16 July 2017
| Entrance | Unless a grain |
| Penitential Rite | At the table of the Lord (Collegeville) |
| Gloria | At the table of the Lord (Collegeville) |
| Psalm 64 | Some seed (mtgf) |
| Gospel Acclamation | (Murray) |
| Preparation of Gifts | Parable (M D Ridge) |
| Eucharistic Acclamations | Missal |
| Lamb of God | Nores (mtgf) |
| Communion Antiphon | Whoever eats my flesh (mtgf) |
| Communion | We have been told (David Haas) |
| Final | Love divine |
Perhaps because eI spent quite a bit of time in the previous week considering the translation of this psalm response, a new setting emerged. It was naughty in a couple of ways. I do a single leaflet for July and therefore there was different music for the response (how many noted this?). I also decided that the response would be a tone higher each time (the growing metaphor I presume). This was compromised by a different tone for the 3 line verse and not modulating - this meant it did not go too high.
The psalm response is not taken from the psalm, as is usually the case, but from Luke's Gospel. In this country we are used to the principle that the response is taken from the scripture (which is not a principle followed elsewhere). If the scripture version is changing how does this affect the response? One of the particular questions is why Luke? when the Gospel this Sunday is Matthew (it is the parallel text). Secondly the response is not a direct quotation but an adaptation because in Luke's account it does not just produce its crop but does s a hundredfold.
