The Ecumenical Grail Psalter

From what I can tell, this looks like a general inclusive version of the original version of the revised Grail Psalms that the monks of Conception Abbey produced before someone at the Vatican "corrected" their translation. In the original version done by Abbot Gregory and the monks as well as this version, the word "righteousness" appears, whereas in the "approved for liturgical use" version, that word is translated at "justice." This version also does not appear to have to follow the dictates of "Liturgicam Authenticam" and so avoids some of the clumsiness that LA has caused in our liturgical texts. A great example of this can be found in verses 15-18 of Psalm 17. In the "official" revised Grail psalms, these verses read: Arise, O Lord, confront them strike them down. Let your sword deliver my soul from the wicked. Let your hand, O Lord, deliver me from those whose portion in this present life is fleeting. May you give them their fill of your treasures, may their offspring rejoice in plenty and leave their wealth to their children. As for me, in justice I shall behold your face; when I awake I shall be filled with the vision of your presence." This sounds like the psalmst is first asking God to punish the wicked, and deliver the psalmist from evil ones. But the next verse (15) May you give them, etc., sounds more like a blessing. It does not flow or make sense, at least as I read it. The ecumenical Grail psalter does a better job here: Arise, O Lord, confront them strike them down. Let your sword deliver my soul from the wicked. Let your hand, O Lord, deliver me from those whose portion in life is of this world. May what you have stored up for them fill their bellies; may their offspring be sated with its plenty, and let them leave what is left for their young. As for me, I shall behold your face in righteousness: when I awake I shall be filled with the vision of your presence." For those of us who struggle with the translation of the "approved" text, this ecumenical version is a wonderful alternative. While it is a completely new translation, those of us who have been praying the Grail psalms for years will hardly notice much difference. The cadence and sprung rhythm is still there, and many of the verses that we've come to know, remain. This volume is a wonderful addition for those who pray the psalms on a daily basis .

This is an amazing book of Psalms. My Pastor gifted this to me, so it's super special.

A beautiful translation - and they even begin to teach you how to sing!

Doing a full comparison with "The Revised Grail Psalms" is probably beyond the scope of a review. At the moment, I prefer the official Revised Grail Psalms - as a conservative Reformed guy. There seems little substantial change between the two versions. The major change is that this "ecumenical" version is an attempt to be gender-neutral with language about God. So whereas the revised Grail uses the pronoun "he" for God, this Psalter does not. Making a translation of the Psalms, adjusted for corporate singing/etc, I can get (although I'm not personally a fan). But making a translation simply to avoid masculine reference to God? That is absurd. Sometimes I like the translation here better than the Revised Grail or the older Grail Psalms. I'm undecided on which I like better on average between the original Grail and the Revised Grail - but both rank better than this due to its frankly non-biblical treatment of God, as a concession to modern society. When I read the description, I misunderstood the goal of the "ecumenical" aspect. I was thinking that it would be more ordered to the Hebrew (rather than, say, the Septuagint or Vulgate - as going to the Hebrew is a typically Protestant commitment), and no (or less) bias to Rome in any interpretation needed during translation. Nope, by ecumenical, they meant gender-neutral language for God, to satisfy the liberal-minded pseudo-catholic mainstream protestants (think liberal anglo-catholics). I'm unfortunately still looking for the perfect chant Psalter. I don't think I'll go to this regularly because of the defects resulting from its intent. On the other hand, since the Grail / Revised Grail aren't always great on everything, I will keep it around for alternative phrasing/rhythm options. One final note: unlike the singing editions of the Revised Grail or original Grail, this text is not pointed for chanting. So you get the translation, but no pointing. Final verdict: 3.5 stars, a bit below the Grail/Revised Grail.

This was not an improvement over the original edition of the Revised Grail Psalms. While human-based gender inclusivity was pursued, there were odd choices made to bring it about and on the whole, the reading and chanting experience was not satisfactory. I will be returning. I’d rather use the 1992 inclusive language edition of the Grail than this.

In the introduction (page x) it does state this as one of the objectives: "avoiding masculine terminology when referring to God wherever possible." But how is "Lord" not masculine? And it's not as if it's really faithful to the Hebrew -- it's the conventional substitute for the original YHWH, since modern Jews consider that name of God too holy to use. The name it subs for does not mean "Lord" or anything like it. It's from Exodus 3, where God tells it to Moses, and it supposedly means something like "I am who am." OK, "the ground of all being" would be a little clunky in a psalm translation ... but "Lord" just doesn't cut it, not as far as gender neutrality goes. Can we keep looking for other alternatives? It's a shame, because surely God transcends gender, and yet our language daily reinforces God's masculine nature while blanking out the feminine aspect of the divine. If God were essentially masculine, then how would women be created in God's image and likeness ... and how would Christ's sacrifice save us, if He is not like us? The verse is brilliantly done, as far as rhythm and poetry, and it's easy to chant. That's why I give it 3 stars, because it's definitely good if the gender issue isn't important to you. But yeah, I'm disappointed. I'm just really baffled by the idea that the word "Lord" is gender-neutral.