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. Print this post
