioned so frequently in SC, other Vatican II documents, post-conciliar documents, and in the liturgical rites, that there's no ambiguity about it. We all know it means exterior and interior, and we follow the rubrics. Those who resist and maintain themselves in a certain ignorance about the rubrics of liturgy have marginalized themselves in the Church and its liturgy discussions.
As for the thread topic, I've already said that the genre and structure of the psalm should dictate the artistic presentation, not habit. I have no problem with the psalm being bookmarked by antiphons before and after, as Jeffrey suggests above, as long as that respects the text. It is not a backtracking from active participation.
"You people"?
Active participation may simply mean not praying the Rosary during the Mass, as was often the custom.
"We people", and I speak for only one of them, DO NOT AGREE (was I yelling?) that your statement that "We all know it means exterior and interior, and we follow the rubrics." is anything but totally false and flawed.
"We people" also do not think that the Church Fathers intended for every parish at every weekend Mass to place a singer at a microphone to sing, often very poorly, poorly composed music that ignores all of the musical tradition of writing music for the psalms that is logical and musical.
It's a sad fact that publishers have realized that promoting the singing of psalms can make them money. It's amazing that they do not give away their cantor's copies to make people want to use them, and even more amazing that people spend the money for them since they are not free. "Oh yes, Father, the pulp missals that we spend $3,000 for each year, the books for the choir with the psalms in them are an extra $7 each. Oh. Buy one and copy what you need? Well, can't we at least buy one for each of the cantors?"
It's time to replace your orders, those who buy the pulp missals…this year stand up and tell them you won't take it any more. You'll pay for the pew copies, but you expect psalm verse books for the cantors and then entire choir for free!
Todd:
I do not think we disagree that "active participation" adresses the whole person, body and soul. But this was not always the case, and moreover, still is not the case in way too many places, or otherwise some (maybe "serious") liturgists would not have devoted considereble attention to the issue:
"Unfortunately, the word was very quickly misunderstood to mean something external, entailing the need for general activity, as if as many people as possible, as often as possible, should be visibly engaged in action."1
Of course it did not help that the Latin term was mistranslated in English, and should have read "real" or "actual participation" not "active"; the Latin says "actuosa" not "activa". Old habits are hard to break.
As for the composers you mention, they may be interesting for some campfires, concerts, and even prayer meetings but do not figure into The Spirit of the Liturgy, which is directed towards God, not to the man in the pew.
1.Ratzinger, Joseph, The Spirit of the Liturgy. Part 4.2.1
What Ted said.
Ted, you might be able to convince me if you were able to find a reputable liturgist advocating as you and Cardinal Ratzinger suggest. Gelineau, Guzie, Searle, Joncas, anyone. This would be an example of one of the misdiagnoses of the former CDF head.
I don't doubt that "active participation" has been misinterpreted, especially by a non-liturgist here and there. But a DRE, a priest, or a youth minister pretending to be a liturgist counts as psychologically damaging, but not theologically authoritative. I wouldn't quote a schismatic to discredit reform2 or chant. I expect a similar approach from a serious blog like Chant Cafe.
"Active" is the word appended to "participation" everywhere: the documents on missionary activity, bishops, the clergy, and practically every general introduction to the sacramental rites. At any rate, I think we share the same understanding of real participation. It includes the people's role as the rubrics explicitly state. It includes interior and exterior orientation. I don't perceive that we have a difference on this.
If liturgical musicians compose for the liturgy, I'm obliged to consider they write for both God and for the facilitation of the people's song. SC 7 gives a twofold aim of the liturgy. It is possible for people to perform chant for the purpose of entertainment, and indeed, for some people, it is just that. The composers I mention write sacred music that does not fit your accusation that participation must always be interpreted as the assembly singing everything possible. The bait and switch tactic does not help your premise. I believe I've demonstrated my point without pertinent objection.
"…you might be able to convince me if you were able to find a reputable liturgist advocating as you and Cardinal Ratzinger suggest."
Actually, Alcuin Reid has something to say about this:
"Of course we know that, in English, the word "active" poorly translates the meaning of the Latin "actuosa", which speaks primarily of that internal and contemplative participation of mind and heart in the liturgical rites rather than an activist concern for everyone to be doing externally observable things as frequently as possible. One can find nothing other than sound, traditional Catholic spirituality–endorsed by many pre-conciliar popes–in the Council's call for actual participation in the liturgy" (from "The Genius of the Roman Rite", 2010)
Well, Todd, he's not on your list, but he's as heavyweight a liturgist as they come. Sorry.
Just a final note, it is fairly clear that the current typical practice of singing the responsorial psalm instead of the Gregorian gradual simply tries to emulate what is thought to have been the practice in the 5th-6th centuries. I do not think that many historians today would dispute that practice of singing a refrain after every verse of the psalmody in the Fore-Mass back then. The practice itself may have even originated in the synagogue. This "return" today may seem like a restoration, but it is more of an anachronism. The responsorial psalmody of the Fore-Mass back then was considered a reading, no doubt as the Old Testament reading. As a reading, the music was not likely very ornate at all so as not to detract from the natural movement of actually "reading" the text through a musical voice. There was no need for another OT reading like we have today because the whole Mass centered around Christ, and He was seen sufficiently and clearly prefigured in the psalms. This psalmodic movement began in the West by the late 4th century and persisted in the Mass in one form or another it seems (as opposed to the introduction of hymns for instance) until the 8th century when the psalm-less Gospel Alleluias were introduced from the East and the Franks subsequently began to regularly introduce extra-Scriptural compositions, the Sequences. The responsorial psalmody was re-introduced in the the NO simply because of its value for congregational participation through song, but it ignores the original meaning and intention. The congregation may be seen doing something, singing, but I wonder if the traditional practice of listening to the Gregoran gradual was not the better practice, offering a time of rest to the soul for active meditation on the previous reading, that is, if one understood the modern OT reading which is not always very clear as to its point.
Adam, actually, I was asking you to find a liturgist who promoted active participation as all active, all the time.
Alcuin Reid also misdiagnoses mainstream Catholic liturgy of the past forty years.
Did Gene Walsh, Ralph Kiefer, Aidan Kavanaugh, Nathan Mitchell, Kathleen Hughes ever advocate for what Ratzinger, Reid, or any reform2 heroes say they did?
You can't have a discussion with one person taking both sides.
"Alcuin Reid also misdiagnoses mainstream Catholic liturgy of the past forty years."
Thanks for your opinion, Todd. Unfortunately it has no place in argumentative discourse, which, by the way, is not really the purpose of these comment boxes.
If you would like to take on this topic adequately why don't you publish an article in a liturgical journal and we can take it up from there.
Todd:
If I had all the time in the world I am sure I could come up with what you want in books from the 1970's. But that is not the point, and I fail to see why you have shifted the arguments to liturgists. The point is that the
catchphrase "active participation" by the time it got to the local parish level in the 1970's meant that the faithful of necessity had to be performing some external activity at the expense of inner contemplation: I suppose dancing and singing in the aisles during the Our Father being strummed on a guitar does promote a participation.
What may be instructive here and it touches more directly on the original topic of this post, is Bugnini's own description of the events during his Consilium's work. Trouble began when musicians were called for their comment on what the liturgists had been working on:
"in the view of the liturgists the people must truly sing in order to participate actively as desired by the liturgical constitution; in the view of the musicians, however, even 'listeneing to good, devout, and edifying
music…promotes "active" participation'" Ch59.3 Notice the word "active" was put in quotes.
Open warfare errupted and turned very bitter because the issue concerned the very nature of the liturgical reform.
It was finally sent to Paul VI for guidance. What is most interesting is Bugnini's summary of the points made to the Pope:
"According to the Constitution, participation must be conscious and active, internal and external, and find expression in acclamation, response, psalmody, and songs (see SC 14 %& 30)" Ch59.5. Notice the word "must" appears and furthermore there is now a bifurcation between "conscious" and "active", the first referring to internal, the latter to external participation. This all relates to the responsorial psalm because with this new subtile change of meaning for that ambiguous term "active" it meant that the congregation of necessity had to sing at every Mass to the degreee it is capable, and the responsorial psalm was of special importance for this purpose. (see Ch 59.3)
"The point is that the catchphrase 'active participation' by the time it got to the local parish level in the 1970's meant that the faithful of necessity had to be performing some external activity at the expense of inner contemplation"
My point is that this is incorrect.
I think we all concede that reform was implemented badly in some places, though definitely not all. My point is that no reputable liturgist would have the narrow reading you attribute to them. Why not just move on and promote your own viewpoint?
There is little enough liturgical spirituality cultivated in the Catholic laity. I can agree with this statement. Now, how do we move from there?
But this bait and switch/gotcha! method of argument is simply illogical. (not to mention some of you are very poor at it.)
The original topic is how the psalms are presented at Sunday Mass. Jeffrey opined that some would fuss that the people singing two psalm antiphons would be seen as inferior to them singing five. I said I wouldn't make that argument. I did say I would look to the structure of the psalm itself as a better determining factor of how to sing it.
Ted, among others, have tried to make this thread about my errors instead of literary form. Ted was the one who dropped us down a level talking about campfires.
Look: if you can't stick to the topic and discuss in a forward-thinking way, don't lecture me about arguing and the purpose of the combox on this site.
Do I detect some whining in the last post about our narrowness, logic, literary abilities, off-topic, non-forward thinking ways…and our lecturing from a lecturer hmself?
The reform was badly implemented everywhere, just less so in some places. Anyone who believes otherwise is living in a parallel universe of realty. Pardon me. I just thought of one exception: St. Agnes in Minneapolis, led by the late, great Msgr.Schuler. He actually followed the mandate of Sacrosanctum Concilium.
Todd said "Anyway, active participation is mentioned so frequently in SC, other Vatican II documents, post-conciliar documents, and in the liturgical rites, that there's no ambiguity about it."
I think you missed one
'tiny' important part of the document here, the parts that pertain to them.
When the 'nice' music directors and 'liturgists' stuff the Mass with so many notes for the congregation to make noises, do they ever think about how many people have to struggle to 'participate on that actuvity?" How many times the congregation have to pick up the 'hymnal,' with here we go again. What are they trying to prove? They rather pray once well than trying to pray twice that they don't even know how and why? Because many of them really want to pray. What are the goals of having so many music for the congregation in Mass? Superfical and overdone 'active participation' brought such uworthy music to temple. People are tired of 4 part (supposedly) metrical hymns with drowning organ (mostly protestant anyway, not much on Eucharist.). So they brought in guitar and drum music, not enough, and got bored again. Bongo and other ethnic intruments are more entertaining. Maybe even liturgical dance might lift up the spirit? (how about congregational litrugical dance?) They wake them up and fun, and have a good reason, multicultural!! wow, what a good way to go to entertain people. Activee participation to entertainment became the logical path for those who don't understand the true nature of the Eucharist. Everything is licit. Do whatever you want to do. So they do and shout oyut they are 'licit!!'for praise of active participation.
Mia, I'm afraid you've lost me, if not the gist of the discussion. I think I've been the one suggesting we attend to the Ordo Missae.
I don't recognize your description above, either in ministry or in overhearing what others have done. But thanks for responding.
Todd,
As I've previously demonstrated here, a 'respectable liturgist' is in your eyes one who thinks as you do. Hardly an impresive argument. Actually, 'Ratzinger' has demontrated that he's well read in liturgical studies and in the theological, historical, cultural and philosophical issues in which they are (or should be) grounded. Oh, and he's the Pope.
Ian, you're still bothered by this thread?
You've demonstrated nothing of the sort. What has been demonstrated is this:
The pope, as you say, is the pope, and he can do or say things liturgically without obstruction. Whether these are good things for any priest, any Catholic faith community, is up for judgment.
In this "unforgetful age," one can drum up any number of comments, even out of context, and analyze them. Almost anyone can be an amateur theologian, and like the pope, can say or do anything without obstruction, even while wearing the mantle of "orthodoxy."
As a result, like-minded folks tend to aggregate together and reinforce their opinions of things and one another.
The Church, on the other hand, still possesses an objective tool for celebrating the liturgy, as well as documents (also easily available these days) that detail what is intended at various moments of the liturgy.
I suspect you and others here are bothered by my approach which is different than that of your clan and of your clan's heroes. If you find my arguments unconvincing, at least we can say you find them annoying. All I can say is they're quite mainstream, and not at all fringe interpretations from the far left. That's the catholic perspective, my friend.
Are we really going to resurrect this thread without mention of the psalms? Why don't you start one on liturgical heretics and pope-dissers and be direct about it?
Todd,
Some of the points you make are, indeed, widely held (though less so, I suspect, than they once were). What concerns me is the lazy thinking you employ when justifying those views, which when we cut to the quick go: the Pope's views on liturgy are a bad thing because they're not supported by notable liturgists; liturgists aren't notable if they espouse the Pope's views.
I respect those who honestly take a Protestant position on the liturgy in the course of their thoughtful and informed consideration of the issues. I feel distinctly uncomfortable when Catholics take a Protestant position on the basis of faulty logic and a self-indulgent love of "creativity".