The communion antiphons in the Roman Missal are intended to be spoken, not sung. See for example Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (April 3, 1969):

Even though the text of the Roman Gradual, at least that which concerns the singing, has not been changed, still, for a better understanding, the responsorial psalm, which St. Augustine and St. Leo the Great often mention, has been restored, and the Introit and Communion antiphons have been adapted for read Masses.

Also, Bugnini in his The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975 explains that for sung masses, the Graduale Romanum is to be used, and that for read masses the antiphons from the Roman Missal are to be read.

The adaptation for read masses is quite extensive. For example, on Sundays in Ordinary Time, only 18 communion antiphons from the Roman Missal match the text from the Graduale Romanum.

See also Jeff Ostrowski's article at ccwatershed.org.

Thank you all, the point about reading vs. singing is a good point.

the most recent edition of the GIRM specifically allows them to be sung as Option 1.

But keep in mind that this is a USA adaptation of the GIRM. For the rest of the world, the Missal antiphons are meant to be spoken.

Latin from the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani:

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 sacrae, diei vel temporis indoli congruus, 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.

87. Pro cantu ad communionem adhiberi potest aut antiphona ex Graduali Romano sive cum psalmo sive sola, aut antiphona cum psalmo e Graduali simplici, aut alius cantus congruus a Conferentia Episcoporum approbatus. Cantatur sive a schola sola, sive a schola vel cantore cum populo.

Si autem non habetur cantus, antiphona in Missali proposita recitari potest sive a fidelibus, sive ab aliquibus ex ipsis, sive a lectore, sin aliter ab ipso sacerdote postquam ipse communicavit, antequam Communionem distribuat fidelibus.

I don't understand why because it is in the missal Psalm 42 is suddenly not 'meant to be sung'

The "not meant to be sung" is just a historical point, not a statement on its appropriateness.

Also, on a lot of Sundays (especially "in Season" - Advent, Christmas, Lent, Easter), the GR and the RM antiphons line up.

... oh, and they are "cleared" for use by the relevant ecclesiastical authorities in England & Wales and the USA.

PeterJ, we used one of your antiphons a while back! Thanks for writing them. :-)

As Jeff Ostrowski points out in the article I linked above: "...it’s not forbidden to sing the Missal text. Liturgical law has allowed this since 1970, and no one disputes this." *

For vernacular propers, I think we need to remember that the question is not: "is it illegitimate to sing the MR text"? The issue which people differ on seems to be, where the MR/GR texts do not align: "is it better to sing the GR text?" My thoughts in this regard are as follows.

Referring to the GIRM for England & Wales, for the Entrance Chant:
"In the dioceses of England Wales the Entrance Chant may be chosen from among the following: 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 of England and Wales."

1. Let us accept that the ordering of these options does indicate an order of preference - GR first, then GS and then other.

2. For the Entrance/Communion Chant "first option", the GIRM refers us to the antiphon *from* (or perhaps this should be "in"?) the GR (smvaroode provides the latin above: "antiphona... in Graduali Romano").

So, strictly speaking, for Hebdomada XXIII Communion *chant* the GIRM first option refers us to the antiphon "Vovete, et reddite Domine Deo vestro..." which I find in the GR open in front of me now.

In my opinion, the GIRM is strictly referring me to the chant I am looking at here - i.e. the chant, comprising the music and the text, found in the GR. I think the GIRM is saying that it is the *chants* in the GR which take pride of place.

3. Even if one thinks that the GIRM "first option" is just referring to the *text* of the antiphon in the GR (rather than the chant in its totality), the text I am looking at here is the Latin text "Vovete, et reddite Domine Deo vestro..." . I am not looking at "Make vows unto the Lord your God...".

4. So whether you are using the wonderful SEP or Lumen Christi, Lalemant, or whether you are using settings of the MR texts, you are doing the "third option". If you are singing vernacular Propers you are, strictly speaking, not doing the "first option" or "second option" because you are not actually using the GR or GS.

5. So, if we are doing the "third option" (because, for example, in our parish context, we need to be using vernacular propers), should we have a preference for what text we use in the vernacular?

(a) For USA/E&W "third option", the GIRM for the Entrance Chant states that the text needs to be approved by the Conference of Bishops in E&W/USA (and similar although not identical language for the Communion).

The MR texts for the English translation of the Missal have been approved by the relevant Conferences of Bishops, so this gets a tick.

In the USA, I know that the beautiful Lumen Christi Missal and beautiful Jogues Missal have been approved by the USCCB, for example, so clearly the texts therein have approval in the USA. (Other territories...?)

(b) So if both vernacular MR and GR texts have been approved, which is better to use? Neither is given preference under the "letter of the law" because both meet the requirement in GIRM for the "third option".

Turning then to the "spirit of the law", I can definitely see the argument that one may have a preference for the translation of the GR text. Definitely. But, to be clear, we're talking "spirit of the law" stuff here, not "letter of the law", and as such it is perfectly reasonable to consider other factors when making this decision. I think we have to exercise our judgment on this as best we can in whatever situation we find ourselves in - I do not think there is a "one size fits all right answer" on this (which is why its splendid there's so many iterations of English Proper settings out there now).

For example, here in E&W, the official publisher of the new translation Missal (the CTS) has done a fine job, and the Missals we have are lovely (English/Latin side by side, pictures, etc). Lots of people own copies of these Missals. Also, many parishes provide missalettes. All of these obviously use the MR texts.

I think it is highly desirable that the congregation / clergy can see: "hang on a minute, we / the choir is singing this text I can see in front of me in the Missal - this thing described as an "Entrance Antiphon" ". That way people realise that what is being sung is not some arbitrary addition, but rather what is being sung is intrinsic to the Mass for that day. People can follow what is being sung and ponder it. It can "sink in" that actually it is a good thing to sing what is here in the "official book", rather than just singing something of our own choosing.

The same effect is not achieved to quite the same degree if one sings a different text - if one sings something that is different to what is shown in the Missal.

Clergy / parish committees also get confused and want you to sing the "right" antiphon (the one in the Missal). One could explain the GR/MR distinction, but what if you are having an uphill battle trying to get their buy-in to sing the Propers anyway? From experience, this is just one extra point to potentially trip over. Sometimes you have to pick your battles one at a time. **

The situation is different if your parish happens to provide everyone with a copy of the Lumen Christi Missal, for example. There you would naturally use settings of the text found therein. But not everywhere will be like that.

Most parishes these days are still enjoying a diet restricted to hymn sandwiches. Sure, good hymns have devotional value. Personally, I think hymns are good, and may have a place at Mass. But the fact they dominate to the exclusion of everything else is a great pity. In my view, anything we can do to shift away from this over-dominance and towards singing the Propers (& compliance with GIRM) is an improvement. We should recognise the distinction between MR/GR texts, but as I say, I do not think we should get too caught up on this distinction - I think we need to recognise that there is a not a "one size fits all right answer".


---

* For example, the Liturgy Office in England & Wales and subsequently the USCCB were happy to "clear" my own attempt at setting of the Ent/Com MR antiphons. I only received encouragement from both authorities. Neither said to me; "Peter, you wally, the MR Ent and Com antiphons are only meant to be said, not sung."

** Hence, for my own attempt at this, I went with the MR texts because I wanted what I was producing to have as few "entrance barriers" as possible (e.g. used modern notation, simple tones that get repeated a lot, seasonal psalm verses rather than psalm verses changing each Sunday, some attempt at an organ accompaniment / parts if that's what you want/need etc).

I will also add that I once made a stink about what PeterJ discusses in his point 2 - and was largely ridiculed.

Does the GIRM mean that the first option (or in the case of the Gradual replacing the Responsorial Psalm, another option) really mean that option is only truly fulfilled by the Latin words and music as found in the Graduale Romanum? I believe it does.

From the very detailed attention we give to the GIRM when we use it to support our causes, I think we have to be honest with ourselves and say that upon a similar view of scrutiny that is indeed what it is saying - and vernacular translations and melodic adaptations are really not "first option" choices.

I'm not arguing that such translations or adaptations are bad, and yes, they're the only way forward in most places. I also admit that the Graduale in Latin is a stretch for 99.9% of parishes. I'm just pointing out some disingenuousness among us in reading the GIRM with such scrutiny (i.e., ordering the options by preference, etc.), but then ignoring language which seems quite plain, in order to advance our cause, nevertheless a cause which is quite worthy.

Ignoto, I don't think Bugnini's commentary is dealing clearly with the distinction which the GIRM and the Apostolic Constitution make.

The following early documents are at:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/girmall.htm

Pope Paul VI's apostolic constitution Missale Romanum (1969) seems to be saying: for sung Masses, the antiphon in the Graduale Romanum is used; for spoken Masses, the antiphon, possibly revised, in the Missal is used.

I question the "distinction" idea, because the phrase "entrance and communion antiphons have been revised for use in Masses that are not sung" might mean that the entrance and communion antiphons have been translated into the vernacular so they can be spoken in the vernacular when they are not sung.

After all, the distinction between forms of Masses is "no longer to depend on the presence or absence of singing." On page 116, Bugnini says:

The basic distinction between the forms of celebration was no longer to depend on the presence or absence of singing but on the participation of the faithful. The only distinction now was to be between Mass with a congregation and Mass without a congregation.

I think it is also interesting that on the EWTN page that Chonak cited, it says "Roman Gradual" (Missal):

VI. Appendix To The General Instruction For The Dioceses Of The United States

[The adaptations contained in this American Appendix are those approved by the Holy See.]

. . .

26. Entrance Song

As a further alternative to the singing of the entrance antiphon and psalm of the "Roman Gradual" (Missal) or of the "Simple Gradual," the Conference of Bishops has approved the use of other collections of psalms and antiphons in English, as supplements to the "Simple Gradual," including psalms arranged in responsorial form, metrical and similar versions of psalms, provided they are used in accordance with the principles of the "Simple Gradual" and are selected in harmony with the liturgical season, feast or occasion (decree confirmed by the Consilium for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy, December 17, 1968).

Andrew Malton - yes, it would be wonderful to use the LCM or JM in England but, as you say, we would not be able to, just you would not be able to use it in Canada. Sigh. (Incidentally, I suspect the example towards the end of my earlier post where I refer the LCM is not terribly apt as, I believe Adam Bartlett has very wisely included both GR and MR texts and that book. But that is by-the-by.)

SkirpR - glad to hear you agree! Yes, if one wants to get into debating the rule book, I really think that is the best interpretation of what the GIRM is saying, so I'm with you all the way. But even if one thinks that bit of the GIRM is confining itself just to rules about the *text* of the chant (I don't think it is, but I can see how one could read it that way) I think one runs into the problem of point (3) set out in my post... i.e. the GR is in Latin.

... but I view it as stating there are four valid options and you can decide which best fits your situation and circumstances.

I agree that this is how the list of options is generally applied in practise: choosing among equivalent alternatives according to a parallel selection process.

However, I strongly believe that there's a hierarchy in the presented options. If the three (for the USA: four) options would be equally suited, this would be in contradiction to Sacrosanctum concilium 116, which states that Gregorian chant has pride of place. That's exactly what the order of options in the GIRM affirms: Gregorian chant from the Graduale Romanum is named as the first option. In accord with SC 117, the Graduale simplex is mentioned as second option, as this is a collection of authentic Gregorian chants for use in small churches where 'a correct rendition of the more complex chants of the Graduale Romanum would prove difficult' (cf. Introduction to the Graduale simplex, no. 1).

When SC 116 states that Gregorian chant should be given pride of place in liturgical services, it adds 'other things being equal'. This doesn't mean that the given options are by themselves all of equal value. When the expression 'other things being equal' was introduced to the fifth draft of SC (thus referring to the 1958 Instruction De musica sacra 16), it came with a clarification that this was done to take into account any practical obstacles that might prevail, preventing a choir or schola to perform the Gregorian chants well.

So, a serial selection process is implied: choosing between options from a hierarchical ordered list.

I think it's both. I think they are presented in the order of ideal, but not necessarily "only do 2 if you can't do 1, etc."

Other factors are abilities and resources. If you are unable to do option 1, then move to the option you can accomplish.

The GIRM says:

"there are four options for the Entrance Chant: (1) the antiphon from the Missal or the antiphon with its Psalm from the Graduale Romanum, as set to music there or in another setting;" [emphasis added].

The musical setting is clearly flexible: the text is what constitutes option 1. And technically, if we're talking hierarchy, the Missal is listed before the Graduale :)

Now, I wouldn't try to read too much into the hierarchy. As a pragmatist, I merely try to show skeptics that the latin chants are a clear option in the GIRM. Whether a parish does those settings has less to do with the hierarchy of the paragraph and more to do with the priorities of the pastor/music director. I don't think you are going to convince anyone to do chant based on the order of this paragraph.

There are some take-aways, though:

1 - I don't see that you can make a case that option 1 is referring only to the Latin chants of the Graduale Romanum. It explicitly mentions other musical settings. This means that another musical setting of the antiphon is option 1, not option 3 or 4.

2 - the Missal antiphon is listed as one option for the entrance chant. Which means that the Missal antiphon is an option to be sung (unless by "chant," the document means "that which is spoken". OK - I guess nobody is arguing that we shouldn't sing the Missal antiphons. But the GIRM, to me, says that a musical setting of the Missal antiphon is just as legitimate as the Graduale chant.

3 - Given that English antiphons are equally part of option 1, and that the GIRM refers simply to the "antiphon", it seems to me that an English translation of the Graduale antiphon is equally part of option 1. ESPECIALLY when, as often happens, the Missal antiphon is the same as the Graduale.

From all of the above, I have the following (again, pragmatic) conclusion: The best option for the processional chants, in the mind of the Church, is an antiphon interspersed with psalm verses. The best sources for the antiphons are the Missal and Graduale and (my inference) vernacular translations of the Graduale. Another source is the Simplex. Another source is simply a collection of psalms, which may or may not be tied to the day. Finally, it is also ok to do something besides an antiphon with psalm verses, if it has been approved by the bishops.

We can argue about where the Graduale itself falls in a hierarchy, but I just think the church is too purposefully vague about this for such discussion to be fruitful. I think the best path forward at this point is to focus on the most basic level: composing/collecting singable collections of antiphons and psalm verses based on the sources outlined above.

JaredOsterman - thank you for your post, and I agree with the conclusion set out in your final sentence. I hadn't realised that the GIRM for the USA actually stated the Roman Missal antiphon under option (1)... or had those other significant wording differences. Interesting to contrast this with the GIRM for England and Wales (which I quoted above).
http://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/GIRM/Documents/GIRM.pdf

the LCSG gives you what is needed to sing the processional propers and the ordinary of the Mass congregationally anywhere in the English-speaking world.

Is that right, Adam? The book has approval here in the US; wouldn't the episcopal conference of some other country need to approve it to make it suitable for use there?

I was saying: What you need is in there.

Whether you are allowed to use it is a different question.

We have a handful of communities outside of the U.S. using the LCSG. So I would have to say I guess it depends on your specific rules and level of scrupulosity in these matters.

Where did the idea come from that somehow US adaptations to the GIRM are somehow legislatively less legitimate than the universal GIRM?

:-Þ

Sorry about my lack of clarity; I wasn't actually responding to your request for clarity, but at above posts that treat the US adaptations as if they aren't "real" law.

The distinction has been worthwhile at times for US Catholics as well. Occasionally, if there is some question about the meaning of some directive or permission in the adaptations, it can help to refer to the unmodified GIRM for clarification.

I note that the English language version of the girm on the vatican website is the American, they really should have all the English language variants available,

GIRM (England & Wales): http://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/GIRM/Documents/GIRM.pdf

GIRM (Scotland): http://romanmissalscotland.org.uk/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal.html

For context, it might be helpful to note the notional Catholic population of countries where English is the primary language or a historically important secondary language, rounded to the nearest million from Wikipedia "data" fwiw:

USA: 75MM
Nigeria: 24MM
India: 19MM
Uganda: 15MM
Tanzania 12MM
Kenya 10MM
other Commonwealth countries omitted except as noted below....
Canada 7MM (excludes the Quebecois...)
Australia 6MM
UK 6MM
Ireland 4MM
S Africa 3MM
NZ <1/2M

Thanks for the figures, Liam.

A priest and seminary instructor from Nigeria came to the Colloquium this year. He was wondering how he could economically get copies of the Parish Book of Chant over there, and Janet and I were happy to inform him that, under the Creative Commons license, he could take the PDF from our site, find a book printer, and start printing, with no other permissions or royalties required.