Simplex comes in handy...
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    When a Latin Graduale Romanum Communion turns out to be just a bit too tough for your choir, always consider turning to the Simplex. It's always easier, but still chant in Latin. Although it was written for the church than cannot mount a full-scale Latin chant program, it's still chant and it can be lovely.

    I have had to do that with Domus Mea...at one point considered doing it in English, thinking that would make it easier for the choir, but then went the Simplex route.
  • Paul F. Ford
    Posts: 864
    Amen!
  • Pes
    Posts: 623
    I was reading through the first volume of Solesmes's Antiphonale Monasticum the other day and found a setting of "Qui vult venire post me," which also happened to the the Communion antiphon for this past Sunday (12th in OT). At least, I think I was reading the AM. I'm pretty sure I was, but that book is at home at the moment, so I can't check.

    Paul, didn't the Simplex draw a lot of its antiphons from the Office? That would explain the co-incidence of these two antiphons, if indeed I'm remembering correctly.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    My evaluation process always runs through the best choice for the parish from these four:

    1. Graduale Romanum
    2. The American Gradual
    3. Graduale Simplex
    4. By Flowing Waters

    If I fail there to find a solution, then I am off to psalm tone versions.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    I'd put the Simplex above the AG, but this is definitely the way to go, Noel!
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    I guess I try to figure out if it's the words or the music holding the back from the GR, so trying the TAG helps sort that out.

    Once I get my current project done, the next one is a guide to singing chant that might help people get ready for the Simplex and then on to the Romanum.

    The gifts to the church of Jubilate Deo, the Simplex and more need all the help they can get from us to get them used.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    It's awfully quiet. Do I hear my words echoing in the halls? Is it just....the three of us?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,220
    (I've deleted my comment, which was off-topic anyway.)
  • Ioannes Andreades
    Posts: 311
    Big fan of the Simplex here. I have to admit that I'm often baffled, however, with the congregation in Rome that published it. To an extent, I think they almost wanted its use to be limited. For instance, why would they create a lectionary with a particular responsorial psalm and then publish the simplex with a completely different responsorial psalm FOR THE SAME SUNDAY (am thinking of feast days and Sundays of Lent)!? Same with the introits and communios--why not write introits and communios for the N.O. keeping in mind what authentic Gregorian antiphons are extant and make the choices in the missal identical to those in the G.R. or G.S.? Gaaaa!
  • Pes
    Posts: 623
    Iaonnes, the Lectionary came out in 1970, and the Simplex, 1975. The Lectionary had created new antiphons for which there were no pre-existing antiphon melodies. The Simplex authors found other ones to fill in those gaps. Hence the discrepancies there.

    It's an interesting question to ask why the Simplex authors didn't adopt the G.R. antiphon texts and melodies and at least have some consistency there. I don't know.

    For the OF, of course, the Simplex antiphons, even when they differ, remain valid choices.

    I'd like to hear more about how the Simplex was put together. It would make a good article, especially with a tabular presentation of the variance between it, the Lectionary, and the GR.
  • Paul F. Ford
    Posts: 864
    Pes,

    I am on deadline for a book and two lectures, but I have posted a table of the Latin originals for By Flowing Waters.

    See http://www.pford.stjohnsem.edu/ford/by-flowing-waters/new-indexes.htm

    More later, when I can catch my breath.

    Blessings,
    Paul
  • Ioannes Andreades
    Posts: 311
    My understanding is that the compilers of the G.S. composed some new chants for the tome. From a brief look at Dr. Ford's charts, most responses for the responsorial psalms were potentially created by the compilers of the G.S. Why not simply compose responses for the responsorial psalm as found in the lectionary? For instance, at the mass for the Assumption, regardless of year, the lectionary has psalm 45 with the response, "The Queen stands at your right hand..." The G.S. compilers seem to have composed "Veni, veni coronaberis" as a response and chosen verses from the Song of Songs. Why not just compose chant for the response that is already in the lectionary and keep the same psalm? Same thing can be said for Christ the King. Better harmonization of lectionary, missal, and G.S. would have made the attraction to use the G.S. much more compelling and excuses to avoid using it less cogent.

    I am still drawn to the conclusion that the compilers of the lectionary (and missal) had scant concern for how authentic Gregorian chant would be made to fit with the N.O. Otherwise, like I said, they would have taken better account on what authentic chants were extant and done a better job making them harmonize in the various books.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    I am still drawn to the conclusion that the compilers of the lectionary (and missal) had scant concern for how authentic Gregorian chant would be made to fit with the N.O.

    Agreed!
  • Pes
    Posts: 623
    Or they were too concerned about using authentic historical melodies.

    I agree that new but traditional melodies would have made consistency with the Lectionary a bigger selling point, then and now.
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 1,000
    I'm not sure if this is of any importace, but the Graduale Simplex was first published in 1967, two years before the N.O. and Ordo Lectionum Missae were promulgated (the introduction of De oratione communi seu fidelium (1966) even refers to a 1966 edition of the Graduale Simplex - does anyone know about this edition?). In 1975 a revised edition was published to reflect the changes in the new Missale Romanum, Ordo Lectionum Missae and Ordo Cantus Missae. However, for some reason the initial choice of the psalms for the responsorial psalms remained unchanged.
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,577
    Pes made a timeline comment two days ago.
    I had left in the office my "Graduale Simplex in usum minorum ecclesiarum".
    Now in the office with a few quiet minutes I can get to this info,
    and confirm some of the above Smvanroode timeline.

    SACRA CONGREGATIO PRO CULTU DIVINO

    Prot. N. 2300/74

    DECRETUM

    Cantus faciliores ad Ordinem et ad Proprium Missae
    spectantes publici iuris facti sunt Kyriali simplici, anno
    1964, et Graduali simplici, anno 1967, ad obtemperanda
    praecepta Constitutionis de sacra Liturgia Concilii Vaticani II
    de paranda editione simpliciores gregorianos
    modos continente in usam minorum ecclesiarum (n. 117).

    Interim, post instaurationem Calendarii Romani
    generalis, libri Psalmorum secundum Novam Vulgatam
    et librorum liturgicorum pro celebratione Missae, nova
    ordinatio cantuum Gradualis Romani facta est Ordine
    Cantus Missae    , anno 1972. Iuxta quam etiam emendanda
    et complenda erant Graduale simplex et Kryriale simplex,
    quae nunc in unum volumen eduntur.

    Hanc ergo novam editionem Gradualis simplicis, a
    Summo Pontifice PAULO VI approbatam, Sacra Congregatio
    pro Cultu Divino nunc emittit et typicam eam
    declarat ut adhiberi possit in sacris celebrationibus iuxta
    normas in ipso Graduali simplici traditas.

    Contriariis quibuslibet minime obstandtibus.

    Ex aedibus Sacrae Congregationis pro Culto Divino,
    die 22 novembris 1974, in memoria sanctae Caeciliae.

    Iacobus Robertus Card. KNOX
    Praefectus

    +A. BUGNINI
    Archiep. tit. Diocletianen.
    A Secretis

    Prima impressio 1967
    Reimpressio 1968
    Editio typica altera 1975
    (c) Copyright by Libreria Editrice Vaticana 1988 ISBN 88-209-1603-7
    Reimpressio 1988
    Reimpressio 1999

    It would be interesting to see a side-by-side (grid) comparison of these different (1966-1967-1975) versions.
    Are there any CMAA folks able to create this?
  • Pes
    Posts: 623
    Ah!

    I'm pleased to be corrected about the origin of the thing. 1967...
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,577
    According to the following, there is a 1966 version ...

    http://www.pford.stjohnsem.edu/ford/courses/sacramental-theology/docs/Universal Prayer.pdf
    "The samples of sets of intentions provided here generally correspond to the sets
    of chants for Mass in the Graduale simplex (Vatican Polyglot Press, Vatican City, 17 April 1966)."

    Attention all you bibliophile sleuths ...
  • Paul F. Ford
    Posts: 864
    Ed,

    The original document, Oratio Universalis, on the Universal Prayer (a.k.a. the Prayer of the Faithful), is dated 17 April 1966. It is reflected in the all the editions of the Graduale Simplex. So your list is correct: The first edition of the GS is 1967.

    The principal differences between the first and second editions, the editio typica (1967) and the editio typica altera (1975), are:

    The suite of antiphons for the feast of the Holy Name of Jesus (1967) becomes the suite of antiphons for Ordinary Time VIII (1975), except that the communion antiphon for the latter is transferred from the Common of the BVM.

    The suite of antiphons for the Season after Epiphany (1967) becomes the suite of antiphons for Ordinary Time I (1975).

    The suite of antiphons for the Septuagesima Season (1967) becomes the suite of antiphons for Lent IV (1975).

    The suite of antiphons for Lent II (1975) is created from the suite of antiphons for the feast of the Transfiguration (1967), except for the chants between the readings which are taken from Lent III (1975).

    The suite of antiphons for Lent II (1967) becomes the suite of antiphons for Lent III (1975).

    The suite of antiphons for the Passion Season (1967) becomes the suite of antiphons for Lent V (1975).

    A new Responsorial Psalm I was created for the Chrism Mass (1975).

    The Litanies and the Mass for Ember Days (1967) become the the Mass in Any Need (1975).

    The offertory and communion antiphons for the feast of the Sacred Heart are changed.

    The suite of antiphons for the Season after Pentecost I (1967) becomes the suite of antiphons for Ordinary Time II (1975). SAP II becomes OT III; SAP III becomes OT IV; SAP IV becomes OT V; SAP V becomes OT VI; and SAP VI becomes OT VII.

    The verses of the offertory antiphon for Candlemas are shortened.

    Antiphons from the feast of the Precious Blood (1967) are added to the Common of Martyrs and the psalm for the offertory is changed.

    The common of confessors is renamed the common for holy men.

    Blessings,
    Paul
    Thanked by 2Ioannes Andreades eft94530
  • Ioannes Andreades
    Posts: 311
    Paul, that is amazingly useful! It's interesting to know that the masses in any need were originally ember days chants.

    Of course, what all this leads me to realize is that in many ways, the G.S. is suited perhaps more to the old missal than it is to the N.O., further compromising its attractiveness. All the same, it is quite disheartening that its contents are not used more frequently. There is something austere about it that I quite like.
  • Ioannes Andreades
    Posts: 311
    S.C. 14 "In the restoration and promotion of the Sacred Liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit."

    One may wonder if the vast and unwieldy proliferation of psalm responses--intended to be sung by the congregation, remember--in the N.O. actually increases congregational participation. Having to learn to sing a response that might not be heard for another three years does not seem to be all that user friendly. The seasonal route, as found especially in the G.S. and B.F.W. seems to be the preferable route in terms of according with S.C. The "richer fare" from the Bible priority seems to have overridden both the "participation" priority and the "pride-of-place-of-chant" priority.
  • Pes
    Posts: 623
    eft

    So we should expect another reimpressio of the GS ... next year, in 2010. Paul (thank you!), is the editorial process open to comment? Perhaps there's a window of opportunity for suggesting useful changes.
  • Paul F. Ford
    Posts: 864
    Pes, yes: Please comment. I have rethought a number of my adaptations and am keeping track of all the errors.

    As I continue to work on the Spanish version, I am probably going to do it in traditional notation. When my publisher sees how handsome this version is, perhaps I will be allowed to do a similar edition of the revised English version.

    Ioannes Andreades said:
    Of course, what all this leads me to realize is that in many ways, the G.S. is suited perhaps more to the old missal than it is to the N.O., further compromising its attractiveness. All the same, it is quite disheartening that its contents are not used more frequently. There is something austere about it that I quite like.


    I love the austerity, I am tempted to say chastity, of the GS.

    But I think you presume a larger contrast between the EF and the OF than I do. Of course the greatest enrichments of the OF are the lectionary and the calendar and the recovery of the internal and external participation of the assembly. But singing antiphons and psalms is common to both, even though one has, alas, to travel far for an experience of the OF that resembles the solemnity and intimacy of the EF.

    Ioannes Andreades said:
    One may wonder if the vast and unwieldy proliferation of psalm responses--intended to be sung by the congregation, remember--in the N.O. actually increases congregational participation. Having to learn to sing a response that might not be heard for another three years does not seem to be all that user friendly. The seasonal route, as found especially in the G.S. and B.F.W. seems to be the preferable route in terms of according with S.C. The "richer fare" from the Bible priority seems to have overridden both the "participation" priority and the "pride-of-place-of-chant" priority.


    You are so right: “the vast and unwieldy proliferation of psalm responses in the N.O.” has not increased congregational participation.

    In my analysis of the responsorials of the GS, I have detected only ten melodic formulas. I have used these formulas to create melodies for lectionary antiphons missing from the GS: see here .

    Blessings,
    Paul
    Thanked by 1Ioannes Andreades
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 1,000
    Ioannes Andreades said:

    One may wonder if the vast and unwieldy proliferation of psalm responses--intended to be sung by the congregation, remember--in the N.O. actually increases congregational participation. Having to learn to sing a response that might not be heard for another three years does not seem to be all that user friendly. The seasonal route, as found especially in the G.S. and B.F.W. seems to be the preferable route in terms of according with S.C.


    I find the seasonal responsorial psalms in the Lectionary (see for example Ordo Lectionum Missae 174 [pp. 97-98]) correspond wonderfully with the themes of the seasonal suites of antiphons in the Graduale Simplex.

    Steven
  • Paul F. Ford
    Posts: 864
    Steven,

    This is a great insight. Have you worked out a chart?

    Gratefully,
    Paul
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 1,000
    Paul,

    Here are the seasonal responsorials from the Lectionary. I think there is only one mismatch: there are three psalms for Lent, while the Graduale Simplex listst four different Sundays (the psalms of Dominica II and III are identical).

    Steven
    TextusCommunes.pdf
    74K
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,577
    Paul,

    I am going to guess that ...
    (1) the Prayer of the Faithful document references the Simplex as a work-in-process,
    (2) by that date those chants were inserted into the Graduale Simplex.
    However, the reference does make it look like some interim version was really published!

    Documents on the Liturgy, 1963-1979: Conciliar, Papal, and Curial Texts
    (Collegeville MN, The Liturgical Press, 1982)

    ===page 594===
    [...]
    239. CONSILIUM, The Universal Prayer or Prayer of the Faithful, 1st ed., pro
    manuscripto    , 13 January 1965; 2nd ed. 17 April 1966: Vatican Polyglot Press,
    1966.*
    [...]
    ---
    *=Text here is that of the 2nd edition
    ===page 595===
    The samples of sets of intentions provided here generally correspond to the
    sets of chants for Mass in the Graduale simplex (Vatican Polyglot Press, Vatican City,
    17 April 1966).
    [...]
    ===page 1339===
    [...]
    532. SC RITES (Consilium), Decree Sacrosancti Oecumenici, promulgating the
    editio typica of The Simple Gradual, 3 September 1967: Not 3 (1967) 311.
    [...]
    ===page 1340===
    533. SC RITES (Consilium), The Simple Gradual, Introduction, 3 September
    1967: Vatican Polyglot Press, 1967; Not 3 (1967) 312-315.
    [...]
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 1,000
    In Sacred Music and Liturgy Reform after Vatican II (p. 154) the following is said about the Graduale Simplex:

    A provisional collection appeared for practical use in 1965 during the fourth session of the Second Vatican Council (Missæ in quarto periodo consilii oecumenici Vaticani II celebrandæ, Vatican City, 1965). [...] The content comprises thirteen different Mass formularies. Three of these Masses contain text borrowed from the Graduale Romanum. The remaining ten Mass formularies have been taken from the Graduale Simplex.


    It also makes mention of an edition of very plain proprium chants for the Missa chrismatis: Variationes in ordinem hebdomadæ sanctæ inducendæ Editio typica. (Vatican City, 1965), p. 10-14.
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,577
    smvanroode: "the introduction of De oratione communi seu fidelium (1966) even refers to a 1966 edition of the Graduale Simplex - does anyone know about this edition?"

    This is what got me curious about the timeline.
    I did not have access to some of my books and used Google to look for your reference,
    discovered the Paul Ford document which contains the reference you made,
    and later verified it is identical to the DOL and provided those fragments.
    It really does look like there was a work-in-progress 1966 version that got printed.

    Thanks for your most recent pointer.
    That last sentence ("have been take from") is confusing, so I read for more context.
    The following quote immediately precedes yours.
    http://www.musicasacra.com/pdf/smlr.pdf

    (page 153-154)
    The postconciliar commission for liturgy has also directed attention to the
    compilation of a Graduale simplex. The commission which has to prepare
    this edition is already half finished with this work. The official publication is
    as yet not obtainable.


    So ...
    1963-dec-4 Sacrosanctum Consilium (# 117 "simpler melodies, for use in small churches")
    ?? when was the simplex started ?
    1965-sep-14 Council Session Four begins
    provisional collection containing some items from the incomplete simplex
    1965-dec-8 Council Session Four ends (end of Council)
    1966-apr-17 Prayers of the Faithful (referring to simplex and publisher and date)
    1966-aug-21--28 Church Music Congress (referring to "half finished" status, and a provisional collection)
    ?? over the next twelve months are there other references to the incomplete simplex ?
    1967-sep-3 simplex official

    It sure looks like the simplex was started earlier than I thought,
    and temporary versions were floating around.
    I guess it is time to dig into the Bugnini book for this thread!
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,577
    The following quote provides some more info about the Missae in Quarta and the Graduale Simplex (GS).

    The quote contains four surprises (to me) ...
    (1) confusion about Missae in Quarta contents;
    it seems to have a different idea about the contents (compare post above and the quote).
    (2) the phrase "four Proper chants";
    does this mean the 1965 Chrism Mass model killed off the Offertory chant?
    (3) there is a lot of effort to describe the GS unseen
    "precise contents ... not known" (paragraphs one through six).
    (4) the dismissal of the GS as
    "not ... useful" (paragraph seven)!

    BCL Newsletter (January 1966, Vol 2 No 1)

    Simple Gradual

    Although the precise contents of the forthcoming Graduale Simplex are not known at the present time, the
    parts already published, especially for use during the Masses of the Council in 1965, make the following
    description possible.

    The Constitution on the Liturgy contains the statement: "It is desirable also that an edition [of the books
    of Gregorian chant] be prepared containing simpler melodies, for use in small churches" (art. 117). The
    first example of this was found in the Variationes for Holy Week (March 7, 1965). This booklet provided
    simpler chants for the Chrism Mass of Holy Thursday as alternatives to the full Proper chants of the Roman
    Gradual and Roman Missal: introit antiphon with eight verses of psalm 4; gradual responsory with ten verses
    of psalm 32; a hymn in place of the offertory antiphon and verses; communion antiphon with twelve verses
    of psalm 44.

    A similar pattern is followed in the booklet prepared for the Masses at the daily general congregations of
    the Council, although this booklet was limited to use at the Council. It is entitled Missae in Quarta Periodo
    Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II Celebrandae     and contains seven formularies of Proper chants for Masses of
    the Holy Spirit (because of the exceptional rule that the votive Mass of the Holy Spirit would be ordinarily
    celebrated before the daily congregations), and formularies for the September ember days, Advent, feasts
    of the Blessed Virgin Mary, apostles, martyrs, and confessors.

    In general these thirteen series of alternative Proper chants follow the pattern described above for the
    Chrism Mass. Between the lessons, however, both a responsorial psalm (a brief response added to four or
    five psalm verses) and an alleluia (threefold alleluia repeated after two psalm verses) are given, according
    to the occasion.

    Since the conciliar Masses for which this booklet was prepared were celebrated on weekdays, it contained
    no examples of the Proper chants for the Sundays of the various seasons, although these are the more
    significant part of the Simple Gradual itself.

    The latter, which is to be published in the next few months, may be described as providing simple Latin
    antiphons and melodies for the four Proper chants of Mass. Without changing or suppressing the full texts
    of the Roman Gradual and Roman Missal, they will offer alternatives for sung Masses. Because one formulary
    of Proper chants will suffice for several Sundays, for example, for the Sundays after Easter, the variety will
    not be beyond the capacity of ordinary choirs, with easy responses to be sung by the congregation. The addition
    of psalm verses will provide sufficient accompaniment, for example, to the offertory rite. It will also give
    sufficient stress to the period between the biblical readings.

    Because the Simple Gradual will be in Latin and in Gregorian chant, it will not be immediately or directly
    useful for sung Masses in the vernacular languages. It will, however, be a sound pattern for similar books in
    the vernacular for choirs and people, according to the needs of each country or language group.
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,577
    Ioannes Andreades: quite disheartening that its contents are not used more frequently.

    A timeline summary with four sources (Popes, Curia, Council, USCCB) represented,
    shows that the USCCB Bishops Committee on the Liturgy (BCL) gradually counter-proposed alternatives
    and steered the USA implementation in a different direction.
    By 1970, the USCCB had completely ignored the Graduale Simplex and its translation.

    I have skim-read the first several hundred pages of the volume
    Thirty-Five Years of the BCL Newsletter 1965-2000
    to fill in the following timeline (the volume index is insufficiently detailed).
    I have tried to provide ALL Graduale Simplex (Simple Gradual) phrases mentioned in the volume,
    as well as other interesting items along the way.

    ---

    1903-nov-22 Tra Le Sollicitudine (Pope Pius X)
    re-asserts Gregorian chant

    1928-dec-20 Divini Cultus Sanctitatem (Pius XI)
    faithful ... made once more to sing the Gregorian Chant,
    so far as it belongs to them to take part in it

    1955-dec-25 Musicae Sacrae Disciplina (Pius XII)
    # 46-47 for serious reasons, some quite definite exceptions have been conceded
    ... hymns ... allow ... if they cannot prudently be removed

    1958-sep-03 De Musica Sacra Et Sacra Liturgia (Sacred Congregation for Rites)
    # 14a repeats above exception
    # 33 hymns during low Mass, if they are appropriate to the various parts of the mass

    1963-dec-04 Sacrosanctum Consilium ("SC")
    # 117 simpler melodies, for use in small churches [i.e., invent the Graduale Simplex]
    [promotes chant, no mention of hymns as alternative]

    1964-sep-26 Inter Oecumenici (SC Instruction 1)
    # 42 Melodies for parts to be sung in the vernacular by celebrant and ministers
    must have the approval of the competent, territorial ecclesiastical authority
    [nothing about music for faithful]

    1965-sep USCCB BCL Newsletter Vol 1 No 1
    Replies to Questions ... Music
    At low Masses, may the Gradual and the processional chants be sung?
    Yes (N 3-6).
    At low Masses may all or some of the parts of the Ordinary or the Proper be sung by the People?
    May the celebrant chant these together with the faithful?
    Affirmative to both questions (N 2-7).
    ... In n. 50 of the Instruction of September 1964, concerned with non-solemn Masses [Missa cantata; low Mass]
    celebrated with the people, it is not stated whether the intervenient chants may be sung. Is it prohibited to sing these parts?
    No, in fact it is preferable that, so far as possible, these chants should be sung
    and should be sung with the participation of the people, who make a suitable resonse (N 2-8).

    1966-jan USCCB BCL Newsletter Vol 2 No 1
    [describes Graduale Simplex contents without actually having a copy and pans it (not useful, its in Latin)]

    1967-mar-05 Musicam Sacram (SC Instruction 1b)
    # 16 entrusting to the choir alone the entire singing of the whole Proper and of the whole Ordinary,
    to the complete exclusion of the people's participation in the singing, is to be deprecated

    1967-sep-03 Graduale Simplex in usum minorum ecclesiarum

    1967-oct USCCB BCL Newsletter Vol 3 No 10
    Graduale Simplex has antiphons and psalm verses that may be substituted for or interchanged with
    the present texts of the Roman Missal and Graduale

    1967-nov USCCB BCL Newsletter Vol 3 No 11
    Although directly intended for small churches, provision is also made--as the introductory notes
    indicate--for the use of the Simple Gradual in combination with the Roman Graduale,
    the liturgical chant book which contains the proper chants of the Roman Missal.
    ... [ICEL] is preparing a translation of the antiphons or refrains ...

    1967-dec USCCB BCL Newsletter Vol 3 No 12
    [provides complete translation of introduction to Graduale Simplex]

    1968-jan USCCB BCL Newsletter Vol 4 No 1
    The Place of Music In Eucharistic Celebrations [PMEC]
    recommended for consideration by all
    [six-plus pages long, written by Music Advisory Board, approved by BCL, material recycled into MCW,LMT,STTL]

    1968-mar USCCB BCL Newsletter Vol 4 No 3
    USCCB request to Holy See for permission to substitute hymns gets "deferred"

    1969-jan USCCB BCL Newsletter Vol 5 No 1
    Simple Gradual
    The texts of the Simple Gradual (antiphons etc., but not psalm verses) were completed
    in translation early in the summer of 1968. They have been approved in several countries
    by small committees of the bishops delegated for this purpose by the respective episcopal conferece.
    When confirmed by the Holy See, the texts will be made available to interested composers,
    editors, and publishers.

    1969-feb USCCB BCL Newsletter Vol 5 No 2
    The approbation of the "English translations of the antiphons, responses, and other
    parts of the Graduale Simplex, prepared by thhe International Committee on English in the Liturgy"
    was confirmed (Consilium, 2709/68, December 9, 1968).
    Supplement to the Simple Gradual ... confirmed (ibid).

    1969-mar USCCB BCL Newsletter Vol 5 No 3
    USCCB decision confirmed by Holy See allows the use of similar collections of psalms
    and antiphons as substitutes for the present chants of Mass ...
    In English the principal collections of this kind are the Gelineau, Somerville, and Deiss psalms.
    The reason for this decision was to permit substitute texts to be used without waiting for
    the composition of musical settings of the antiphons of the Simple Gradual.

    1969-may USCCB BCL Newsletter Vol 5 No 5
    Simple Gradual copies available from ICEL for $3/each.

    1969-jun USCCB BCL Newsletter Vol 5 No 6-7
    Excerpts from the Synod of Detroit [these seem to promote PMEC ideas]

    1970-may USCCB BCL Newsletter Vol 6 No 5
    General Instruction of the Roman Missal
    Notes related to the individual sections of the GIRM include adaptations make by the [USCCB] ...
    19. Singing. ...
    21. Actions and postures. ...
    26. Entrance song. As a further alternative to the singing of the entrance antiphon and psalm of the
    Roman Gradual (Missal) or of the Simple Gradual, the [USCCB] approved the use of other
    collections of psalms and antiphons in English, as supplement to the Simple Gradual,
    including psalms arranged in responsorial form, metrical and similar versions of psalms,
    provided they are used in accordance with the principles of the Simple Gradual
    and are selected in harmony with the liturgical season, feast, or occasion
    (decree confirmed by the Concilium ... Dec 17, 1968).
    [there is more, but it is unclear whether it is part of GIRM, or newsletter commentary;
    there is mention of Conference of Bishops adopted additional criterion in Nov 1969]

    1970-jun USCCB BCL Newsletter Vol 6 No 6
    General Instruction of the Roman Missal
    [fragments continue from the previous newsletter;
    it is unclear what is part of GIRM and what is newsletter commentary;
    specifically there is reference to PMEC]

    1970-jul USCCB BCL Newsletter Vol 6 No 7
    General Instruction of the Roman Missal
    [fragments continue from the previous newsletter]

    1972-jul USCCB BCL Newsletter Vol 9 No 7-8
    Music In Catholic Worship (MCW)
    new statement on the role of music in liturgical celebrations.
    It is a further development of the November 1967 instruction [PMEC].

    1972-sep USCCB BCL Newsletter Vol 8 No 9
    Entrance antiphon
    ... Ordinarily, however, it is expected that full use will be made of the decision
    to employ appropriate substitutes sung by the congregateion with a cantor or choir.
    For the United States, the [USCCB] has given the criteria for texts to be sung as entrance songs.
    (See "Notes to the General Instruction", no. 26, included in editions of the Order of Mass.)
    ... The entrance antiphons of the new Roman Missal are usually related to the particular season or feast;
    on ordinary Sundays they do not have a clear relationhsip to the Mass formulary. As already indicated,
    the antiphon will be omitted on almost all Sundays and other occasions when it is expected
    that there will be an entrance song or hymn.

    1973-aug-22 General Audience (Pope Paul VI)
    ... 10. Singing. What a problem this is. Take heart. It is not insoluble.
    A new age for sacred music is at hand. Many are asking that the Latin and
    Gregorian Chant be preserved in all countries for the Gloria, the Creed,
    the Sanctus, and the Agnus Dei. May God so will. Just how it can be done might he restudied. ...

    1974-apr-14 Voluntati Obsequens (Pope Paul VI)
    cover letter for music book of chant "Jubilate Deo"

    1975-mar-27 GIRM
    see content (with USA adaptations) at
    http://musicasacra.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1719&page=1#Item_6

    1982-oct USCCB BCL Newsletter Vol 18 No 10
    Liturgical Music Today (LMT)
    A new statement on the role of music in the liturgical celebrations.
    Will not replace the 1972 statement [MCW].
    Will reveal the development of music in the liturgy in the United States since
    the publication of the influential instruction of the Congregation of Rites
    on liturgical music Musicam Sacram (Mar 5, 1967).

    2003-mar-17 GIRM-2003 (i.e., GIRM-2000 plus USA adaptations)
    # 48 suitable liturgical song

    ---

    EDIT: typos corrected

    FYI, the above BCL Newletter fragments are part of the series of newsletters that predate those available at
    www.usccb.org
    left margin click "Church Life and Ministries"
    left margin click "Liturgy"
    left margin click "Newsletter"
  • Paul F. Ford
    Posts: 864
    It is my impression the the BCL didn't even know what the Graduale Simplex is until the later 1990's when I was petitioning the BCL (over a three-year period, twice a year) to allow ICEL to release the approved English translation of the text so that I could publish By Flowing Waters.

    Msgr. Frederick McManus wrote the passage from the BCL Newsletter (January 1966, Vol 2 No 1) you quote above on August 8, 2009. He has been at the Council for all four periods, during the last of which the chants that later were incorporated into the first edition of Graduale Simplex (1967).

    Ed, did you ever get a copy of the approved English translation of the Graduale Simplex?
  • Ioannes Andreades
    Posts: 311
    Fascinating!

    On what authority was 1972-sep USCCB BCL Newsletter Vol 8 No 9 issued? Was that the result of a vote by bishops, was it ratified by Rome, was it the personal opinion of the editor of the newsletter?
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,577
    Ioannes, I do not know what are the steps to creating any (past or present) BCL Newsletter.

    I have carefully re-read the 1972-sep USCCB BCL Newsletter Vol 8 No 9.
    Below I use blockquotes to provide (hand-typed) the entire outline (all headings),
    and in particular, the entire content beneath some headings,
    which hopefully give clarity to the above timeline fragment, and answer your questions.

    Thirty-Five Years of the BCL Newsletter 1965-2000 (pages 345-352)
    There are indentations which I cannot reproduce (forum elides extra whitepace?).
    The [...] is mine to indicate material I skipped.
    The [bracketed material] is in the original.

    Newsletter
    BISHOPS' COMMITTEE ON THE LITURGY
    SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER, 1972 Vol. 8/Nos. 9-10

    Sacramentary for Sundays--Publication Information

    The publication of the provisional Sacramentary for Sundays, after unavoidable delays, took place in August. The volume, originally advertised as comprising 300 pages, turned out to be 400 pages. This has made necessary a publication price of $7.50 per copy; bulk orders of 25 copies at $112.50 ($4.50 per copy). Orders at the pre-publication price have now been filled, and the number of copies in print is limited.

    [Based upon the publication of the Roman Missal of Paul VI, the English Sacramentary for Sundays is for common use throughout the United States. While the prayers of the 1964 sacramentary may continue to be used, the new provisional sacramentary may be used in its place. Of special interest is its extensive introduction. A careful reading of the introduction will be a great aid to understanding the new order of Mass and the presidential role within the eucharistic celebration. The following paragraphs are excerpted from the section, "How to Use This Sacramentary."]

    Introductory Rite
    [...]

    Sunday Renewal of Baptism
    [...]

    Opening Prayer
    [...]

    Invitatory and Silence
    [...]

    Texts of the Opening Prayer
    [...]

    Entrance Antiphon

    Although the sacramentary is a book of presidential prayers said by the priest, for the sake of completeness this edition does contain the brief sung antiphons of the entrance and communion processions. These are printed in smaller type and to one side in order to indicate that they are not ordinarily said by the priest and indeed are not parts of a sacramentary.

    The General Instruction takes for granted that there will be singing at the entrance of the priest and other ministers (and at the communion rite; cf. nos. 26, 56, 83, 119), certainly in the Sunday celebration of the Eucharist. When the antiphons are set to music, they may be used for this purpose--i.e., as refrains to psalms. Ordinarily, however, it is expected that full use will be made of the decision to employ appropriate substitutes sung by the congregation with a cantor or choir. For the United States, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops has given the criteria for texts to be sung as entrance songs. (See "Notes to the General Instruction, no. 26, included in editions of the Order of Mass.)

    Only in the absence of song is the entrance antiphon used as a spoken or recited text. Since these antiphons are too abrupt for communal recitation, it is preferable that the priest (or the deacon, other minister, or commentator) adapt the antiphon and incorporate it in the thematic presentation of the Mass of the day. After the initial greeting, "the priest, deacon, or other minister may very briefly introduce the Mass of the day" (Order of Mass, no. 3). The adaptation of the text of the entrance antiphon for this purpose is suggested by the Congregation for Divine Worship (Instruction on particular Calendars and Offices, June 24, 1970, no. 40a).

    The entrance antiphons of the new Roman Missal are usually related to the particular season or feast; on ordinary Sundays they do not have a clear relationship to the Mass formulary. As already indicated, the antiphon will be omitted on almost all Sundays and other occasions when it is expected that there will be an entrance song or hymn.

    Liturgy of the Word
    [...]

    Liturgy of the Eucharist
    Prayer over the Gifts
    [...]

    Eucharistic Prayer
    [...]

    Prefaces of the Eucharistic Prayer
    [...]

    Choices of Prefaces
    [...]

    Communion Antiphon

    The communion antiphon, although it is not ordinarily to be said by the priest, has been included for completeness. The Order of Mass (no. 108) and the General Instruction call for singing during the communion of the priest and people, to "express the union of the communicants who join their voices in a single song, show the joy of all, and make the communion procession an act of brotherhood" (no. 56i). The National Conference of Catholic Bishops has provided criteria for texts to be used (see "Notes to the General Instruction" in editions of the Order of Mass, no. 56i). For use of the communion antiphon if there is no singing, see above, "Opening Antiphon."

    Prayer after Communion
    [...]

    Concluding Rite
    [...]

    Rite of Blessing and Dismissal
    [...]

    Blessing and Sprinkling of Holy Water at Sunday Masses
    [...]

    Antiphons Outside the Easter Season
    [...]

    Antiphons During the Easter Season
    [...]

    General Sacramental Absolution
    [...]

    Prayers We Have in Common
    [...]

    New Publications: U.S. Sunday Lectionary and Canadian Hymnal
    [...]

    Liturgical Ministries
    [...]

    EDIT: typos corrected
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 1,000
    Ordinarily, however, it is expected that full use will be made of the decision to employ appropriate substitutes sung by the congregation with a cantor or choir.
    [...]
    The entrance antiphons of the new Roman Missal are usually related to the particular season or feast; on ordinary Sundays they do not have a clear relationship to the Mass formulary. As already indicated, the antiphon will be omitted on almost all Sundays and other occasions when it is expected that there will be an entrance song or hymn.

    This intrigued me. First, why was it expected already in 1972 that the propers would ordinarily be substituted by hymns? It couldn't be because of Council documents, as Jeffrey Tucker has showed lately, because Vatican II called for chief emphasis on propers.
    Secondly, does the Introit on Sundays per Annum indeed not have a clear relationship with the Mass formulary? This is an argument I hear a lot when people criticize the use of propers instead of hymns. Where does this story actually come from?
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    Responding to your first question, smvanroode, could it be that hymns had become the most important music in many parishes--even before the Council--and thus the expectation was that hymns would replace propers? Very generally speaking and without judging, the contemporary use of hymns/songs has resulted in an "inculturation" of sorts that has brought US Catholicism more in line with "low church" Protestant worship and thus with the nation's Protestant heritage. Think Second Great Awakening. Were the bishops so pastorally sensitive to this issue that they took it for granted that hymns would win the day? "It's America, after all, home of the camp meeting, revivals, and singing schools." Now I seriously doubt this is the real answer to your question, but it presents us with a theory that could be pursued more rigorously.

    As an informal side project to something related I was doing in graduate school, I created a historical profile of the musical practices in the local area using print evidence from the diocesan Catholic newspaper and anecdotal evidence from elderly Catholics, and I found that hymnody did create a sense of "identity" for certain parishes. In other words, hymnody was very important to a lot of people.

    I attributed the results of my research in part to the 1958 Instruction on Sacred Music and Sacred Liturgy, which many people might have interpreted as boosting the use of vernacular hymnody while diminishing the role of propers. I'm not saying the document does this, but I can see how people could use selected passages to justify any number of things. As we all know, picking and choosing from the documents can take a liturgical praxis in any number of directions!

    Then again, we must ask who would have read such a document? In a mission land like North Carolina (where in the 1950s something like .1% or .2% of the state was Catholic), people probably did whatever they could just to get by. Most Catholics were converts, and old habits die hard. Where there is only a very short history of a Catholic establishment, could we really expect much different? In the early part of the century, not every place worshiped like St. Patrick's in New York.

    The point of sharing this story is that looking at documents and comparing to real life (top down) only gets you partway up the mountain. Seeing what people did and drawing conclusions from that (bottom up) takes you part of the way as well. We might find two different answers to your question depending on which direction we travel. I look forward to reading other hypotheses and answers!
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,577
    smvanroode: expected already in 1972 that the propers would ordinarily be substituted by hymns?

    In Dec 1963 we want the Graduale Simplex, in Sep 1967 we release it, in Apr 1969 we want alternatives ...

    Documents On The Liturgy 1963-1979 Conciliar, Papal, and Curial Texts (pages 534-537)

    209. SC DIVINE WORSHIP, Instruction Constitutione Apostolica, on the gradual
    carrying out of the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3 April 1969),
    20 October 1969: AAS 61 749-753; Not 5 (1969) 418-423.
    [...]
    12. It is up to the conferences of bishops to prepare a collection of vernacular texts
    for the songs at the entrance, presentation of the gifts, and communion.[11] Upon its
    approval of such a collection, the conference of bishops will at the same time
    strongly encourage experts in the field to add to and improve this collection, guided
    by the texts given in the new Roman Missal and by the genius and idiom of each
    language.
    [...]
    -----
    [11] See GIRM nos. 26, 50, 56 i.
  • BachLover2BachLover2
    Posts: 330
    i would suggest that the simplex has, perhaps, not accomplished its goal...based on the above elucidations....it is does not seem accessible to small churches. years ago, a teacher of mine claimed that the grad. simplex was the 'best kept secret of vatican 2'...i think he was right
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    It is a wonderful resource for starting scholas as it tends to isolate neume groups and gives them time to learn them and get them under their belts before moving on to the GR.
  • ProfKwasniewskiProfKwasniewski
    Posts: 247
    This thread has been fascinating to read. Thank you for all the quotations and scholarly commentary!

    A pastoral, "on the ground" story may be helpful here. The Graduale Simplex has been a tremendous blessing at Wyoming Catholic College. Every weekday of the school year, we sing the Introit, Alleluia, Offertory, and Communion from the GS, either in Latin or in Fr. Weber's English versions (many of which he has made specifically for WCC, though he will gladly share them with anyone else). The Responsorial Psalm is the only Proper we do not sing as a rule, except during Paschaltide when we sing the double Alleluia, using the music found in "Chants abreges." The students tend to sing the antiphons robustly, while a few cantors sing verses in between. And of course we keep periods of silence so that there's not always singing. The Ordinary is sung in Greek/Latin plainchant, with the setting changing seasonally. On some days the congregations will also sing a communion hymn, for which there is plenty of time because of the set-up for Eucharistic Exposition immediately after Mass. On the whole, I don't think I've ever seen a more successful integration of singing into a daily ordinary form Mass in my entire life.

    While I certainly prefer the EF, I can still feel "at peace" in the OF when celebrated reverently and with the accompaniment of chants as above described.

    Those who attended the CMAA conference might have seen some of our seasonal Mass booklets, which I would be glad to share with anyone who is interested.
  • ProfKwasniewskiProfKwasniewski
    Posts: 247
    I would like to add -- lest my description give the wrong impression -- that there are students who prefer not to sing and just to sit back and listen, and that's fine -- we don't believe in "musical bullying." The singing is there for those who wish to join, while others may find it more prayerful and participatory to meditate on what is being sung. There is no cantor at the front of the church urging people on; rather, a few cantors in the pews or in the choir loft intone and lead. The overall feel is meditative rather than activist, if that makes sense.

    And last but not least, we do have the EF three times a week -- low Masses on Wednesday and Saturday, and a Missa Cantata on Sunday evening.
Add a Comment