Why aren't the Missal & Gradual texts identical?

[AntoineDaniel]

"Why aren't the Propers from the Roman Gradual identical to the Mass Propers printed in the Roman Missal?"

This topic is discussed (extricated?) in a recently published article that may interest some readers on the St. Gregory Society forum:

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2012/01/antiphons-in-roman-missal-vs-roman.html

[Southern Comfort]

Unfortunately this article only adds to the confusion, rather than dissipating it.

It says, for example,

The General Instruction on the Roman Missal (GIRM) has always stated that the antiphon from the Roman Gradual is the first option when it comes to singing the Entrance and Communion chants.

This is untrue (see below). The mind of the Fathers of the 1967 Synod, to give just one example, was that the introit, offertory and communion chants should always be allowed to be replaced by other songs if local episcopal conferences so decided and using texts approved by them (cf. Bugnini, etc). I have already on this forum quoted Pierre Jounel regarding the purpose of the entrance and communion antiphons in the Roman Missal, which is that they were not intended for singing as they stand.

The article cites Christoph Tietze's article in Sacred Music which, however, itself contains a major misunderstanding on which a whole mistaken edifice is constructed.

Tietze says:

An early version of [GIRM] article 48, dealing with the entrance chants, and the same applies to article 87 for the communions, declared that “in the dioceses of the United States of America, there are four options for the cantus ad introitum:
(1) the antiphon and psalm from the Roman Missal, as set to music by the Roman Gradual or in another musical setting . . .”9
This statement shows that the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy assumed that the MR and GR antiphons were identical. Moreover, it assumed that the MR contains proper psalms to accompany the antiphons, which it does not.

This is a false and baseless accusation. The BCL knew exactly what it was doing and did not assume anything of the kind. They clearly understood that what GIRM actually means is this:
the antiphon and psalm from the Roman Missal, either as set to music by the Roman Gradual where such a setting exists or in another musical setting where such settings exist.

In other words, it catered for the cases where GR does not agree with MR, and does not express a preference for one or other of the alternatives specified. It's simply an either—or, not a firstly—and—secondly.

It is also to be noted that GIRM nowhere says anything about which language is to be used for these chants, and its provisions therefore allow for vernacular settings as an alternative to the Latin texts of both the Missale and Graduale.

[musicus]

Thank you, SC. For what it is worth, that is my understanding too - though it is good to have the 'chapter and verse'.

[festivaltrumpet]

SC's bases his discussion on the assumption that the mind of the Fathers is synonymous with the text of the document. This may or may not be the case.

GIRM does have the antiphon from the graduale as the first option. Whether or not the first item in a list is to be considered preferred whether the options listed are exhaustive is a completely different debate.

[AntoineDaniel]

I can only suggest that the documentation is given in copious amounts in the article, Southern Comfort. Because I am not sure how you are arriving at your interpretations, my response will probably sound like "talking over" someone instead of listening to them, which OFTEN happens on the internet. It sounds like you are suggesting that the article is saying the Introit cannot be replaced by a hymn, which is NOT what the article says at all.

The fact is, the international GIRM is clear (and the author CITES the document, and links it as a PDF). The international GIRM has never changed. The Adaptations for each country are another thing.

Regarding the BCL misunderstanding, it is a terrible mistake and makes absolutely no sense. For more elucidation on this point, read the PDF by Paul Monachino, linked to in the article.

This is all documented by numerous PDF's, etc. linked to in the article.

But of course, I'm biased (as you can see by my signature, below!).

[Southern Comfort]

Jeffrey,

The international variants now no longer make any material difference. We now all have basically the same GIRM, which reads (generic text, para 48):

It is possible to use the antiphon with its Psalm from the Graduale Romanum or the Graduale Simplex, or another chant that is suited to the sacred action, the day, or the time of year, and whose text has been approved by the Conference of Bishops.

and generic text, para 87:

For singing at Communion, it is possible to use the antiphon from the Graduale Romanum, with or without the Psalm, or the antiphon and Psalm from the Graduale Simplex, or some other suitable liturgical chant approved by the Conference of Bishops.

The international variants begin as follows:

In the dioceses of ..... the Entrance Chant may be chosen from among the following:
continue with underlined text

the Conference of Bishops of ......

and

In the dioceses of ...... singing at Communion may be chosen from among the following:
continue with underlined text

the Conference of Bishops of ......

In all these cases, as indeed it was before, what is clearly set out here is a choice, not an order of preference. Even the current printed version in the USA, which does not yet have the revised wording, offers a choice of four options. The generic wording "It is possible", like "may be chosen from among", is a million miles away from from suggesting, let alone imposing, a primary option or sequence of options.

I was not commenting on the underlying thrust of your article, nor that of Christoph Tietze, merely stating that in my opinion they will only add to the confusion, not help to alleviate it.

But your statement

The General Instruction on the Roman Missal (GIRM) has always stated that the antiphon from the Roman Gradual is the first option when it comes to singing the Entrance and Communion chants.

is something that I am disagreeing with. As demonstrated above, it is not the first option, merely an option. Mr Monachino's letter is also founded on the same misinterpretation. Little wonder that Bishop Serratelli fudged his response.... He was trying to respond to something which was in fact the wrong question.

[NorthernTenor]

Unfortunately this article only adds to the confusion, rather than dissipating it.

It says, for example,

The General Instruction on the Roman Missal (GIRM) has always stated that the antiphon from the Roman Gradual is the first option when it comes to singing the Entrance and Communion chants.

This is untrue (see below). The mind of the Fathers of the 1967 Synod, to give just one example, was that the introit, offertory and communion chants should always be allowed to be replaced by other songs if local episcopal conferences so decided and using texts approved by them (cf. Bugnini, etc). I have already on this forum quoted Pierre Jounel regarding the purpose of the entrance and communion antiphons in the Roman Missal, which is that they were not intended for singing as they stand.

This last comment adds to the confusion. The fact that HWMNBN has quoted someone else this on forum is not sufficient argument in itself, tho' it does suggest the high esteem in which he holds those two authorities. That apart, it's beside the point, which is a quote about singing the proper from the Graduale Romanum, not its equivalent from the Missal.

As for "the mind of the Fathers" - HWMNBN will have to do better than that if he is to be taken seriously. It fails to indicate any of the considerable complexity and range of the issue. Whatever position one takes on it (and I happen to think HWMNBN's positions tend to the eccentric) the shallowness of his argument is embarrassing.


* but is happy, under the pseudonym of Southern Comfort, to drop heavy hints about his identity and importance.

[AntoineDaniel]

is something that I am disagreeing with. As demonstrated above, it is not the first option, merely an option

Southern Comfort, I am not sure what you are saying. It IS the first option. That is, it is the first one LISTED.

Are you saying that my article was claiming that the option listed FIRST (a.k.a. the first option) is more important than the rest?

I don't think I made this claim. Others have made this claim. I don't think I have.

The reason I did not even BRING UP that controversy is because it is beyond the scope of the article.