what ordinary should be sung for the Feast of Saints Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael?
  • Paul F. Ford
    Posts: 862
    Please help.

    Thanks in advance.

    Paul
  • Paul F. Ford
    Posts: 862
    Kyrie Conditor Kyrie Omnium? plus the rest of the Lux et Origo?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,198
    For the OF, some of the old prescriptive labels for the Masses have been dropped or revised. Only these remain:
    I: Tempore Paschali (A: pro Dominicis; B: pro Memoriis et Festis)
    IV: In Festis Apostolorum
    IX: In Solemnitatibus et Festis B.M.V.
    X: In Festis et Memoriis B.M.V.
    XI: In Dominicis per annum
    XVI: In Feriis per annum
    XVII: In Dominicis Adventus et Quadragesimae
    XVIII: In Feriis Adventus et Quadragesimae et ad Missam pro defunctis

    There is also a note: Ad libitum pro dominicis: XIII and XIV.

    So if you wish to follow the recommendations, that allows for II, III, V, VI, VII, VIII, XII, XIII, XIV, and XV; and also the chants in the Kyriale Simplex and in the "Cantus ad libitum".


  • cmb
    Posts: 85
    Umm, de Angelis?
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,765
    We usually sing Mass VIII 'De Angelis' on feasts of the Angels (EF), but then we do not sing this Mass at any other time. For St. Michael (Solemn Feast), I would prefer to use Mass II or III.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,392
    Is it for the OF?
    I don't think that any are specifically designated for such a feast as this.
    I'm partial to Pater cuncta.
    I would choose from any that are relatively elaborate and, thus, fitting for such a feast.
    I wouldn't choose de Angelis - it's become something of a war horse - run into the ground.
    Some of the ad libitum chants are awfully nice and might be appropriate.

    One could choose Cum jubilo, which is one of the very nicest ones. Yes, it's technically for Marian feasts, but, because of the connection with St Gabriel one just might stretch matters.
    Thanked by 2CCooze cmb
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    For the OF, some of the old prescriptive labels for the Masses have been dropped or revised


    Bill,

    Is this partly because, like Margaret Thatcher, Mons. Bugnini never met a tradition he didn't want to bash with his handbag?
  • irishtenoririshtenor
    Posts: 1,318
    Bill? Richard?
  • StimsonInRehabStimsonInRehab
    Posts: 1,928
    This.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Irish tenor,

    My apologies.

    For the OF, some of the old prescriptive labels for the Masses have been dropped or revised


    CHONAK,

    Is this partly because, like Margaret Thatcher, Mons. Bugnini never met a tradition he didn't want to bash with his handbag?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,198
    The monks of Solesmes prepared the 1974 Graduale Romanum in order to implement Ordo Cantus Missae (1970), but I haven't seen anything in the OCM that talks about the old prescriptions for the Mass settings, so the answer to Chris' question is not obvious.

    Also, I don't know any evidence that Abp. Bugnini ever carried a handbag. If he was actually a Mason as some have accused, he would have occasionally worn an apron.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Chonak,

    Hmmm. Fair enough, more or less. Is the liturgical principle the same as the canonical one, which is to say that if a prohibition isn't repeated it is presumed to remain in force unless it is explicitly abrogated? [Hence, girl altar boys aren't prohibited in the 1983 code because liturgical directions are, for the most part, omitted, and not because Pope Paul VI intended to flood the sanctuary with estrogen.]

    Handbag..... apron.... following your logic, every chef is a mason??? (Smiling)



Add a Comment