Originally, in the early centuries of the Church, there were separate books for each participant in the Mass – the celebrant, the lector, and the choir. These had a much richer variety of scriptural texts than would come later, in part because of various practices and rites across the Christian world. However, as the practice of Low Mass said by the priest alone increased along with a drive toward standardization of practices, these books were combined into one volume for the sake of convenience. This began well before the year 1000 and was essentially complete by the 12th century, ultimately to be enshrined in the 16th century Tridentine reforms to become the Roman Missal that was used until the 1960s. After the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) directed a revision of the Mass, which included a vast increase in readings and options (as well as, ultimately, permission for the vernacular language to be employed), the former practice of separate volumes was of necessity restored: 1) The Sacramentary, for the celebrant, containing the prayers for Mass and other sacramentary formulae; 2) The Lectionary and the Book of Gospels, containing the readings and responsorial psalms; and 3) The Gradual, containing the music for the Propers of the Mass, primarily the Entrance Antiphon, the Gradual (not a responsorial psalm, and not to be confused with the name of the volume itself), the Alleluia, the Offertory Antiphon, and the Communion Antiphon – what are called the “Propers” of the Mass. Although the preceding is a simplified view of the situation, which actually entails many variations, the books described in general collectively make up the post-Vatican II Roman Missal. With the 2011 revision to the English translation of the Mass, the revised Sacramentary was retitled “Roman Missal,” which terminology does unfortunately introduce a new degree of ambiguity – but which term I will use henceforward to refer to that volume used specifically on the altar by the priest saying Mass.
But the Roman Missal does contain Entrance and Communion Antiphons – as do the pew missallettes – which are often different from those in the Gradual. Why is that?
The first point to be made is that the Gradual, even in its post-Vatican II form, contains texts and chants that have been part of the Church’s heritage for most of her history. Those texts were part of the one-volume Roman Missal before Vatican II. But as part of the post-conciliar division of the volumes, the question arose as to whether to continue to provide texts for the Entrance and Communion Antiphons in the altar Missal for Masses without music. (Why not Offertory Antiphons as well? I do not know, only that it seems not to have been considered an issue.) The overwhelming consensus of liturgical experts overseeing the revision of the Mass and its texts was to include Entrance and Communion Antiphons in the altar Missal, but in a revised form more “suitable” for recitation. [NOTE 1] The result was a general simplification of the texts, with a consequent loss of both variety and depth – ostensibly “for ease of recitation.” Pope Blessed Paul VI made reference to this in his 1969 statement included in the Apostolic Constitution promulgating the new Roman Missal: “Moreover, although the text of the Graduale Romanum, at least as regards the music, has been left unchanged … the Entrance and Communion Antiphons for use where appropriate in Masses without singing, have been restored.” Thus came into being the sometimes radically different texts for those antiphons, to be used in distinctly different contexts – Masses with or without music.
It was a situation begging for confusion, which did of course ensue. Despite the Gradual itself containing the standard texts for Mass, with the revised texts included in the altar Missal being new, the general neglect of chant – the musical form to which the Gradual texts were set – in the years after Vatican II (in clear contravention to the express directives of the Council itself) led to the Gradual itself going virtually unused, with the proper texts being largely replaced by songs of varying quality and appropriateness, even though the Roman Gradual is the official “song-book of the Mass.” With the Missal being “the priest’s book,” and thus quickly being taken to be the standard text, a choir daring to sing the appropriate Gradual antiphons for the day might well be suspected of singing the wrong text. Then, the US Bishops’ Committee seem to have conflated the Missal antiphons with the Gradual antiphons in their translation of the General Instruction on the Roman Missal, referring to them in parallel as virtual appositives, as if they were indeed the same texts with the only difference being the Gradual’s inclusion of psalm verses along with the antiphons: e.g, with regard to the Entrance Antiphon, “This chant is sung…. [T]here are four options….: (1) the antiphon from the Missal or the antiphon with its Psalm from the Graduale Romanum…. If there is no singing at the Entrance, the antiphon given in the Missal is recited….” – which is a perhaps innocent but definitely confused expansion of what the standard “universal” Latin text directs at this point (here more literally translated): “The chant is sung …. One could use … the antiphon with its psalm as found in the Roman Gradual …. If there is no singing at the Introit, the antiphon proposed in the Roman Missal is proclaimed….” That resulting misimpression in the US edition that the antiphon texts of the Missal are meant to be sung has been compounded by the bishops’ permission subsequently being granted to set those texts to music – and the continued neglect of the actual, historical, texts that are truly meant to be sung, those in the Gradual.
Moreover, because the Offertory Antiphons were not included in any form in the altar Missal, the desuetude of the Gradual meant that their very existence quickly passed out of the collective consciousness of the Church. Nonetheless, the answer to the question posed above, “Is there such a thing [as the Offertory Antiphon] in the Novus Ordo?,” is YES. THERE IS.
Such a confused mess – and subsequent misguided permissions – notwithstanding, the intent of the Church is actually clear: When the Entrance and Communion antiphons are to be recited, they should come from those in the Missal and printed in the pew missallettes [NOTE 2]; When the antiphons are to be chanted, they should come from the Gradual, and should ideally include the Offertory.
One of the specific missions of a Minor Basilica according to Pope St. John Paul II’s document governing Minor Basilicas, Domus Ecclesiae, is to be a center for liturgical excellence. For that reason, the aforementioned intent of the universal Church should be followed – recited Entrance and Communion antiphons from the Missal/missallettes, chanted antiphons from the Gradual. Moreover, when practical, and at least on feast days, it would seem warranted to give preference to the chanted Offertory antiphons from the Gradual.
SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO THE CHANT CHOIR AT MBIC 6:30AM FEAST DAY MASSES:
- The current practice has hitherto been to chant the missallette Entrance and Communion antiphons set to simple psalm tones. This has the advantage, since we have been using the same psalm tones a couple of times a month on an ongoing basis, of the congregation having been able to pick them up and begin singing along with the cantors since they have the text in the missallette. If we implement the aforementioned Gradual antiphons, even with properly psalm-toned versions, the congregation will no longer have the text or know the tune. We could distribute music sheets at these Masses containing these chants. But it must also be noted that, strictly speaking, as stated in the introduction of Simple English Propers: “The people are free to join in but this is not necessary, for the propers of the Mass belong primarily to the choir” (p. vi).
- As far as I know, not all of the Gradual texts have been rendered into English chant forms and published. Both the most readily available collections, Simple English Propers and the Lalemant Propers, comprise pretty much just Sundays and Solemnities. I am, however, adept enough with the chant-generating app Gregorio to create a simple psalm-toned version of the English translation for those that are not so available.
- The Gradual Entrance Antiphon, whether in Latin or English, containing both Psalm verses and the Glory Be in addition to the Antiphon itself (with the antiphon to be repeated after the Glory Be), is obviously considerably longer than the antiphon by itself. The same is actually true of the Offertory and the Communion. The best solution in each case, but especially the Entrance, is that if time does not permit the entire Antiphon plus Psalm and Glory Be plus repeated Antiphon to be chanted, simply to chant the Antiphon once.
- Personal comment: What an incredibly stupid thing to do! But it was very much characteristic of the revision of the Mass as a whole. And I consider the stated rationale to have been bogus from the beginning. Exactly how, pray tell, is the Roman Missal Entrance Antiphon for, e.g., the 22 February Feast of the Chair of St. Peter – “The Lord says to Simon Peter: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail, and, once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers” – “easier to recite” (whether in English or in Latin -- "Dicit Dominus Simoni Petro: Ego rogavi pro te, ut non deficiat fides tua, et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuos") than the Roman Gradual’s “The Lord made to him a covenant of peace, and made him a prince: that the dignity of priesthood should be to him forever” ("Statuit ei Dominus testamentum pacis, et principem fecit eum: ut sit illi sacerdotii dignitas in aeternum")? Nevertheless, that is the stated reason, which has never been rescinded by the universal Church.
- The seemingly random way that the missallette publishers choose what antiphon texts to use for weekday Masses is a separate issue. Properly, in Ordinary Time at least, the antiphons through the week should (except for feasts) be those of the preceding Sunday; instead, for instance, Pray Together from the Sunday Missal Service has for Monday, 20 February 2017, “Weekday,” the antiphons from the 23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time rather than the proper 7th Sunday in Ordinary time – with a helpful little asterisk referring to a note eighty pages earlier that “An * indicates that there are other possible options.” – ! – This arrogance on the part of the missallette publishers is another reason I think that the very concept of “missallettes,” effectively “the disposable Word,” should be banished from existence. (Along the same lines, the comment at the very beginning of the list of antiphons for Sundays, "The following antiphons are intended for singing. They may be omitted if not sung," is absolutely incorrect. Those antiphons are from the Roman Missal, not the Roman Gradual, and are therefore intended for Masses without singing, as is clear from Paul VI's 1969 statement quoted above.
-------
For more on this liturgical -- and cultural -- tragedy, see Jeffrey Tucker, "The Real Catholic Songbook," CatholiCity (16 April 2008) [LINK, accessed 30 May 2018).
No comments:
Post a Comment