On Entrance Antiphons - Reforming the Reform

[gwyn]

This article by a chap named Jeffrey Tucker has been e-mailed to me by our p.p.
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/20 ... ormed.html
It's food for thought.

[Southern Comfort]

The problem is, he's quoting Elaine Rendler who erroneously suggests that we should be singing the entrance antiphon itself. Actually, we shouldn't. We have discussed this quite recently, I think, so no need to go over the same old ground again.

She also suggests that we don't have to sing all the verses of an entrance hymn, and that it need not continue when everyone is ready to make the first Sign of the Cross. While this may sometimes be true, on other occasions it will indeed be necessary to continue, especially where the verse of the hymn that actually relates to the scriptures of the day is several verses in. And there's no trace in what is quoted of any recognition of the four purposes of the opening song at Mass, as stated in GIRM (para 47). If any of these purposes has not been achieved by the time everyone (or the priest) is ready to move one, the hymn will need to be continued.

[festivaltrumpet]

And there's no trace in what is quoted of any recognition of the four purposes of the opening song at Mass, as stated in GIRM (para 47).

The point which Southern Comfort makes is valid, however there is a logical inconsistency in his/her own argument. There is no trace of any recognition of the options for the opening song, as stated in GIRM (para 48). One cannot pick and choose.

Irrespective of what those reforming the liturgy may have intended, current force of law clearly states that the antiphon is, at the most minimalist interpretation, an option to be considered for this point in the liturgy.

[nazard]

I have just looked at the GIRM again. I can't cut and paste the relevant paragraphs here, because the document is in pdf format, but you can read it for yourselves here http://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/GIRM/Documents/GIRM.pdf. It is a fascinating document, and worth reading carefully from end to end. As our good Mr Trumpet points out, there is no option to sing a hymn, and as there appears to be no collection of psalms and antiphons approved by the Bishops, singing the introit is compulsory if you are to sing anything.

This rulr appears to be flouted almost universally. Certainly, in my own case our pp has forbidden the parish musicians from obeying. This, of course, does not in any way detract from the rule. I would urge everyone to try to obey it. The unity of the church is damaged by disobedience. If you have the opportunity to go to mass at one of the very few places where the rule is obeyed, you will find that it gets mass away to a far more prayerful start than any hymn.

[Southern Comfort]

It seems clear that what is in our GIRM in para 48 is in fact a mistake. This is certainly the view of the Liturgy Office. Compare the text with that imposed on other countries by Rome.

Latin Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (2002 revision):

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, cuius textus a Conferentia Episcoporum sit approbatus.

United States (2003):

In the dioceses of the United States of America there are four options for the Entrance Chant: (1) the antiphon from the Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting; (2) the seasonal antiphon and Psalm of the Simple Gradual; (3) a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) a suitable liturgical song similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.

England and Wales (2005):

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.

Australia (2007):

The antiphon and Psalm from the Graduale Romanum or the Graduale Simplex may be used, or another song that is suited to the sacred action, the day, or the season and that has a text approved by the Conference of Bishops.

From this it is clear that the Australian version is in fact a translation of the Latin. We also need to know that the US Bishops petitioned, and received, an adaptation for their own country. Our Bishops, however, simply accepted what they were given, even though it is clearly an editorial error, safe in the knowledge that, as nazard implies, no one would take any notice anyway. Quite obviously this paragraph was worked on by someone who had just returned from a Roman lunch, and that person took the US version as a basis and simply chopped off half of it without thinking.

It's also worth noting a further inconsistency, present in both US and E&W editions, which is this:

a song [my emphasis] from another collection of psalms and antiphons

Either it's a song, or a psalm + antiphon. Make up your minds.

This ambiguity probably arises from translating the Latin cantus as "song". It can also mean "chant". Frequently, it is used in a more generic way to mean "sung item", and this may well the case here. But because they've used the word "song", there is a reasonable doubt as to whether a song (i.e. hymn) or psalm with antiphon is what is intended here.

In other words, the law is not being flouted, as nazard suggests. The law, or the editing of it, is simply ambiguous and incorrect. Until it is cleared up, it would be foolish to say that our previous practice, dating back almost 40 years (and therefore, having achieved the status of custom in Canon Law, need not be changed), should be discarded.

[johnquinn39]

This article by a chap named Jeffrey Tucker has been e-mailed to me by our p.p.
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/20 ... ormed.html
It's food for thought.

I was rather puzzled by many things in this article. For example, the author states (of the entrance song) that '... the purpose in not to .... unite them [the congregation] in song'.

This seems rather at odds with the Bishops of England and Wales who have stated that 'The purpose of singing at this time it to ... foster the unity of those ... assembled.'

[johnquinn39]

Also, in the GIRM it is stated that 'The purpose of this chant is to ... foster the unity of those ... assembled'.

[keitha]

For what it is worth, my understanding of the position is that the current GIRM 2 English translation is the only translation that can be published as the 'official' English translation approved by the Church, but that the original text is the latin text quoted by Southern Comfort. I agree with Southern Comfort that the Australian translation is accurate whereas the English one is not. In addition, 'cantus' is usually translated as 'song', rather than anything else.

Given the status of the latin text, which is what, in theory, we are bound to follow, and my above comment, the use of a song that is appropriate to the action of the particular mass or the season with an approved text must be an option that is available to us. It is hard to see how a translation (no matter how 'official') can force a departure from the original latin instruction!

[musicus]

I have just looked at the GIRM again. ...It is a fascinating document, and worth reading carefully from end to end.

GIRM has long been the preferred bedtime reading of SSG members.

This rule appears to be flouted almost universally. Certainly, in my own case our pp has forbidden the parish musicians from obeying.

Possibly because he knows his Latin and recognises, like Southern Comfort and keitha, that our English translation is incorrect and, therefore, this 'rule' is nothing of the kind.

[nazard]

Thank you all for trying to enlighten my darkness, which is deeper than you think.

I thought that the GIRM in english published by the bishops of England and Wales (Ble mae'r fersion cymraeg?) was our bishops' adapted version specially for us and was issued as a different document from Rome's original with the recognitio of the CDW. I assumed it was in english because, as it was for England and Wales, no-one could be bothered to prepare it in Latin and then translate it. I further assumed that it overruled the central version in England and Wales. Am I completely wrong?

On another tack, if the error theory is correct, does anyone know if an erratum is being prepared. The GIRM has been out a while now.

[Southern Comfort]

I thought that the GIRM in english published by the bishops of England and Wales (Ble mae'r fersion cymraeg?) was our bishops' adapted version specially for us and was issued as a different document from Rome's original with the recognitio of the CDW. I assumed it was in english because, as it was for England and Wales, no-one could be bothered to prepare it in Latin and then translate it. I further assumed that it overruled the central version in England and Wales. Am I completely wrong?

This is what happened. Each episcopal conference submitted new GIRM to Rome for recognitio along with a list of changes they wanted to see in it - mostly to take account of local situations. In the case of the USA, nearly all their requests were granted, and there was dialogue with the CDW during the process - their then-liturgy secretary was a consultor to the Congregation. In the case of England and Wales, there was a deafening silence from the Congregation, and then suddenly one day, out of the blue, after a long wait (three years after the US version), the document arrived back from Rome with a covering letter to the Conference saying in effect, "This is your version. Like it or lump it." It was in English, by the way, and many of the changes requested by our Bishops had been ignored. That's the story for most conferences: their versions of GIRM were imposed on them by Rome, who retains the right to do just that. As you'll have seen, Australia had to wait five years for theirs to reappear from the bowels of the Vatican. The only upside to that was that they enjoyed a longer period of continuing to use the previous version of GIRM (1975).

On another tack, if the error theory is correct, does anyone know if an erratum is being prepared. The GIRM has been out a while now.

Rome never admits that it's wrong: it just makes changes. In the present case, an erratum sheet is most unlikely.

In 2000, when the original new GIRM appeared, the Congregation (which had rushed it out) had egg on its face. Not only did the Latin not correspond to the draft English version which the US put up on its liturgy website almost immediately, but there were errors in both English and Latin. A revised version came out, from which it became clear that changes had been made to the Latin once the Congregation had realised from reading the English [sic!] that mistakes had been made. (Latin is not the strong point of many of those working in the Curia these days....) Working papers showing this were seen, and the news was leaked. It took several more revisions before the final Latin version (2002) became available, and even then the so-called final version was reissued in a revision two months later..... It's worth remembering that John Paul II actually signed off on the new GIRM in Holy Week 2000, even though it was not published until July of the same year and had already been altered by that stage. That's the way the CDW operates - it appears to have no problem changing texts umpteen times even after they've been approved by the Pope. And it certainly never draws attention to the changes or says that it's sorry for any inconvenience.

All this is why we need to use our common sense in interpreting what church documents actually say. It's also a good reason why our Conference decided to issue Celebrating the Mass at the same time as GIRM: to help people understand what GIRM really meant in practice.

[Southern Comfort]

It's worth remembering that John Paul II actually signed off on the new GIRM in Holy Week 2000, even though it was not published until July of the same year and had already been altered by that stage.

My apologies: this was not totally correct. The date of the Pope's 'signature' on the document is Maundy Thursday 2000, but he actually signed off on it in January 2000. Go figure, as our American friends say.