Before our former pastor retired, I did offertory chants. He was elderly, had mobility issues, and I had plenty of time for music. Our newer pastor is younger and moves at a more rapid pace. If I do even a short anthem, he is standing behind the altar waiting for me to finish. I don't even try to do those chants because they are unworkable with the current liturgy and speedier pastor.

Thus, in the OF, the offertory chant should only be sung during the procession if there is one. If there is not, there shouldn't be any singing.

That would be news to abbeys of the Solesmes Congregation, where there often isn't a procession at the offertory, including at the abbey I'm attached to. Yet the offertory is sung every day...

Ora

It's my understanding that most of what Bugnini and his henchmen (the correct term) said about ancient liturgy is hogwash. It's worth doing deeper digging to see if there was an actual "offertory procession" in ancient rites. One should bear in mind, too, that much like the tired example of St. Cyril of Jerusalem stating that communion happened in the hand, one aberration does not a rule make. One example of an offertory procession (as such) does not mean it was universal praxis. Also, the purpose of the propers is to provide a specific verse of scripture or prayer, often irrespective of the liturgical action of the celebrant. The actions of the priest and the chanting of the choir coexist beautifully but in often independent-yet-complementary fashion. I highly doubt the offertory chant was stripped away because of any procession or lack thereof. It was just one more baby thrown out with the tub. To my mind it is more likely that the offertory chants existed in their own right as appropriate thematic prayers and merely occurred in conjunction with action at the altar, but did not exist for the action at the altar.

I'm curious if anyone knows more about this.

I would be careful in dismissing St. Cyril so lightly. He occupied a position higher than anyone here. It is fact that communion did happen in the hand in the earliest days. The good saint wouldn't have been inclined to follow liturgical rites and practices that developed over a thousand years after his time. We don't know he had that particular prophetic set of gifts.

Oh Lord, you mean they didn't follow Tridentine Mass protocols and procedures in the 4th Century? How can that be?

Well, it can be because that's the way it was. However, I have been told a fair amount of nonchalance if not disrespect developed from communion in the hand and that was a contributing factor in dropping it.

As I have noted elsewhere, the Offertory has changed in recent NO times. It moves so fast I would have difficulty even fitting that Proper in. In essence, there often is no procession. YMMV, as the late CA sage would have said (may his memory be eternal), depending on your particular location and leadership.

@MarkB - quite so, and the Offertory chant can last through all nine of these steps. Thus the procedures permitted by GIRM can still mirror the EF structure. The clergy are doing the physical preparation for our foretaste of the heavenly banquet (and their own spiritual preparation) while the congregation is free to pursue their own spritual preparation, collectively by singing/listening or individually.
As @ServiamScores hints there is a deficiency in the OF in not suggesting the spoken fall-back use of an Offertory verse, though personally at a weekday Mass I welcome the opportunity of silent reflection.

.

I come back, having done further research.

As it happens in France we have not only the GIRM, but a Cérémonial à l'usage des paroisses, which is a kind of explanation of the GIRM, from the bishop conference, for parish masses.

It specifies that "during this time [the offerings procession], is sung either the Graduale romanum antiphon (...), or another suitable song. It is suitable that the song, or (...) an organ prolongation, be continued until the priest has washed his hands" (translation of my own).

Thus the Cérémonial does specifically not agree with what the priest told on the other day.

However, the Cérémonial also provides a very touching anecdote about ancient times offertory processions : the people were supposed to give from their own possessions, but the orphans taken care of by the church in Rome, of course, couldn't give from the possessions they didn't have. Thus they were granted the privilege of fetching the water for the Papal mass from the fountains of the town.

And, I do agree with MarkB, with the collection and, sometimes the incense, there is lots of time to sing a hymn or an antiphon, provided you are not forbidden to sing during the blessings of the offerings.

One last thing : the priest I am talking about does not deserve, as far as I know, to be compared to a "Bugnini henchman". He is very reverent, very careful of the liturgy, and I understand he offers Mass in the two forms. And most usually, I found him very much knowledgeable, so when he gave that piece of information, I thought it would be food for thought, since I had read someone wondering why the offertory antiphon had disappeared from the Missal. (No offence taken, though. I just thought it necessary to clear his untold name).

Sorry, my message is way too long.

What explains the length of time it takes to sing all of the full, melismatic Offertory verses? In a EF Missa Cantata with incensation, I can sing one of these verses. If I sing two or three of them, the priest will be waiting for me at the altar. Was the Offertory rite much longer way back when?

OffertoryVerses,

Many local details go into addressing this question.

I sing in two EF choirs locally, so I'm in a position to draw some contrasts.

In the one I don't direct, we usually sing one verse, rarely sing two verses and never (to my 10-yr recollection) sing three, when there is a third verse.

In the one I direct, I usually sing 2, and sometimes sing 3. Rarely do I sing only 1.

What are the differences which make such a stark contrast?

1) The musicians take longer to assemble in the one I don't direct.
2) The pace of the chant is slower in the one I don't direct.
3) The choir, in the one I don't direct, tries to sing polyphony at both Offertory and Communion, which leaves less time for verses.

4) …. a very minor difference in the speed at which the two priests speak their Latin.

Tomjaw's comment posted while I was typing this, so let me add that the two Masses I'm involved in are usually the same: Missa Cantata, not Missa Solemnis. Even in the Missa Solemnis, there isn't usually time for more than 2 verses, in part because of what I have outlined above.

I understood that Introit and Communio are still considered 'real' propers in the OF, while the Offertory isn't.

That is not my understanding, but I feel woefully ignorant of the reasons for the divergent treatment of these propers. I am aware of Bugnini's statement that one purpose of the new texts of the spoken propers was to stimulate the production of appropriate vernacular musical settings.
Bugnini also says

The offertory antiphon, on the other hand, may be omitted if it is not sung, because it then loses its value as an accompaniment to a procession and to the offertory rites; if it is simply read it would create a textual oveload of this part of the celebration (TRotL p.387)

An argument that could be applied to the Communio when not sung, where in my experience many celebrants do not use it as prescribed, and indeed it often just comes across as a random text snippet.

I understood that the antiphons in the priests missal are spoken antiphons, for when there is no singing. as the priest is praying other prayers at the offertory there is no antiphon possible. but the sung antiphons, which are not necessarily the same, are contained in the Graduale Romanum, and do contain the offertory, as the these belong to the schola who do sing at the offertory. The idea of setting the spoken antiphons to music is a bit odd, i think, there are already given propers.