The following came from Father Sebastian B.
[We usually redact names for anonymity’s sake.]
WAS WONDERING if you had done an article that addresses why the GRAIL PSALTER was revised, or where I could find such information. This constant revision of the translations of liturgical texts seems to me unnecessary, unless they are deficient. While this has been true of the early work done by ICET and ICEL in the 1970s, the GRAIL PSALTER wasn’t part of that body of work. As a priest, let me assure you the GRAIL PSALTER has become part of the vocabulary of those of us who have been praying the LOTH. They have nourished the prayer of countless people. I’m not a scholar of the Psalms and so I don’t know if they are deficient and truly needed revision. “Inquiring minds want to know.” My own theory is that, like so much else, it’s about control and money. To put it more crudely, the lust for power and greed of the American episcopate who care more about personal status than the salvation of souls. (Yes, there are good bishops but they are few.) I’ve become rather jaded. Finally, are you aware of a source that documents the changes made in the GRAIL PSALTER? I don’t want to invest time and effort if it’s already been done. Thank you for reading this email and for all the work you and your colleagues at Corpus Christi Watershed do on behalf of Divine Worship.
The following is Jeff Ostrowski’s response:
[This response was posted on 7 February 2025.]
IRST OF ALL, it’s somewhat difficult to find accurate information about the psalm translation made by the Ladies of Grail. Further complicating matters, certain “terminally online” voices have muddied the waters by spreading false information. (For the record, I’m not an expert on this subject—so please don’t blindly accept anything I say. Verify it first.) The level of expertise possessed by the Ladies of Grail who initially produced the GRAIL PSALTER translation in the early 1960s is not known. For instance: Were they fluent in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek? Some have suggested they did little more than “tinker with” the translation found in the Jerusalem Bible (1956). The main characteristic of the GRAIL PSALTER had to do with the length of each line. That is to say, when it comes to singing the psalms, it’s very helpful if each line is (approximately) the same length. If a translation has jagged lines, that makes it difficult to sing. As far as I can tell, this was the great “selling point” of the GRAIL PSALTER.1
Impossible To Set • Certain words in the English language are virtually impossible to ‘psalm tone’ successfully when placed at a line’s end. Therefore, it’s best to avoid doing that. For example, certain English words do something no Latin word does: viz. have an accented syllable followed by three unaccented syllables. Examples include: Sacrifices; Intérminable; Sanctuary; Operator; Tabernacle; etc. Furthermore, someone who’s been working with English a long time will understand how to shorten or elongate certain phrases. The 1990 GREGORIAN MISSAL has the following line during the Requiem Mass: “receive them for the souls that we are remembering today.” If one has to sing those words, a more elegant solution would be: “receive them for the souls we remember today.”
Gender Inclusive? • Father, you asked why it’s been revised over and over again. I’m told the 1980s iteration of the GRAIL PSALTER was infused with so-called “gender-inclusive” language. As a result, its IMPRIMATUR was eventually withdrawn. In those years, some were obsessed with artificially modifying the English language, claiming words like “mankind” and “chairman” were too difficult for people to understand. Even in 2025 we see vestiges of that nonsense. For instance, our current GLORIA translates pax homínibus bonæ voluntátis in a bizarre and ugly way: “peace to people of good will.” If ICEL was determined to eradicate men I wish they’d have simply said: “peace to those of good will.” Anyone who carefully examines the so-called ABBEY PSALMS AND CANTICLES (a.k.a. the “Revised-Revised Grail”) will notice a regrettable fear of the word “man.” For example, in Psalm 42 they translate ab hómine iníquo et dolóso érue me as: “From the deceitful and the cunning rescue me, O God.” The original 1960s translation by the Ladies of the Grail said: “From deceitful and cunning men rescue me, O God.”
Non-Christian Company • About seventeen years ago, the USCCB announced they were going to replace all (!) the liturgical books with a new psalm translation, which they called the “Revised-Grail.” However, the distribution rights—the “copyright” for all intents and purposes—was given to a private, for-profit, non-Christian company. Needless to say, such an arrangement was reprehensible and scandalous. Jeffrey Tucker, managing editor for the Church Music Association of America, discovered their dirty scheme and spent years condemning it publicly. For instance, here’s an article he published in 2008. The relentless persistence of Jeffrey Tucker would eventually bear fruit—but it would take almost two decades. Indeed, this new plan involving the so-called “ABBEY PSALMS AND CANTICLES” seems to be the result of his actions. The Catholic Church in America owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to Jeffrey Tucker, whose bravery prevented a non-Christian company from securing a monopoly on the (mandatory) English translation of the psalms!
“Nabbish” • Over the last few decades, certain myths have been cultivated. The time has come to set aside those myths. For example, it became popular on the “conservative” side to viciously attack the NEW AMERICAN BIBLE (NAB). Like a snowball rolling, this idea became more and more pervasive. The NAB became synonymous with “heresy.” Online commentators poked fun at NABBISH, describing it as “bland, Scripture-muffling, colorless, odorless, and gaseous.” On one hand, I’m the last person on earth who would defend the NAB—and parts of it are ghastly and indefensible. On the other hand, what exactly is so terrible about the NAB psalter translation?
* PDF Download • COMPARISON CHART
—NAB psalter compared with other Catholic versions.
Your Other Comments • Father, you speak about “the lust for power and greed of the American episcopate.” I’m sure America does have some evil bishops. On the other hand, the constant revision of liturgical texts is the result of human nature. When people start a new job, they tend to want to “rebuild everything from the ground up.” They believe themselves to be sharper, better-informed, and more efficient than those who came before. They feel that they can do things better. (This is especially true of people who lack maturity.) Every few years, the bureaucracy at the USCCB changes. New people come in, chock-full of ideas to “fix” everything. They often believe they can “unify” all translations, but lack an accurate understanding of what that entails.
A few years later, the bureaucracy at the USCCB changes again and—surprise!—the new folks have a different philosophy on everything. When they receive letters from angry Catholics who were given assurances (which are now invalid) their response usually goes something like this: “A variety of customs and different ways of doing things have existed over the years…” They often claim previous translation were “provisional.” In other words, whenever it’s convenient they claim the previous translation was “provisional.” The bottom line is: They can change anything they want. As a slick politician once said: “That was then; this is now.”
Formal Vs. Dynamic • The zeitgeist swings back-and-forth like a pendulum. Most would agree that the notion of “dynamic equivalence” was stretched to absurd extremes in the years after Vatican II. Certain organizations promoted the idea that “dynamic equivalence” was basically heresy, and “formal equivalence” solved everything. However, any serious translator knows the value of “dynamic equivalence.” If anyone doubts what I’m saying, let him read Trials of a Translator (1949) by Monsignor Ronald Knox. Only a very foolish person would translate the Spanish phrase ¿Cuántos años tiene? as “How many years do you have?” It means: “How old are you?” The same is true for the French “Quelle âge as-tu?” Only a dunce would translate that as: “What age do you have?” It means: “How old are you?” But in the 1970s, evil men who disagreed with Church teachings made bad translations under the guise of “dynamic equivalence.”
Three Words They Can’t Say • For the record, sometimes we don’t know how to translate sections of the Bible properly. In those cases, producing an ambiguous ‘translation’ might be the best course of action. But during the 1970s, certain people seemed incapable of saying three simple words: “I don’t know.” Monsignor Ronald Knox, the master-theologian and master-polyglot, does a much better job explaining these matters than I could ever hope to (in the book linked above).
A Fight Worth Fighting • We have much work to do. I could write a doctoral dissertation on liturgical items that need to be corrected. The Mexican LECTIONARY is a case-in-point. The Responsorial Psalms are incorrect 90% of the time. For instance, this coming Sunday it translates In conspéctu angelórum psallam tibi, Dómine as: “Cuando te invocamos, Señor, nos escuchaste.” That’s not even close to being correct.
Saint Augustine Nixed • The reformers after Vatican II made all kinds of changes. Nobody knows the justification for these changes. For example, we recently celebrated the feast of CANDLEMAS on 2 February. The reformers deleted the ancient and beautiful ALLELUIA VERSE by Saint Augustine: Senex Púerum portábat: Puer autem senem regébat. Why did they do this? Nobody knows. Believe it or not, the USCCB (at that time called NCCB: “National Conference of Catholic Bishops”) issued a document in January of 1967 called “The Place of Music in Eucharistic Celebrations” which advised Catholic musicians not to sing the psalms (!!!) at Mass! They warned that singing psalms at Mass “may create problems rather than solve them.” Someday, all this will have to be fixed.
Final Thoughts • Even though certain “ultra-traditionalists” won’t admit it, the MISSALE VETUSTUM—just like the Novus Ordo—has inconsistencies when it comes to psalter verses. In particular, the 1962 Missal and Breviary has flagrant inconsistencies because in the 1950s the BEA PSALTER started to be mixed in (in a haphazard and sloppy way).
From what I can tell, the so-called “ABBEY PSALMS AND CANTICLES” is virtually identical to the Revised-Grail translation. In many instances, it matches the NAB verbatim. Broadly speaking, the English psalter translation used in USA Lectionaries since 1970 are borrowed (“stolen”) from three sources: (a) the Douay-Reims Challoner; (b) the 1958 Westminster translation, supervised by Father Caraman; and (c) the translation by Monsignor Ronald Knox.
We are privileged to be permitted to serve the Lord. When it comes to the corrections that must be made vis-à-vis the sacred liturgy: “Win or lose, this is a fight worth fighting!”
1 In terms of whether the original translation by the Ladies of the Grail utilized “sprung rhythm,” that assertion is rather dubious. On the other hand, it seems undeniable that the Ladies of the Grail intentionally produced a translation that “flowed.” Because of this, their translation worked well with GELINEAU PSALMODY (a psalm-singing method in vogue at that time).