Problematum: Repeating the antiphon in the introit and communion

Ted

Drawing conclusions from history is always a risky business, as a little new evidence can bring down tall monuments of belief. In the current issue of Plainsong and Medieval Music, Edward Nowacki ("The Latin antiphon and the question of frequency of interpolation") challenges a darling of the belief of recent chant scholars including those at the time of Bugnini's Consilium. The idea for some time has been that the antiphons of the introit and communion were originally repeated after every verse of the psalm in a kind of responsorial or interpolated fashion. Not so, Nowacki tries to show, and I think successfully; this erroneous idea originates with Tommasi only in the 17th century. Here is an abstract:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8502014&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0961137111000192

I have found from a practical perspective, that trying to interpolate the antiphon with the verses sometimes problematic for timing. One cannot be sure if the next psalm verse of an introit or even communion should be started because that would also require singing its antiphon and could impede the liturgical movement of the Mass. If the psalm verses are sung without the interpolation of the antiphon, then terminating just with the antiphon would make for tighter timing.

BachLover2

As a matter of fact, it has been known for more than 150 years that both practices are very ancient: it's not an "either or" situation.

Ted

[As a matter of fact, it has been known for more than 150 years that both practices are very ancient: it's not an "either or" situation.]

I do not know who is at the end of those 150 years, but that claim as far as Nowacki is concerned is erroneous. Nowacki has shown that there is no evidence whatsoever to the claim that the primitive introit and communion chants were sung with the antiphon as a refrain between each psalm verse. Both of these chants were sung with the antiphon once before and once after the psalm in primitive times, and well into the 17th century and thereafter.
Nowacki is particularly critical of the highly influencial Joseph Gelineau who at the time of the Council just parroted Tommisi's claims and those of Peter Wagner, without looking critically into their sources.

Michael O'Connor

Never trust a parrot.

Andris Amolins

Good advice. Although, before pointing fingers to any 'parrots' it is worth to consider how easy it is possible to have diverse interpretations of the same ancient sources. I don't think that this very interesting article by Nowacki either settles the matter definitively. Tommasi, too, had to construct hypotheses because in his days the introit was sung with only 1 verse + Gloria patri and communion with none. Since most source citations Nowacki uses refer to the Divine Office rather than Mass the case of the Psalm 94, not mentioned by him, could look like an argument for the original repetition of the antiphon. A the invitatory it is sung in a responsorial manner with repeated refrain after each verse, and at the Matins of Epiphany it is sung antiphonally, again, with the repetition of the antiphon. In the latter case, it sticks out among the other 8 psalms and so looks like an archaism.

awruff

Permission to repeat the antiphon after each verse was given in 1958, or perhaps it was before. So it wasn't the postconciliar Consilium that introduced this.

I'm very interested in the historical question. However, I also know that history doesn't settle such things, for the Church is free to make use of her heritage in innovative ways for pastoral reasons. It was an innovation when the introit was first added to the liturgy sometime in the early Middle Ages; there can be another innovation in the 17th century or 1958 or 2058 to allow or not allow the antiphon to be repeated after each verse. Just as it was an innovation to allow sequences, and another innovation to do away with most of them. This is how liturgical traditions work.

Meanwhile, I look forward to further discussion of the important question of historical precendent (or not) for antiphon repititions.

awr

Ted

1958: That makes it even more interesting in terms of the push for reforms of the liturgy following the war. Reforms often happened by looking back at pristine Christian times because of some current dissatisfaction or perceived defect. Hopefully they were not done just for the sake of an archeologism. But how many claims were made in those days that were accepted as historically undoubtable, and so the Church acted on them thinking there had been a precedent? In those times of the atom age, there was quite a bit of pride in what man had accomplished, including being able to know history better than ever, if not absolutely. I think you are right that innovation in the liturgy must have a pastoral goal, if by "pastoral" one means getting folks into heaven. But I suspect not a few innovations were based on false historical premises. I wonder how much influence scholars like Gelineau had in the 1958 decision.

As Nowacki reminds us, important historical claims are often not checked out critically enough. In the case of this antiphon interpolation issue he is right, and his interpretation of the sources may be quite right too. The Propers are likely to have been developed in the monastic setting, and antiphons in the monastic usage are rarely interpolated with the psalm verses. It would be very strange to call the pericope of the Introit an antiphon in the oldest manuscripts, when it is meant to be a refrain. So too is it strange that the Offertories sometimes have an instruction for a repetendum that is repeated after a verse, while the Introits and Communions never do, albeit the Offertory verses normally have much textual adjustment. I think Nowacki is on to something very important here.

That said, I wonder what pastoral advantage there was in 1958 to repeating the antiphon as a refrain during the Introit and Communion, especially with the Gregorian melodies meant for an experienced schola; the people in the pews would more likely have been able to sing the psalm verses to a simple psalm tone. Personally this monastic way would make much sense to me in the NO today, fulfilling the instructions of SC quite well. The procession begins with only the schola singing the Gregorian antiphon, and then the psalm verses are sung by everyone one after another, even in the vernacular, and particularly by the people in the pews. Once the procession nears or enters the sanctuary, the Gloria Patri is sung, and the antiphon repeated by the schola alone. The wonderful thing about this is that it is the sacred scriptures that are sung by everyone, and very much by the people in the pews, yet giving them also the opportunity to listen to the beauty of the Gregorian melodies.

hartleymartin

In small chapels the common practice even with materials such as the Simple English Propers is to Sing the antiphon, a couple of psalm verses, the glory-be and then the antiphon again.

Liturgy is meant to be practical. We're not going to stand there singing the whole text of the psalm and repeat the antiphons ad nauseum.

chonak

That's what the instructions in the Graduale say to do: make the chant conform to the length of the action (the procession, etc.)

hartleymartin

Although, it does help if you can convince them to process in slowly. There is always something more grand about a slow procession. Well, after years in cadets, I feel that a slow march is always more grand than a quick march.

Some processions seem to be in a hurry to get from A to B. No sense of ceremony!

mahrt

Fr. Ruff is correct, historical precedent cannot always apply, since liturgical circumstances do change. In the Middle Ages, the prayers at the foot of the altar meant that a longer introit chant was required; thus the psalm verse, doxology, and repeat of the antiphon. Additional verses for the introit were published as a result of the 1958 instruction, and are still useful in the case of a long procession. On the other hand, communion of the faithful was less frequent in the Middle Ages, especially at high Masses, which followed terce, thus fairly late in the morning; with the requirement of fasting, fewer people received. Thus, the psalm verses for the communion, which are indicated in the earliest manuscripts, fell out of use.

Now the introit takes less time, and it might be best to sing the antiphon without the verse or doxology, while the communion takes more time, and the use of verses once again becomes practical.

Ted

mahrt:
I guess I am lucky in that there is normally enough time for us to sing two psalm verses with a repeat antiphon between them. The size of the church, slow procession, and incensation helps there. The obvious problem is that the antiphons are not of all the same length, so timing goes awry sometimes.

Today we talk more and more about a reform of the reform of the Mass. Nowacki's article has brought something out that has bugged me for a while about the way some of the liturgical changes were implemented back in the early days after the Council. And that is the way the expert authority of the historians at the time was invoked not just to justify some changes, but to stifle the opposition against those changes. What I find problematic is what Ratzinger once said about the Consilium, namely that the reform was placed in the hands of the experts instead of the Church. There could have been other alternatives to those changes still in line with what SC mandated, some would even say more in line. Perhaps SC 51 opened the door wide to the experts: " other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the Holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary." The word "restored" figured quite prominently in the liturgical reform, and who else could restore if the not the expert historians?

This does not mean that those changes were invalid so I generally agree with you and Fr Ruff. The Pope was the final authority who signed the changes into law, and so he saw much good in them, or at least was convinced of such by Msgr Bugnini. But if the Church wanted an Offertory procession for pastoral reasons of involving the laity more in the actions at Mass, fine, but don't start saying that this was the ancient practice in Rome and so something good was being restored. Today we find there is little evidence if any of some ancient Offertory processions in Rome, certainly not in the old Ordines Romani; the Gallican rite may have had something like an Offertory "procession", but even that is vague. Durandus complained that during his time the Offertory verses were being dropped because the "Offertory procession" as he understood it was disappearing; yet if 11th century Frankish manuscripts are examined, the verses had already been disappearing 200 years earlier. If anything, their disappearance may have had more to do with the growth of polyphony that needed shorter texts.

Whom do you believe? Historians among themselves cannot often agree, and so things can be allowed to get ideological; the expert revisionists of history step in. I think what is important is to look at the pastoral issue: were the changes needed for the Mass to better divinise the faithful? Was there really a need to place the communion chant at the beginning of the priest's communion, for example? Even today many say that some ancient and so better practice was appropriately restored. The problem is that with the evidence we have today the communion chant in Rome was probably only sung as the ministers left the altar in procession to feed the laity, not the other way around, and in the grand Roman basilicas there were quite a few ministers, and so psalm verses were added. It was likely the procession of the ministers, not of the laity. The pre-concilliar way of singing the communion chant after everyone had finished communion had its very good pastoral benefits too because it allowed for a time of meditation and reflection while the schola was giving glory to God through the beautiful chant for having spiritually fed His people. Was there a pastoral reason for this change, or was it just to "restore" some "ancient" perceived practice that by its character of being ancient was better because it was closer to some source of Truth? I am voicing similar concerns with the "ancient" practice of interpolated psalm verses that had become accepted dogma by the time of the Consilium. In short, a reform of the reform should certainly also look into this issue of antiquarianism in the Novus Ordo, an antiquarianism that was already upsetting Pius XII a few years earlier, and let's look what is best for the divinisation of the faithful.

Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!

Categories