The sequence is sung prior to the Gospel acclamation, after the second reading. This is the first time we are singing them too. Yes, they are required.

Yes, it is for OF - so I would sing the sequence, and then follow it immediately with the Alleluia?

I had wondered why in recent times numerous choirmasters were suddenly singing the sequence before, rather than in its historic place following immediately upon Alleluya. I had assumed that it was because they didn't know any better. It has since been pointed out to me that this is prescribed in GIRM. Am I the only one who thinks that this is a bizarre perversion dreamed up by our over-abundant and over-rated 'liturgists'? (In the Anglican Use we continue to sing sequences where they belong.)

I have always sung the sequence before the alleluia (OF). I just looked up in my Lectionary (which I finally found in the organ bench!) and the order of readings does put the sequence before the gospel alleluia, right after Reading II. Hope that helps.

Perhaps the (absent minded) rationale for reversing the order of Alleluya-Sequence has been the desire to have Alleluya sung immediately before the Gospel. However, if the Sequence had not been shorn of the Alleluya at its conclusion this would not be a potent reason. In the case of Victimae Paschali and Veni Sancte, there is an Alleluya (do-fa-mi.re-re) following the Amen. Likewise for Lauda Sion, Alleluya (la-fa-la.sol-sol) follows Amen. Like so much else, these details did not seem to pass muster with so-very-moderne liturgists and make their way into current liturgical books. But Anglican Use Catholics continue to observe them.

The historical order, for those who might want to follow it is:
Alleluya+Verse+Sequence+Sequence's Alleluya
One will note that Alleluya is not repeated after its verse. One goes immediately on to the Sequence.

However: GIRM (64) does indeed say this: 'The Sequence, which is optional except on Easter Sunday and on Pentecost, is sung before the Alleluia'.
(And note that the word GIRM uses is 'SUNG'! A new low in liturgical idiocy is reached by those who actually sit and read, not stand and sing, the sequence.)

I always assumed the change was made so people could sit down during the Sequence and stand for the Alleluia. But this is pure speculation on my part.

My pastor asked me tonight if my cantor was prepared to sing the sequence tomorrow night (Saturday vigil). I thought it was only required for Pentecost Sunday, not the vigil. Can anybody confirm this?

Indeed, the Sequence is only sung during at the Mass during the Day, and not at the Vigil Mass.

Pentecost has a proper vigil (of course, for the purpose of fulfilling preceptual obligation, it functions as an anticipated Mass), and this year in English the vigil has an extended option for the first time since the reform of the missal.

FYI, our Ordo (Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend) lists the sequence at the Vigil and requires it.

I was VERY confused since the lectionary did NOT have it for the vigil, but I was ready with it. I guess we do have the same Ordo down here. My priest is a Diocesan Florida priest. As far as OCP, that's where I got my info that we did NOT have to do it. Breaking Bread only lists it for the Sunday masses. In any case, my cantor did an amazing job and it was worth hearing him tonight!

Concerning the nature of the sequence: it is called a sequence, because it follows the alleluia. Originally, it was a text added to the jubilus of the alleluia; from there it developed into a more independent poetic genre. Still, as some have observed here, the sequence flows directly from the alleluia musically.

I believe the reason for the change in the new rite was that the reformers wanted to change the nature of the alleluia from a meditation chant which follows the lesson to a "Gospel acclamation." Thus in the Easter Season the presence of two alleluias (in the tradition, as well as in the Graduale Romanum of 1974 and the Gregorian Missal), is in the lectionary of the new rite replaced by a responsorial psalm and then an alleluia. Likewise the rubric to stand during the alleluia suits its function as a gospel acclamation. This, of course, poses a problem for those legitimately using the Graduale Romanum or Gregorian Missal, since the Gregorian alleluia is longer than the usual performance of the gospel acclamation, and the procession to the ambo is finished quite a while before the alleluia is finished, and the priest stands there waiting for the conclusion of the alleluia, sometimes seemingly impatiently. In the Mass where my choir sings, the procession to the ambo takes place only towards the end of the singing of the alleluia, at which point the congregation stands. This works very well--the function of the meditation chant is fulfilled, but the function of the anticipation of the gospel is also clear, emphasized by the ecstatic quality of the jubilus of the alleluia. In fact, I contend that the Gregorian alleluia is a more suitable gospel acclamation than the little antiphon from the Easter Vigil, the nearly syllabic three-fold alleluia. The jubilus is a part of the essence of the Mass alleluia, and is not sufficiently replaced by a syllabic chant.

Concerning the vigil Mass: there has been some confusion about this. Many solemn feasts in the tradition had vigils, but the vigil was the Mass of the day, celebrated in the morning. These vigil days were fast days, and the liturgy for them was somewhat penitential, no Gloria, etc; thus the absence of the sequence. Since the new rite eliminated vigils in the old sense, the Mass formulae were simply (perhaps mindlessly) transferred for use in the position of an anticipated Mass.

Quite an interesting and thorough discussion of the matter can be found here:
http://blogs.nd.edu/oblation/2011/07/15/a-sequence-of-thoughts-on-liturgical-sequences-part-ii/
(but if you have time, there's a part i linked within).

(This might have been mentioned above- I didn't read every reply.)

What strikes me as the biggest practical reason for the "new" order (Sequence, then Alleluia) is that the Alleluia, for all practical purposes, has become a part of the Ordinary instead of the Proper. It makes very little musical/liturgical sense that the Sequence extends the Alleluia unless the Sequence is musically a part of the Alleluia. The result would end up being a Gospel Procession with two different and unconnected pieces of music. Considering the form, style, and understanding of the Gospel Acclamation in the Novus Ordo, it makes perfect sense to place the Sequence before the Gospel. (Whether the present form, style, and understanding of the Gospel Acclamation makes any sense in the first place is a whole other question.)

This is what I do:
-Sequence proclaimed- in English, in a chant setting
-(For Easter, invite the congregation to respond after each stanza with Alleluia.)
-After last line of Sequence, directly into the Alleluia, using the same melody as the Sequence, so it is a single, unified piece of music.
-All stand with the ministers as the Gospel procession begins, without a break in music.

It may or may not be a perfect solution, but it fulfills (I think) both the NO rubrics and the spirit of the tradition wherein the Alleluia and Sequence are a single piece of music, and it doesn't cause anybody to be confused about what is going on.

I claim no liturgical knowledge whatsoever....

GregP, don't you know that you have just announced to the world that you now are qualified to be a liturgist?

I didn't say it IS part of the Ordinary, just that it is pretty much treated as a part of the Ordinary in common practice. Just pick up any recently published Mass Setting- you'll find the Gospel Acclamation, right there between the "Glory to God" and the "Holy, Holy."

I prefer the "Modest Amen" m'self.

It's true. Until about five years ago, I thought the Alleluia was part of the Ordinary.

  It's true. Until about five years ago, I thought the Alleluia was part of the Ordinary.

Until about five years ago, I never realized that some people thought the Alleluia was part of the Ordinary.

But I only knew the Mass settings of the masters: Palestrina, Victoria, etc. How could these venerable composers have been so wrong!

O! the consequences of out of sequence Sequences!

Is it licit to use the psalmic text for the verse from the Alleluia in the Graduale Romanum instead of the one in the modern lectionary that invariably has NT pericopes based, or taken from, the Gospel?

Yes. GIRM 62 confirms that the text for the Alleluia can be taken from the Lecionary or the Roman Gradual:

a. The Alleluia is sung in every season other than Lent. The verses are taken from the Lectionary or the Gradual.

b. During Lent, in place of the Alleluia, the verse before the Gospel is sung, as indicated in the Lectionary. It is also permissible to sing another psalm or tract, as found in the Gradual.

The SEP translations are not official, though taken from the Gregorian Missal. (The Missal's intro is very clear about how not official those translations are). These were used in the SEP for lack of anything more official- there is no official translation of the Propers from the Graduale Romanum (the sung propers).

The new Roman Missals (like the old Sacramentary) do not contain translations (official or otherwise) of the Graduale Romanum propers. What the new English Roman Missal contains is (official) translations of the Proper Antiphons contained in the (Latin) Missale Romanum- propers intended to be spoken, not sung.

The name "Gregorian Missal" is a little bit confusing. A better name for that book would have been "The Roman Gradual, with everything in Latin- plus with instructions and translations in English so that you might have some clue as to what is going on."

I use, where they correspond, the translations from the 1965 Roman Missal for the propers.

Ben: be careful with changing the punctuation: this may be part of the copyright agreement.

The Lumen Christi Missal has a new translation of the Graduale propers (IN, OF, CO) for Sundays and Feasts that matches the new translation of the Roman Missal. The acknowledgements say:

The English texts of the antiphons of the Graduale Romanum that are not found in the Roman Missal were translated by Fr. Robert Johansen, S.T.L., with the assistance of John Pepino, Ph.D., in collaboration with the Association for Latin Liturgy, U.K. Ecclesiastical approval for these texts has been granted by +Thomas J. Olmsted, Bishop of Phoenix, on May 30, 2012.

The Lumen Christi Missal has a new translation of the Graduale propers (IN, OF, CO) for Sundays and Feasts that matches the new translation of the Roman Missal. The acknowledgements say:

The English texts of the antiphons of the Graduale Romanum that are not found in the Roman Missal were translated by Fr. Robert Johansen, S.T.L., with the assistance of John Pepino, Ph.D., in collaboration with the Association for Latin Liturgy, U.K. Ecclesiastical approval for these texts has been granted by +Thomas J. Olmsted, Bishop of Phoenix, on May 30, 2012.

Is this another copyrighted, proprietary translation? And how did Fr. Johansen get permission to adapt the Revised Grail (from GIA) and the antiphons (from ICEL)? Permission is usually not given to do this ... I smell a cease and desist letter ...

If it truly "matches the the new translation of the Roman Missal" (c.f. above), then it is based on the ICEL. The ICEL is, in turn, based on the Grail, Jeffrey Tucker wrote an article about this some time ago. I will dig it up.

In any event, modifications can only be done with permission from the copyright holders.