Is Graduale Simplex (1967 edition) applicable to Extraordinary Form of Roman Rite?
  • LaercioSousa
    Posts: 6
    There's a little debate among my fellows about the possibility of applying the chants of Graduale Simplex (following 1967's index) to the Extraordinary Form of Roman Rite. Is it applicable to the 1962's Missale Romanum, or it was only applicable to that 1965's experimental one?
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,890
    I would think that any chant that is simplified could be substituted for the florid chant presupposing the text is identical. The simple reality is that there are plenty of parishes that cannot handle florid chant well. I'd guess it far superior to still sing the simplex versions of any given chant well than to not chant at all or to chant very poorly. This is an argument based on reason, not a technical analysis of the rubrics, however.
    Thanked by 3irishtenor tomjaw CCooze
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,187
    The Simplex propers are, of course, in general quite different from the Missal.

    The Simplex is surely applicable to the rite for which it was originally compiled. However the traditional use be it by the SSPX, or the FSSP etc., or diocesan, is invariably according to the 1962 books, if not earlier. Summorum explicitly derogates later law on the liturgy. So it's hard to imagine an EF situation where it would be acceptable to use the Simplex.

    It's about the same as the question of applying Musicam Sacram 1967 to the traditional liturgy, previously discussed here: https://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/7566/place-and-role-of-musicam-sacram

    It's such a pity: the Simplex has a great deal to offer, but it falls between.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen rich_enough
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,471
    The changes between 1962 and 1965/7 were almost entirely changes to the rubrics. Esssentially changes of ars celebrandi, not of meaning. AFAIK there were no changes to the propers. {Archbishop Lefebvre had little problem with the 1965 missal, and the indult under which TLM continued was for the 1965/7 missal.} I doubt that CDWDS CDF would respond negatively, if asked.
    @ServiamScores - the question would not arise if the texts of GS were those of GR, but they are not. The whole point was to draw authentic simple chants from tradition, and protect the GR chants from meddling. Most of the processional chants of GS are chants (text and tune) used in the Office, particularly Matins. It is a quite different approach from Chants Abrégés of simplifying the GR chants, or of Rossini.
    What the Council asked for was,
    SC §117. Compleatur editio typica librorum cantus gregoriani; immo paretur editio magis critica librorum iam editorum post instaurationem sancti Pii X.
    Expedit quoque ut paretur editio simpliciores modos continens, in usum minorum ecclesiarum.
    for Jeffrey Tucker's take on this question see http://www.chantcafe.com/2011/07/the-past-and-future-of-the-graduale-simplex/
    Thanked by 3Andrew_Malton CHGiffen tomjaw
  • Jehan_Boutte
    Posts: 264
    In my opinion, it is not, the reason being decisions taken after 1962 do not concern the EF.
    Moreover, even in the OF world, the Graduale Simplex has not really been received, which is a shame. Prof. Dobszay remarked the only place it had ever been used on a regular basis was the Papal liturgy - the exact opposite from it's intended goal!
    On the other hand, a "Graduale Romanum Simplex" or "Simple Latin Propers" would be very helpful if based upon the Graduale Romanum.
    Thanked by 6rich_enough Andrew_Malton tomjaw M. Jackson Osborn irishtenor MatthewRoth
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 1,063
    I have used it a handful of times for feasts and solemnities. For the remainder of the year, what is the crossover demographic between:

    - Musicians who wish to use chant-based propers in Latin
    - Musicians who desire "seasonal" propers vs. weekly

    I would wager it is miniscule; hence the lack of adoption. There is a serious need for a "Simple Latin Propers" resource in weekly format rather than falling back on the seasonal option.
    Thanked by 1Jehan_Boutte
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,782
    Under the EF it is acceptable to sing psalm toned Propers if needed, also it is acceptable to sing Polyphonic Propers.

    So it would therefore also be acceptable to sing newly composed Polyphonic Propers. So what possible reason could we have not to use the Simplex Propers as long as the texts are identical? Those with texts different to those as found in the Graduale Romanum could of course not be used.
    Thanked by 2M. Jackson Osborn irishtenor
  • Jehan_Boutte
    Posts: 264
    So what possible reason could we have not to use the Simplex Propers as long as the texts are identical?

    The problem is they are not always identical. But when they are, indeed, they can be used.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Jehan_Boutte
    Posts: 264
    The Schola Sainte-Cécile and CCWatershed shared a small book with simple versions of the Graduals, Alleluias and Tracts of the year.
    graduels_versets_alleluia_traits.pdf
    8M
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • LaercioSousa
    Posts: 6
    @Jehan_Boutte the first edition of Graduale Simplex is prior to Paul VI's Missal, and follows the same liturgical calendar as of 62's Missal. Do you believe that it applies to 65's Missal only?
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,471
    Simplex Propers as long as the texts are identical
    but that is vanishingly rare, apart from requiems. All the other chants for Mass apart from those for the celebrant were turned into virtuoso display pieces over a thousand years ago. {I am not denying that they are beautiful.}
    Somewhere there may exist a storeroom comparable to the Genizah of the Ben Ezra Synagogue in Cairo. We have very little liturgical manuscript material suited to parish churches, if any.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    The simple answer is: No, they cannot be used because they were published in 1967. The Motu Proprio specifically says "liturgical books in use in 1962". The only exception to that that has been made, to my knowledge, is the indult for certain places to use the pre-1955 Holy Week, ad experimentum.

    As an aside, I can't think of anyone seriously and regularly involved in the E.F. who would even want to use the Simplex in the First Place. I don't even find it useful for my daily Novus Ordo sung Masses.

    Psalm-tone Propers, while not ideal aren't bad: they can be a necessary first step, the biggest problem is that they usually use Modern notation, which makes the transition to the full Propers more difficult.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,471
    The motu proprio is permissive not restrictive, there is no wording prohibiting 1965/67 though I am perhaps the only person who would like it.
    It is therefore permitted to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy.
    And Pope Benedict, in the accompanying letter, suggests changes
    For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal.
    It is true that PCED issued more restrictive directions,† but since it was transferred to CDF the attitude seems to have changed. I suggest that anybody who wants to use GS at EF celebrations, but feels unable to do so because of interpretation of the rules, should write to CDF and ask.
    †Directly and explicitly contradicting "mutually enriching".
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,471
    Salieri - two uses for GS in the EF that I can see
    1 at Requiems. GS only requires a cantor, and it contains undemanding options, indeed the impoverished relict would not even have to pay an organist!
    2 as a stepping stone from psalm tones, since it has simple antiphons but they are properly matched text and tune.
    NB the 1955 psalm tone propersthat Jehan_Boutte posted above, Desclees & Co No 689, are Solesmes notation, but that's only the chants between the readings.
    Thanked by 1Paul F. Ford
  • ClemensRomanusClemensRomanus
    Posts: 1,023
    I’ve used it frequently at OF, but I wouldn’t for EF.
Add a Comment