About the 2015 Ordo Cantus Officii
  • Jérôme
    Posts: 29
    Hi,

    I recently received my copy of the 2015 OCO.
    Something strikes me: in the 2008 Antiphonale Romanum II, the antiphons of the first vespers for ordinary sundays do not seem to match the ones from the OCO.
    The antiphons of the OCO lauds match the ones from the first vespers of the AR II. But the ones of the first vespers are different. Did I read it correctly?

    It looks likes the 2015 OCO has been updated with respect to the 2005 Antiphonale Monasticum, because this antiphonary provides exactly what's described in the OCO.

    I'm surprised that the AR II wouldn't match the OCO since it was supposed to follow the new OCO.

    Regards,
    Thanked by 1igneus
  • joerg
    Posts: 137
    The texts of the antiphons for the Benedictus of Sunday lauds and the Magnificat of Sunday vespers correspond to the gospel of the day. They are mostly taken directly from the gospel text or from a parallel text in an other gospel. While for certain gospel pericopes there are numerous antiphons in the classical gregorian repertoire, there are other pericopes with only one or two corresponding antiphons from remote corners of the medieval repertoire. So to find three antiphons matching a given Sunday gospel, one for first vespers, one for lauds, and one for second vespers, seems to be impossible.
    The AR II does not include lauds so they could use gospel antiphons for both first and second vespers, but OCO 2015 and AM 2005 do have lauds, so they chose to follow an alternative tradition: For first vespers they use antiphons corresponding to lessons in Sunday matins (or in some cases matins of the following week)
    Thanked by 1igneus
  • Jérôme
    Posts: 29
    But still, the ones of the 1st vespers in the AR II do not match the ones of the OCO.
    So, the OCO used for the AR II in 2008, which was already different from the 1983 one, must have changed again in 2015.

    My point is that AR II does not follow entirely 2015 OCO, which is disappointing.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,782
    Genius, so how long have we had the Liturgy of the Hours... and do we have all the books?
    I am so glad that I can stay with the EF Divine Office.
  • Jérôme
    Posts: 29
    tomjaw, this is off topic. I'm confident that the Church can make things right in the end.

    Anyway, I cannot practice EF Divine Office since it is too big an office for a layman like me.
    LOTH, despite its flaws, is much more suitable, even more because I sing it which requires more time that simply reading it.
    Finally, I don't like the musical settings (mostly psalm tones or antiphon melodies) in the EF. They are much better in more recent chant books (like the 1934 AM) and have never been updated since 1912.
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 998
    Good catch! I didn't notice this before.

    The AR II has a three year cycle for the Magnificat antiphons of First Vespers (as in Liturgia Horarum), whereas OCO uses a one year cycle. The antiphons of the one year cycle are not in AR II.

    OCO (p. 93) adds the option to use the Benedictus antiphon from Lauds as Magnificat antiphon at First Vespers instead of the antiphon from the one year cycle.

    It's strange that this option is used in AR II, without also providing the music of the one year cycle antiphons, because the AR II was thought to follow the new OCO, even though it predates the new Ordo by five years.
    Thanked by 1igneus
  • Jérôme
    Posts: 29
    @smvanroode

    You're right, I didn't catch it. So, AR II is somehow correct.

    What is even more strange, is that the 2005 AM is never mentioned, although it provides all antiphons of the 1st vespers required by the AR, for both the one and two years cycles.
    But it looks likes the 2005 AM OCO influenced the 2015 OCO.
  • Jérôme
    Posts: 29
    @smvanroode

    By the way, I found nothing about responsories for the Office of the Readings in the OCO.
    Only antiphons are mentioned.
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 998
    A couple of responsories are referenced on pp. 391-392. These are identical to the ones in the Liber Hymnarius, pp. 487-526.
  • Jérôme
    Posts: 29
    @smvanroode

    Yes, there are few of them in the Liber Hymnarius. But the rest of them have probably never be sung before.

    The Monastic Lectionary from Solesmes can be used instead of the one from LOTH, and we might find its responsories in the Liber Responsorialis.
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    Sorry to chime in here after being away from the forum for a really long time. Here's the situation (as I understand it) with sung antiphons for First Vespers of Sundays in Ordinary Time in the LOTH:

    If an individual or community includes the Office of Readings in its prayer, then the antiphon at First Vespers of Sundays in Ordinary Time corresponds to the biblical readings followed in the OoR for the following week, and should, it seems, be chosen (either based upon whether one follows the one-year or two-year cycle of biblical readings for the OoR).

    If a community (e.g. a parish, cathedral, etc.) only meets for Vespers, either regularly or only on special occasions - which one could argue was the pressing need served by the Antiphonal Romanum II - then it seems to make more sense that for Sundays in Ordinary Time, one should use for First Vespers the same antiphon as is assigned to Lauds.

    The one-year and two-year cycle of antiphons for First Vespers, which correspond to the Office of Readings, in the OCO2015 matches exactly (or almost exactly - I have not gone through with a fine-tooth-comb, so to speak) with that found in the Antiphonale Monasticum Vol. 1 of 2006.

    Furthermore, if one is searching for sung responsories for the Office of Readings, an excellent resource is the Sandhofe's Nocturnal Romanum - which was compiled for the pre-LOTH Office and is sadly out-of-print - but a year or so ago the publisher was trying to liquidate remaining copies of the book, and I happened upon on. Sandhofe had compiled an ordo for using the responsories from his volume with the LOTH. I have attached that document.
    Ordo responsorialis.pdf
    433K
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Paul F. Ford
  • Jérôme
    Posts: 29
    @SkirpR

    Very interesting. Thank you very much.
    Too bad they don't decide to reprint Sandhofe's Nocturnal Romanum. Someone'll have to scan it some day.
Add a Comment