Order oddity of sung Masses in Ordinary Time
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,187
    So the Mass proper in sung Masses in the Novus Ordo, in the Sundays of Ordinary Time 1 through 28, correspond almost perfectly to the traditional sequence. That is: Sundays 1-3 are Epiphany 1-3, Sundays 4-6 are mash-ups of the Gesimas, and Sundays 7 through 28 are exactly the Masses for the First through Twenty-second Sundays after Pentecost. (The Communios are sometimes different due to the Novus Ordo scheme of making them correspond closely to the Gospel.)

    Except the next two Sundays, which are in the wrong order. Yesterday (Sunday 14) was as the Eighth Sunday after Pentecost, but next Sunday is as the Tenth, and the following Sunday as the Ninth, and after that, with Sunday 17, the correspondence picks up again with the Eleventh Sunday after Pentecost until nearly the end of the year.

    Does anyone know why these next two Sundays are "out of order" ?
    Thanked by 1Kathy
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,982
    Such comparisons may depend on where you are starting from. If you look to the old mass as the starting point, then yes they are out of order. If you believe the order has been changed, then a new order exists and is the basis for future comparisons. When I bring such things up, I am reminded that the former was the mass of 1560 to 1969 and it is now post 1969.

    I am curious, too, but it is above my pay grade and I have no authority to change it one way or another.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Charles,

    Is it true that the order under discussion in this thread began in 1560?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,982
    1560? Don't know, but if it is part of the so called, "Tridentine" mass it is no older than that in any published and promulgated form for official use during the 1560-1969 time period. My point was that just as Trent changed the mass, later councils can do the same.
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,187
    A long long time ago when I was a little boy, a relative would tell me a tale and sing me a song. the deep voice from under the bridge would sing, I'm a Troll, folderol, I'm a Troll, folderol! I didn't like it, and it scared me.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Charles,

    Not all change is equal.
    Thanked by 1Ben
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,982

    Not all change is equal.


    Never said it was. However, if it is promulgated by lawful authority, then disobedience can be sinful - nah, if you want it differently such things don't matter these days.
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,187
    I wish I knew more and more for sure : but I believe that the order I'm calling "traditional" is documented from the eighth century and originates earlier. The repertory and assigned of Sunday antiphons in the Roman Mass is truly ancient.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,471
    I see that the OF Missal gives a different antiphon for OT15 Ego autem cum iustitia, usually GR and RM agree. Ego autem is borrowed from Friday of the second week of Lent. RM OT16 is Ecce Deus, moved one Sunday on from its traditional slot, and I don't know whether Dum clamorem reappears somewhere else as a Missal introit. GR has chosen to move Ecce Deus, so as to match RM, and to swap it with Dum clamorem, now one Sunday back, rather than splice in Ego autem. Meanwhile the Ordinariate keeps the traditional order (which agrees with Sarum, and pushes the dates back a good way)!
    So the shuffling of GR is to accomodate RM. Sorry, too much jargon.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    However, if it is promulgated by lawful authority, then disobedience can be sinful


    Charles,

    Pope Benedict makes the observation that when the Missal of Paul VI was promulgated, the other form was never formally abrogated, and was in principle, still allowed. Wishing to celebrate the Mass how it has been celebrated since before my grandparents' grandparents were babes in arms can't by itself, be sinful. By the usual standard (200+ years of continuous use, or something like that) the Missal of Pius V couldn't be banned, anyway.

    Claiming any kind of equivalence between promulgation in 1570 and promulgation in 1969 is trying to treat unequal things as if they are equal.
    Thanked by 1Incardination
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,982
    Ah, but don't we see the same logic at work in politics. But I won the popular vote!
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,782
    Meanwhile the Ordinariate keeps the traditional order (which agrees with Sarum, and pushes the dates back a good way)!


    One of our Ordinariate priests uses the English Missal this missal does not follow the Sarum order of Propers, but follows the order in the Tridentine Missal / Graduale Romanum. The arrangement of Propers in the Sarum, Trent, and I think Dominican do have minor differences...

    The editing and general rearrangement that created the Novus Ordo has been detailed in several books... I will leave you with Fr. Hunwickes quotes from Fr. Louis Bouyer,
    Bouyer informing us that the Novus Ordo Calendar was the "oeuvre d'un trio de maniaques". He also describes Archbishop Bugnini as "meprisable" and "aussi depourvu de culture que de simple honnetete,"
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,187
    It seems that the "match the new Roman Missal" explanation is at best rather incomplete.

    Referring to the Ordo Cantus Missæ, we see 1/ that these Sundays are described as "in the Roman Gradual [the older one, of course] for the NNN Sunday after Pentecost, except..." , with NN explicitly equal to X for the 15th Sunday and to IX for the 16th Sunday; an 2/ that Ego autem is an optional introit for the 15th Sunday (no doubt, indeed, because it's the only choice in the Missal) and 3/ because the Communio for Pentecost X (ie Passer invenit, with its turtledove melody) is also assigned to this Sunday.

    So the Missal compilers just switched these two Sundays around (as well as pinching an introit from the middle of Lent, go figure), and the long suffering Ordo Cantus Missæ men were left to pick up the pieces as usual. I'm no further ahead in knowing what this was done for. Did they just drop the napkins on the trattoria floor and get them mixed up?

    Dum clamarem remains for the novus ordo on the Thursday after Ash Wednesday., where it has been since well before 1000 AD, although perhaps not quite as long as on the 10th Sunday after Pentecost.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,801
    A trattoria accident might as easily explain the original order, in which the Luke 18 pericope follows Luke 19. The 3 year lectionary has Mt 13:1-23 followed by Mt 13:24-43; Mk 6:7-13 before Mk 6:30-34; and Lk 10:25-37 & 38-42 in sequence. Ego … justitia seems apt enough (I haven't located the original associated Gospel yet), though one also has the option of saving it for a weekday if one prefers.
    Thanked by 1Andrew_Malton
  • madorganist
    Posts: 906
    This thread from two years ago might be of interest:
    https://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/14012/correspondence-between-roman-rite-and-anglican-lessons
    There is a comparative table of Collects, Epistles, & Gospels for the traditional Roman and BCP/Sarum rites attached in one of my comments there.
    Thanked by 1Richard Mix
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,782
    The arrangement of the texts found in the Propers is a complex subject, and one that could fill a lifetime of study (for the Novus Ordo arrangement a long lunch in a Trastevere trattoria may suffice).

    This website has links to various commentaries for each day,
    http://www.gregorianbooks.com/propers.html
    Click on the links for Johner (commenting mainly on the choir Propers)
    Baron, Introit are links for French commentaries.

    The other source that must be read is the incomparable "Liturgical Year, Dom Gueranger"

    There are also a number of books on this subject...

    http://www.lmschairman.org/2016/04/new-study-on-lectionary-old-and-new.html
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 1,048
    There's a similar oddity in the propers for the 3rd and 4th Sundays of Easter in the OF. The propers for these Sundays correspond not to the 2nd and 3rd Sundays after Easter in the EF as expected (the naming of the Sundays has changed in the OF); these Sundays are reversed, so that the 3rd Sunday of Easter (OF) corresponds to the 3rd Sunday after Easter (EF), and the 4th Sunday of Easter (OF) to the 2nd Sunday after Easter (EF).

    But even then the set of propers for a given Sunday has not been left intact: the Introit and first Alleluia for these Sundays has been switched in the OF. All the other propers for the Sundays of Eastertide correspond to same Sundays in the EF propers (with the exception of some communion chants which have been changed to match the gospels of the 3-year cycle).

    The most logical possible explanation that comes to mind is that the propers have been switched around to mach the new lectionary readings; maybe someone could sort this out.
    Thanked by 1Andrew_Malton
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,093
    In the OF, Good Shepherd Sunday was moved a week further into the season and now the mid-season pivot.
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 1,048
    Yes, I noticed that Good Shepherd Sunday was moved, but why not simply move the propers for that Sunday (2nd Sunday after Easter EF) intact?
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 998
    With regard to Good Shepherd Sunday, at NLM Matthew Hazell recently researched the history of its transfer to the third Sunday after Easter (or fourth Sunday of Easter). According to Hazell's research, one of the reasons to move this Sunday was because

    many exegetical experts and pastors have noted several disadvantages with this Gospel being read on the 2nd Sunday [after Easter]. Indeed, in this way, the narratives of the apparitions of the risen Christ are interrupted, and the last of them would be read on the 3rd Sunday after Easter, which is too far away from the day of Easter.
    Thanked by 3Richard Mix CHGiffen Paul F. Ford
Add a Comment