Sunday Antiphons

[John Ainslie]

and here the editors of the 1972 edition of the Graduale Romanum have done a good job in finding texts from the many of the Lectionary Gospels of the day.

I'm not aware of a 1972 edition. The revised Graduale designed to work with the 1970 Ordo Lectionum Missaæ is the 1974 edition. The SCDW decree is dated 1972, but this refers to the 1972 Ordo Cantus Missæ, or list of chants, not to the Graduale itself, whose imprimatur is dated 24 December 1973 and which carries a copyright date of 1974, the year it was actually published.

My mistake. I meant the 1974 edition.

The important thing is that, whereas in some parts of the liturgy the texts are paramount, in others - including the processions - it is the significance of the ritual that is the most important, the texts (and the music to which they are set) being secondary to the ritual and intended to illustrate it. That accounts for the greater flexibility permitted for these occasions.

[Southern Comfort]

My mistake. I meant the 1974 edition.

I thought it might be a simple typo, but just thought I'd check in case you knew something that I didn't.

[presbyter]

Before I chip in at length - here's a (salutary - perhaps) reminder of where we are coming from - not in what has been imposed on our Bishops in translation - but in the universal law of the Church.

Introitus
47. Populo congregato, dum ingreditur sacerdos cum diacono et ministris, cantus ad introitum incipitur. Finis huius cantus est celebrationem aperire, unionem congregatorum fovere, eorumque mentem in mysterium temporis liturgici vel festivitatis introducere atque processionem sacerdotis ministrorumque comitari.
48. Peragitur autem a schola et populo alternatim, vel simili modo a cantore et populo, vel totus a populo vel a schola sola. Adhiberi potest sive antiphona cum suo psalmo in Graduali romano vel in Graduali simplici exstans, sive alius cantus, actioni sacræ, diei vel temporis indoli congruus,55 cuius textus a Conferentia Episcoporum sit approbatus.
Si ad introitum non habetur cantus, antiphona in Missali proposita recitatur sive a fidelibus, sive ab aliquibus ex ipsis, sive a lectore, sin aliter ab ipso sacerdote, qui potest etiam in modum monitionis initialis (cf. n. 31) eam aptare.

[presbyter]

...and at Cofton Park it was "Praise to the Holiest".

Well that was the processional song but the "Introit" (in which the Pope himself can be seen to be singing at the Gloria Patri) was the antiphon "Sacerdos et Pontifex" with two verses from Psalm 94.

[Lakelark]

Gratias tibi ago, presbyter.

But I remain confused. You speak of a processional song, and I cannot see that there is any difference between that and an entrance song. And "Praise to the Holiest" does not conform to the norms for that. I grant that it achieved with distinction the purpose of uniting the assembly, and I think there is a great deal to be learned from that. But "Sacerdos et Pontifex" derives from the apparently defunct Rite for the Reception of a Bishop - prior to his procession into the assembly. Or perhaps it was used as a tribute to Bl John Henry, though he was not pontifex.

Part of what I am saying is that there are norms which seem to be observed more in the breach, and I would value any attempt made to unravel the knots.

[johnquinn39]

Before I chip in at length - here's a (salutary - perhaps) reminder of where we are coming from - not in what has been imposed on our Bishops in translation - but in the universal law of the Church.

Introitus
47. Populo congregato, dum ingreditur sacerdos cum diacono et ministris, cantus ad introitum incipitur. Finis huius cantus est celebrationem aperire, unionem congregatorum fovere, eorumque mentem in mysterium temporis liturgici vel festivitatis introducere atque processionem sacerdotis ministrorumque comitari.
48. Peragitur autem a schola et populo alternatim, vel simili modo a cantore et populo, vel totus a populo vel a schola sola. Adhiberi potest sive antiphona cum suo psalmo in Graduali romano vel in Graduali simplici exstans, sive alius cantus, actioni sacræ, diei vel temporis indoli congruus,55 cuius textus a Conferentia Episcoporum sit approbatus.
Si ad introitum non habetur cantus, antiphona in Missali proposita recitatur sive a fidelibus, sive ab aliquibus ex ipsis, sive a lectore, sin aliter ab ipso sacerdote, qui potest etiam in modum monitionis initialis (cf. n. 31) eam aptare.

For non-Latinists, here's the google translation of the above:




Introit
47. The people assembled together, while he shall come into a priest, for the deacon and ministers, sang, to the entrance of began. The end of a tune is the celebration of the of this to open, to foster the union of the Congregation of, and their mind for the mystery of the liturgical time of the feast or to bring in, and accompany the procession of the ministers of the priest.
48. Is carried out by the school of alternately and to the people, and / or in a similar manner and to the people from the precentor, and / or are entirely dependent on the people and / or by a school alone. It may be used with his or her or the antiphon, the psalms in the Roman Gradual Gradual and / or in a simple exstans, or some one else the song, before the action of sacred, appropriate to the character of the time of the day or a fitting, 55 of which text by the Conference of Bishops it was approved.
If there is not used to the entrance of the songs, the antiphon in the Missal is recorded in the proposed or by the faithful, or by some of them, whether from man or a reader, if they do otherwise from him the priest, who can also be of warning in the manner of the initial (cf. above, 31) to fit it.

[Southern Comfort]

presbyter's extract is similar to what is in Australian GIRM, cited above.

BTW, it may be the universal law of the Church, but that is trumped by the particular law for each territory, once again as cited above. Even if it weren't, note that the universal law does not mention singing the Missal antiphons as an option. The only version which does that seems to be the USA one.

[presbyter]

BTW, it may be the universal law of the Church, but that is trumped by the particular law for each territory, once again as cited above.

So let's remind ourselves of the particular law:

GIRM

48.The singing at this time is done either alternately by the choir and the people
or in a similar way by the cantor and the people, or entirely by the people, or
by the choir alone. In the dioceses of England and Wales the options for the
Entrance Chant are: (1) the antiphon and psalm from the Graduale Romanum or
the Graduale Simplex; or (2) a song from another collection of psalms and
antiphons, the text of which has been approved by the Bishops’ Conference of
England and Wales.

CTM

140 The assembly’s worship begins with the opening song and
procession, which help to create a sense of identity, a willingness
to celebrate, and an awareness of the mystery being unfolded.
•The opening song should be such that everyone is able in
some degree to join in singing it. The purpose of singing at
this time is to open the celebration, foster the unity of those
who have assembled, introduce their thoughts to the
mystery of the liturgical season or festivity, and accompany
the procession of the priest and ministers. When there is no
singing, the antiphon may appropriately be used by
incorporating it into the introductory remarks that may
follow the greeting. The Roman Rite provides an antiphon
to be sung at this point, although it may be replaced by a
psalm or suitable liturgical song. The text and the music
should be suited to the mystery being celebrated, the part
of the Mass, the liturgical season or the day.

Even if it weren't, note that the universal law does not mention singing the Missal antiphons as an option. The only version which does that seems to be the USA one.

Therein is the reason I posted the Latin. Although I think CTM is unfortunately ambiguous: The Roman Rite provides an antiphon to be sung at this point.

Gratias tibi ago, presbyter.

But I remain confused. You speak of a processional song, and I cannot see that there is any difference between that and an entrance song.

Well perhaps I should have written "entrance procession song".

And "Praise to the Holiest" does not conform to the norms for that.

Why? Wasn't it a suitable liturgical song (see CTM above)?

[Lakelark]

I was being guided by GIRM para 48, which refers to another collection of psalms and antiphons approved by the Bishops. "Praise to the Holiest" is magnificent, entirely suited to the occasion, etc., etc., but it is not a psalm or an antiphon, nor does it derive from such. A psalm or antiphon is of a different genre altogether. This is not a criticism of the use of the hymn, but of the, to my mind, excessively legalistic restrictions, many of which have been quoted on this forum. They are, to a great extent, ignored, in some cases to the improvement of the liturgy, and in others to its detriment. "Praise to the Holiest" at Cofton Park proves, to me at least, that there is a wealth of material within the tradition of the Church, but which falls outside the strictures of the "law".

On a slightly different note, I bet Bl John Henry was somewhat surprised at having one of his hymns replace the authorised text! ! ! (I would put one of those funny faces here, if I knew how to.)

[presbyter]

I was being guided by GIRM para 48, which refers to another collection of psalms and antiphons approved by the Bishops.

I think I'd better state that the "Introit" at Cofton Park (Sacerdos et Pontifex .....) had episcopal approval from the Bishop who has absolute jurisdiction and authority in the Church (even though you won't find that particular antiphon associated with that particular psalm in any book of chant). The Office for Papal Celebrations scrutinised every word of the liturgy - as they did with all the papal liturgies. (If you must know - the Director of Music derived the "Introit" from a Vespers antiphon and the Vulgate Psalter)

(I'd also like to state to an anonymous person on another blog somewhere, who is moaning that the planners for the liturgy at Cofton Park looked askance at what he thinks is the Tradition of the Church and that he is in a state of profound despondency because Pope Benedict was somehow "not allowed" to celebrate Mass in the manner he himself desires - you, sir, are suffering from an entrenched and deep-rooted infection known as sadgitism. [if I find the link again, I'll post it] Mgr Marini approved every sung and spoken text of the Mass without raising any questions at all. Pope Benedict celebrated in exactly the way he desired.)

The Introit of the day (Graduale Hebdomada Vigesima Quinta - Anitphon: Salus populi ego sum, dicit Dominus.....) was one of the chants considered for Cofton Park and rejected not on textual grounds but on its musical complexity and the practicality of singing it well with a choir of 2000 plus in two groups of 1000 plus, 100 yards apart. So another (more simple) antiphon - approved by the Bishop was used - GIRM 48.

[johnquinn39]

" ... the Director of Music derived the "Introit" from a Vespers antiphon and the Vulgate Psalter"

- Why did he bother? - Would it have been better to form the introit from the original into a language that people understand and can pray?

(Too many mistakes in the Vulgage)

[docmattc]

Let's keep this discussion to antiphons generally. There are other threads dealing with Cofton Park specifically

[presbyter]

Let's keep this discussion to antiphons generally.

OK - well how about looking at just the Introits from the 8 Masses of OT in the Simple Gradual as treated here:

http://www.musicasacra.com/pdf/simplegradual_weber_iv.pdf

Fr Weber has not adapted the music of the Latin Simple Gradual to English texts. I think he's composed new chants.

Would this approach to GIRM 48 (option 1) lead your parish community to pray in song?

[johnquinn39]

Would this approach to GIRM 48 (option 1) lead your parish community to pray in song?

- I just don't know! In my experience, people in the pew are very reluctant to sing anything that
is unfamiliar in terms of music, text, unfamiliar marriages of text/music or music/text, or
unfamiliar forms.

It may be seen as being controversial to use anything other than a reagular hymn at this spot.

Perhaps if used over a period of time (30 -50 years+), the task of making music in this form would
lead the texts to become prayer. Or, would there be an overload (of scripture)?

At the risk of being flippant, my view is that scripture texts are more digestable in 'diluted' form - a
metrical psalm paraphrase, for example.

Has anyone on the forum (or do people know of anywhere) where this approach is successful?

[John Ainslie]

There are a number of issues here.

1) As I pointed out a little earlier, it is the significance of the ritual that is the important feature of the three processions (Entrance, Offertory, Communion). The words and the music with which they are expressed are secondary. Now that GIRM gives us specific guidance on the purpose of two of them, that should be the guiding principle on what and how we should sing at them. (There is also the Gospel Procession, which is accompanied by 'the Acclamation before the Gospel': GIRM says 'an acclamation of this kind constitutes a rite or act in itself' and oddly doesn't mention a procession at all.)

2) There are distinctions between refrains/responses (as at the Responsorial Psalm) and antiphons, as Southern Comfort has already explained:
— Responses are normally short and are intended - as their name suggests - to be not self-sufficient but an integral part of the verse to which they respond. Take a look at the Responsorial Psalms in Fr Weber's book (referred to above), which shows how the Simple Gradual proposed them. Many of the responses for the Responsorial Psalms in the Lectionary are far too long - and indeed one may wonder whether their compilers understood their function correctly. Whatever the case, it is the psalm that is in prime position, not the response - which is why it is legitimate to proclaim the Responsorial Psalm without any response at all.
— Antiphons are (or should be) long enough to constitute a self-sufficient item on their own. This makes it possible to develop a stand-alone melodic line. The Taizé chants are excellent examples of this: long enough to bear a melody, short enough to be easily memorable. Many of the antiphons in the Simple Gradual are too short. Psalm verses may be used as interludes between repetitions of the antiphon, but are essentially secondary to it. This is the ideal format for Communion processionals.

3) While it is undoubtedly the tradition of the Church to use antiphons mainly drawn from the psalms for the processions, it is arguable that, to meet the requirements of the Entrance Song that it should 'introduce their thoughts to the mystery of the liturgical season or festivity', a broader perspective to text selection is pastorally desirable. Some hymn texts certainly fulfil this requirement better than some appointed psalm texts: did you know that the Missal and Graduale texts for the Sundays in Ordinary Time are mainly in numerical order of psalms? Where's the liturgical significance in such arbitrary assignment? In fact the Missal/Graduale has admitted occasional exceptions to scriptural origin, as in the Introits 'Salve sancta parens' for Masses of our Lady (from Sedulius, 5th century poet) and 'Gaudeamus omnes in Domino' (of generic format and anonymous origin). If Sedulius is OK, why not Newman?

4) The best of the chorale tradition (in both text and music) can justifiably claim to be a development and heritage of great value for the vocal participation of the assembly. The question then arises as to whether the use of such hymns fulfils the requirements of the liturgy, as set out in GIRM, and the pastoral needs and aspirations of some assemblies, better than the more traditional antiphon/psalm format. IMHO, there is no categorical answer to that. Efforts I have seen to render existing Entrance Antiphons in metrical form have not inspired me. There is room for imagination and growth here, for which we need both authors and composers trained in and familiar with the Church's liturgical tradition who can develop new texts and music as organic growth for it.