St Peter Gradual & Plainchant Gradual
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    A question for any of you who work in Ordinariate-land: Have ye a table of correspondence between the Propers as found in the new St. Peter Gradual and the Palmer-Burgess Plainchant Gradual? Or an index for either book?

    I find it highly annoying that neither of these publications include an index.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,421
    St Peter's Gradual is a note-head version of the psalm tones of The Anglican Use Gradual. It does not have the Latin incipits which one, naturally, finds in AUG and P-B. Its single improvement is that it corresponds to the new kalendar plus a few observances that are peculiar to the Ordinariate kalendar - also, the language is slightly different from AUG and P=B in a few places. I find the absence of chant notation and lack of Latin incipits very disappointing and, for my choir, would continue using AUG or P=B, being careful to alter the word here and there to correspond to Ordinariate usage.
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,802
    There's always hope that the index at Plainchant Gradual (Burgess & Palmer) will be expanded someday.
  • Chris_McAvoyChris_McAvoy
    Posts: 389
    The impracticality of being asked to adopt these time honoured graduals (palmer and burgess "Plainchant Gradual") to an aberrant non-traditional form of liturgy, that is to say, the three year lectionary of post-1973 times, is one of the main reasons why I could no longer in good conscience remain a member of the Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter.

    This idea that the ancient graduals/lectionaries/missals/breviaries/catechisms all require updating to conform toward the spirit of this new age, as determined by the bishops of this age, who with their ideology have often refused to carry on with Holy Tradition, is an error. The development of these past liturgical books of the Church carries a symbolism of the meaning of our faith, explaining the very understanding which Christ himself taught to be unmuteable unchangeable truth.

    When the ordinariate no longer celebrated Epiphany on January 6, as has been tradition for 1500 years I knew that the good consciences of these former anglicans, to be obedient, had become contradictory to the very purpose of seeking to be in communion with Rome. The idea that communion with Rome demands rejection of tradition is untrue - yet this is what is very often asked of many laity and clergy today. Ye shall reap what ye sow. Aberrant liturgy leads to aberrant faith. "Ego autem et domus mea serviemus Domino" - Joshua 24:15.
    Thanked by 2M. Jackson Osborn tomjaw
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,421
    ...an aberrant... form...
    We celebrate the Epiphany aberrantly when the rest of American Catholicism does because there seems to be a perceived necessity that we conform to said American Catholicism's impoverished and aberrant kalendar. Most of our people are very unhappy about this - but to no avail.

    And, I don't quite understand why you feel that you could not continue to belong the the Ordinariate.
    Were you ever in it?
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 1,063
    I don't understand the objection to the three-year lectionary purely on traditional grounds. It was updated for (on the surface) solid reasoning along with the remainder of the liturgy. If you accept that the Church can modify the liturgy, then the lectionary is fair game too.

    My opposition to it stems from the practical impossibility of the cycle of readings having any relevance or natural flow when spread over three years. Instead of increasing exposure to more Scripture, it has had the opposite effect of making readings at Mass completely peripheral for those individuals unable to remember the weekly flow of three years' worth of readings at each Mass.

    After a few years with the Propers, that cycle has a wonderful flow and familiarity that I wish I could experience with the readings as well.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw M. Jackson Osborn
Add a Comment