Is a vernacular gradual (chant) licit?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,015
    This discussion was created from comments split from: Where to find English propers in Gregorian chant?.

    I have modified the title (which I assigned to this collection of comments) in order to clarify the meaning: the topic of the conversation was not whether a gradual book is licit (one that presents a collection of chants proposed for use as propers for the Mass, and possibly other chants also); but whether a vernacular gradual chant -- a chant sung after the first reading of Mass, analogous to the graduals found in the book Graduale Romanum, may be licit and under what circumstances.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw M. Jackson Osborn
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 2,142
    Fr. Weber is the best!

    For Colloquium 2022, CMAA commissioned him to do the English Proper for SS. Fisher and More. At the Alleluia, there's a melisma on "king'" of "kingdom", ending with a quilisma group. On the last note, there's a horizontal episema, which one almost never finds in that position. But that note has to set the very busy "ng", and Fr. Weber realized that it required a little more time. I never thought I'd be blown away by the genius of an episema, but here we are.
    Thanked by 3CHGiffen davido ServiamScores
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 3,031
    I have great respect for his chants. His adaptions of long chants can be heavily edited adaptions
    In his defense, he never set out to adapt the gradual 1:1 into the vernacular.

    There's an old lecture of his that someone linked to here on the forum (an old colloquium, I believe) where he discusses his approach, and he categorically rejects the idea of sticking to the notes 1:1 and making the text fit the music. His approach is the exact opposite: text first, music second. I make no judgment on which approach is "correct" (I think both can be the right choice depending on the aim in mind.) His goal, as best I can tell from using the books and based on what he said in that lecture is to provide an accessible chant in the vernacular that savors of the original but is better suited to the "noble simplicity" of the novus ordo. If my assessment is correct about his aims, then he hit the mark perfectly.

    For less melismatic chants, he often is very close to 1:1. I have had his book in one hand and a gradual in the other and sung his vernacular adaptation followed by the original and they flowed seamlessly into the other. One might say that it is merely the excess "fat" of the chant that is sometimes carved away, and even then, his "option i" chants can still be fairly florid.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • davido
    Posts: 1,068
    I agree. Have you compared Weber and the American Gradual much? Bruce Ford - who is on record here at this forum as being in favor of adaption (he comes down hard on Burgess for just sticking words under notes) - retains a lot more notes from the Graduale. However he is also not constrained by the text of the Roman Missal 3rd Edition as is Fr Weber.
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 780
    The suggestion that proper settings must employ the texts of the Roman Missal 3rd Edition where provided is debatable (though I'm not saying they shouldn't). These were provided for said masses and are not always identical to the corresponding Gradual text, which it was assumed would be used for sung masses. It's not always possible to fall back on an approved biblical translation, either, as proper texts have had a life of their own over the centuries, and can differ more or less from the scriptural equivalent. Finally, some propers aren't found in the Missal - notably, the Offertory.

    I'm grateful Divine Worship (the Ordinariates' liturgy) comes with proper texts included for use when sung or spoken. Then again, the rubrics give us the latitude to sing them in Latin from an approved book, or even from Anglican collections from our patrimony, such as The Plainchant Gradual (to which our given texts are close, though not always identical).
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,798
    The rubrics are pretty clear. In the U.S. one may use the missal antiphons in English. But the gradual in translation is off limits. At the very least no permission exists to generally translate texts and set them to chant music. They all fall under option four. But that is not appropriate for the chants between the readings for example.

    The missal antiphons are also off limits in other countries where this permission doesn’t exist.

    The Ordinariate has different legislation for its Mass. the base is the GIRM, with (heavy) modifications. But since you can explicitly use a gradual, well, you can do so. Unfortunately a lot of places still use psalmody.
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 780
    My point wasn't that you should or shouldn't use the missal or other translations (that's an interesting discussion, but not one of direct significance to me). Rather, it's that there are issues around text and translation that should be borne in mind.

    We shouldn't let the best be the enemy of the good. Solemn psalm tones work well for us when propers are combined with hymns, which are also a significant part of the patrimony. In our small group we do this for the introit and offertory. I also find it encourages a degree of congregational participation, as the same tones are used consistently. We also generally use solemn tones for the chants between the readings, as the full-fat versions are usually out of scale of our celebration. We do sing the gregorian communio, in both English and Latin, on different iterations.
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 723
    also find it encourages a degree of congregational participation


    This is bad, though! The people should not sing the propers! I'm DM at an ordinariate parish where what you describe was common practice before I took over. We now use the full introits, and since the people were accustomed to the same Gloria Patri at every Mass, they now try to sing the Gloria Patri of the full introit by ear each Sunday. It does not go well.
    Thanked by 3MatthewRoth ServiamScores M. Jackson Osborn
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,546
    Not necessarily bad!
    De musica sacra et sacra liturgia §25 c) Thirdly, if those present are well trained in Gregorian chant, they can sing the parts of the Proper of the Mass. This form of participation should be carried out particularly in religious congregations and seminaries.

    And of course the Graduale Simplex was specifically intended to facilitate this form of participation.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 723
    if those present are well trained in Gregorian chant


    Big "if" there!
    Thanked by 1MatthewRoth
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,798
    did “well trained in Gregorian chant” somehow escape our notice? I like congregational singing of the Sequence, but since our people can barely handle alternating unless I put the most explicit of instructions in booklets, then I am not gonna encourage it these days.

    I can barely get people to pick up the music, whether in a separate booklet or in the back of the hand missal, and I’m telling people in the congregation who notice people singing poorly to help those people out. It is extremely disedifying and my pastor doesn’t necessary support every last policing effort, but he does think that actively bothering someone at Mass, even with a passive act (that is, they have no idea how disruptive this is and mean well), needs to be corrected. Same goes for parents and children about which he has strong feelings in our present circumstances but which he leaves to the laity to address amongst themselves.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,798
    @IanW you say
    My point wasn't that you should or shouldn't use the missal or other translations (that's an interesting discussion, but not one of direct significance to me). Rather, it's that there are issues around text and translation that should be borne in mind.


    but I’m begging you to understand that a) it doesn’t matter b) the issues of text and translation don’t matter when you are told what text may be used and c) now you are hedging from what you say here:

    The suggestion that proper settings must employ the texts of the Roman Missal 3rd Edition where provided is debatable (though I'm not saying they shouldn't). These were provided for said masses and are not always identical to the corresponding Gradual text, which it was assumed would be used for sung masses. It's not always possible to fall back on an approved biblical translation, either, as proper texts have had a life of their own over the centuries, and can differ more or less from the scriptural equivalent. Finally, some propers aren't found in the Missal - notably, the Offertory.


    It’s not debatable. You must use RM3 in English, in the dioceses of the United States of America. You cannot use the gradual or other propers unless you’re willing to fall back into option 4, but that only covers the propers which can “legitimately” be replaced. The psalm/gradual and the Alleluia or whatever is sung instead of or in addition to the Alleluia do not fall in this category.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 3,031
    But the gradual in translation is off limits.
    I'm very curious about this claim.

    I fail to see how it is somehow "licit" to do a four-hymn sandwhich and eschew the propers all together, but it is not licit to chant the gradual with an accurate translation, or at least the one in the Gregorian Missal. (And if not the GM, then the AP&C or one of the previously approved translations which are grandfathered in.)

    (Leaving aside the fact that this appears to be a complete 180º on what De Musica Sacra at Sacra Liturgia legistlated only a few years prior,) Musicam Sacram explicitly states:
    45. For the liturgy of the Sacraments and Sacramentals, and for other special celebrations of the liturgical year, suitable melodies should be provided, which can encourage a celebration in a more solemn form, even in the vernacular, depending on the capabilities of individual congregations and in accordance with the norms of the competent authority.
    ...
    51. Pastors of souls, having taken into consideration pastoral usefulness and the character of their own language, should see whether parts of the heritage of sacred music, written in previous centuries for Latin texts, could also be conveniently used, not only in liturgical celebrations in Latin but also in those performed in the vernacular. There is nothing to prevent different parts in one and the same celebration being sung in different languages.
    ...
    54. In preparing popular versions of those parts which will be set to melodies, and especially of the Psalter, experts should take care that fidelity to the Latin text is suitably harmonized with applicability of the vernacular text to musical settings. The nature and laws of each language must be respected, and the features and special characteristics of each people must be taken into consideration: all this, together with the laws of sacred music, should be carefully considered by musicians in the preparation of the new melodies.
    ...
    [and a tangential guide]
    56. Among the melodies to be composed for the people's texts, those which belong to the priest and ministers are particularly important, whether they sing them alone, or whether they sing them together with the people, or whether they sing them in "dialogue" with the people. In composing these, musicians will consider whether the traditional melodies of the Latin liturgy, which are used for this purpose, can inspire the melody to be used for the same texts in the vernacular.

    Adding in the fact that Gregorian Chant was explicitly to be retained, I really fail to see how adapting a Gradual into the vernacular is somehow verboten or a "bad option" as it were. It seems a perfectly reasonable option to me.
    Thanked by 2hilluminar Chrism
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,798
    Because the rubrics explicitly allow a four-hymn sandwich and don’t offer the possibility of the gradual in English. I don’t see why this is that hard to understand.

    I don’t care whether it is a good thing to do (I think that it isn’t, as it happens) or one consistent with other parts of a possible reform, I care what you are allowed to do. And the GIRM is clear: Latin GR, English form of the missal texts, another suitable song/hymn, or the spoken text. The lectionary and the Latin are the only options between the readings.

    What applies at the entrance applies to the offertory (except it is stupid not to provide a missal proper) and I presume to communion.

    Now I suppose that you could get the translation approved (this is particularly the case for communion where you have more musical choices) but the rubrics as written don’t support this, and that still leaves you without the chants between the readings unless you rewrite the GIRM.
  • GerardH
    Posts: 548
    The lectionary and the Latin are the only options between the readings.

    Also the Graduale Simplex, but your point still stands.
  • Dixit_Dominus_44
    Posts: 201
    In terms of whether one can sing the Gradual in place of the Responsorial Psalm, the 1970 rubrics explicitly permit and envision this—in Latin or English. Some liturgical books seem to prefer the Responsorial Psalm, while others suggest the first option would be the Gradual found in the Graduale Romanum.

    There are many settings, and one that springs immediately to mind is the Saint John's Gradual, which has English settings of the all the Tracts, Graduals, and Alleluias. The creator had the superfluous-yet-helpful idea to get extra approval, and the Saint John's Gradual was published with Ecclesiastical Approbation by Seán Patrick Cardinal O’Malley, Archbishop of Boston. The imprimatur (“let it be printed”) is dated May 16th, 2024.
    Thanked by 3ServiamScores AnimaVocis Joseph Michael
  • davido
    Posts: 1,068
    Poor OP. I think only 4 responses are in reference to his question
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,798
    Well no, because it’s important to get people back on track and to remind them that the missal proper option is not authorized (I suspect based on the username that the OP is in the Philippines…) in most other countries.

    I just don’t think that a translation of the gradual etc. can fall under another antiphon and psalm… and no, it would not be superfluous. The vernacular gradual translation would have to get approval from a diocesan bishop or the USCCB (I still don’t think that it’s OK, but that’s the only way to make it OK).
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 3,031
    GRIM, straight from the Vatican’s own website:

    In the dioceses of the United States of America, the following may also be sung in place of the Psalm assigned in the Lectionary for Mass: either the proper or seasonal antiphon and Psalm from the Lectionary, as found either in the Roman Gradual or Simple Gradual or in another musical setting; or an antiphon and Psalm from another collection of the psalms and antiphons, including psalms arranged in metrical form, providing that they have been approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or the diocesan Bishop. Songs or hymns may not be used in place of the responsorial Psalm.


    (61)

    https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html#B._The_Liturgy_of_the_Word_
    Thanked by 1AnimaVocis
  • AnimaVocis
    Posts: 177
    So, Matthew, by your reasoning, all those who have been using "Simple English Propers" and the like, or any version of the gradual in the vernacular are in "illicit" territory, and therefore should cease and desist?

    Also, I think it's helpful to remember what the GIRM actually says. So here is GIRM 48 for everyone:

    This chant is sung alternately by the choir and the people or similarly by a cantor and the people,
    or entirely by the people, or by the choir alone. In the Dioceses of the United States of America there
    are four options for the Entrance Chant: (1) the antiphon from the Missal or the antiphon with its
    Psalm from the Graduale Romanum as set to music there or in another setting; (2) the antiphon and
    Psalm of the Graduale Simplex for the liturgical time; (3) a chant from another collection of Psalms and
    antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including Psalms arranged
    in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) another liturgical chant that is suited to the sacred action, the day,
    or the time of year, similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.
    If there is no singing at the Entrance, the antiphon given in the Missal is recited either by the
    faithful, or by some of them, or by a reader; otherwise, it is recited by the Priest himself, who may even
    adapt it as an introductory explanation (cf. no. 31).


    By my reading of this, option 1 offers the antiphon from the missal or the GR, as set in the GR or another setting. Would not English translations fall under "or in another setting"?

    "But that only is speaking about the music! Not the text!"

    Fine, then let's presume, then, that vernacular Propers are relegated to options 3 & 4. In that case, if we are to presume that there is a hierarchy of preference within the GIRM, then these may be less desirable than options 1 & 2, but I would think that anything the bears in mind and adheres in Spirit to TLS (and I paraphrase) "wherein music more closely mimics that sacred song in form and substance, the more worthy of the temple it becomes", would be FAR more desirable than a 4 hymn sandwich....

    We can't act as if the current edition of the GIRM is prescriptive in all things in the same way the VO rubrics were prescriptive, because that was not the same intention of the writers. Certainly, some things ARE prescriptive of the Mass, even the above section leaves a great amount of latitude for decisions to be made and options to be explored.

    I'm not saying this is the right place to be, or the proper attitude to have... But it is where we are, is it not? This is the current state of music in the US (and elsewhere I'm sure...).

    Also, if were are going based solely of what the GIRM states in P48, and in a prescriptive manner, then I would argue that 97.5% of the churches are not following what is stated here... Does EVERY Hymnal and missalette music edition have the proper imprimatur and nihil obstat? If not, or if not receiving other similar approval, then a hymn out of said Hymnal is no more appropriate for the entrance than a vernacular proper would be, as it does not have proper approval!

    If the bishops and the USCCB actually reviewed and gave oversight to these things, then we would be having entirely different conversations. In the current climate, however, there is no oversight and only very little guidance. Therefore, we are left to police ourselves, much as it was in the days and years immediately following the 2nd Vatican Council!

    Frankly, until someone of proper authority (i.e. NOT LAITY) clarifies these issues that we bicker about on a rotating basis, no one of us can say with authority or clarity "this is what the GIRM wants!" Is the GIRM Prescriptive or Descriptive? Is it either/or or both/and? One thing is for certain, we can't approach the NO with the same sensibility that we can approach the VO - they are different monsters. They are different RITES of Mass! The more I serve in both worlds, the more I'm convinced they are incompatible.
    Thanked by 1irishtenor
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 3,031
    Respectfully, I cannot overcome the cognitive dissonance required to earnestly argue that it is ok to use non-liturgical texts, but not ok to use accurate translations of authentic liturgical texts. I just fail to see how this can be argued in all seriousness or good faith, especially when there are numerous translations that exist with ecclesiastical approval.

    And we all know lots of things that have been published with an imprimatur or a nihil obstat that utterly fail the most basic tests where orthodoxy. Some of these things were even called into question relatively recently by the USCCB themselves in their document Hymnody at the Service of the Church.

    (As I've said before, an imprimatur is only as good as the person granting it. I once had a "St. Joseph Prayerbook" published by the "Catholic Publishing Co." with an imprimatur out of Newark that had prayers to the Egyptian demon God RA in it. I kid you not. It also had prayers to Mohammed, Buddha, and much besides in it's "Prayers of the world" section. This egregious imprimatur and N.O. permanently disabused me of the notion that this process is somehow tantamount to Infallibility, but at the local level. All a bad imprimatur does is give the episcopal stamp to authorize abuse, as many of the hymnals in the 80's and 90's have clearly demonstrated.)
    Thanked by 4irishtenor liampmcdonough hilluminar LauraKaz
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,798
    @AnimaVocis no, because the introit, offertory, and communion are free-for-alls per the rubrics, so you can use a translation of the propers, the old legislation no longer being in effect on this point. It falls under 3 or 4. We are specifically talking about the interlectionary chants; notice by the way that we are essentially repeating arguments that I even participated in ten years ago (and others before that!) which is precisely why these collections don’t set the graduals, alleluias, and tracts.

    Actually, yeah, most parishes in the US do have hymnals with an imprimatur. Whether all of that material is worthy or actually musically sound is another question.

    @ServiamScores: accurate translation in whose eyes? The church has demanded that the translations be submitted to ecclesiastical authority, and it is a problem, another example of making the law something not worthy of respect, that maybe Cardinal O’Malley can approve this thing that doesn’t really fit the plain meaning of GIRM 61 (and which is ridiculous on its face since the psalm-toned graduals in English are less dignified than a responsorial psalm sung to a Gregorian tone).

    The Gregorian Missal is not meant to be a proper liturgical translation. You can say that it ought to be and could be easily approved as such, but it was always meant to be a helper for the singers. I don’t think that it’s as easy as slapping ecclesiastical approval on it, and that’s not to endorse every bit of the ICEL regime (except that ICEL is more careful than everyone else and is largely not going to give us paraphrases and changes which are now back on the menu).

    And to be honest, I take your block quotation of the GIRM to be a bit of a smarty-pants move which is beneath you in particular. I had just acknowledged the possibility of using another psalm and antiphon from an approved collection, but it says psalm and antiphon. It doesn’t say that you can use the gradual, in the vernacular. It certainly doesn’t say that you may replace the lectionary verse with one of its acclamations with a vernacular tract.

    It’s OK, because it’s licit. It’s not OK because it’s what I want. (I am still pretty resolutely opposed to vernacular liturgy.) This is a great example of shooting the messenger.

    I don’t know when the time would be ripe, but if you really, really, really want vernacular propers, then get the bishops’ conference to get an indult for it.
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 723
    .
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,211
    Actually, yeah, most parishes in the US do have hymnals with an imprimatur..

    That is NOT TRUE. I have on my desk three hymnals from the last 25 years and none of them have an imprimatur.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 3,031
    Matthew–
    That quotation from the GIRM was the specific section about the liturgy of the word, and not the oft-quoted part about the introit (which is typically used to be a demonstrative example for what is also appropriate elsewhere in Mass). So it seems to me that the GIRM is explicitly permitting this. Does the Gradual not qualify as an antiphon and verse? They are all quotations from the psalms, and the annotations all indicate that the first part is separate from the verse, which is indicated with a versicle symbol. So prima facie, it appears to be explicitly permitted to sing the Gradual on that quotation from the GIRM alone.

    Furthermore, the Gregorian Missal is just the GR rearranged according to the Ordo Cantus Missæ, and it explicitly arranges the graduals according to the new calendar. Even the latin GR of '74 includes the Graduals, and it was specifically re-promulgated after the council. (along with the missal which was in Latin, of course... but I digress) The Ordo Cantus Missæ explicitly lists the Graduals too. (full PDF here: https://archive.ccwatershed.org/media/pdfs/14/05/05/11-25-06_0.pdf)

    So leaving the question of vernacular adaptations completely aside, I just don't see how you can maintain the claim that chanting the gradual is not an option.

    ____

    Now, returning to the question at hand: consider the fact that most of the graduals are just psalm verses. And now we have an officially mandated current translations of the psalms in english (AP&C). How would adapting the AP&C translation be illicit if it's the original melody set to the official translation of a psalm, according to the OCM which explicitly lists the aforementioned gradual as a prescribed option? Official proper, official melody, official translation. It seems quite possible and quite licit.
    Thanked by 1liampmcdonough
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,546
    To add to the vexations, the text which appears on the Vatican website as quoted by ServiamScores has been superseded by a later text found in the Missal.
    The Roman Missal, Third Edition for use in the Dioceses of the United States of America was confirmed by decree of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on March 26, 2010 (Prot. n. 1464/06/L). Proper adaptations for the United States were confirmed on July 24, 2010 (Prot. n. 577/10/L).
    In the Dioceses of the United States of America, instead of the Psalm assigned in the Lectionary, there may be sung either the Responsorial Gradual from the Graduale Romanum, or the Responsorial Psalm or the Alleluia Psalm from the Graduale Simplex, as described in these books, or an antiphon and Psalm from another collection of Psalms and antiphons, including Psalms arranged in metrical form, providing that they have been approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop. Songs or hymns may not be used in place of the Responsorial Psalm.
    And the Vatican website version annotated for significant differences
    In the dioceses of the United States of America, the following may also be sung in place of the Psalm assigned in the Lectionary for Mass: either the proper or seasonal antiphon and Psalm from the Lectionary, as found either in the Roman Gradual or Simple Gradual or in another musical setting; or an antiphon and Psalm from another collection of the psalms and antiphons, including psalms arranged in metrical form, providing that they have been approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or the diocesan Bishop. Songs or hymns may not be used in place of the responsorial Psalm.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,798
    @kevinf that may be the case, but don’t the majority of people use products from OCP or similar? I rest my case.

    @ServiamScores, yes, I’m aware. I had previously referred to that section. And as I said, it is not obvious to me that it does. It seems to be an extension of the responsorial psalm, i.e. if the lectionary is lacking, if the Graduale Simplex is also lacking, then you may have this other collection. But it is to have the same format. If they said that you could sing the Gradual in the vernacular, they’d say so.
    So leaving the question of vernacular adaptations completely aside, I just don't see how you can maintain the claim that chanting the gradual is not an option.


    Well please point to where I said that because I did not, I never did. I explicitly said this even:
    And the GIRM is clear: Latin GR, English form of the missal texts, another suitable song/hymn, or the spoken text. The lectionary and the Latin are the only options between the readings.


    But the text of the current GIRM does not foresee this possibility of using the gradual in the vernacular. Sorry. It’s a tortured reading of the text.
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,211
    @kevinf that may be the case, but don’t the majority of people use products from OCP or similar? I rest my case.


    No, that,too is NOT TRUE. Probably the greatest majority of parishes in my archdiocese use Worship 4 or Gather 2 or 3. From there, one uses some OCP, Source and Summit or even other things like St. Michael of Collegville or even Adoremus. I can verify that in the US, those things are used. OCP has lost a great deal of market share. Admittedly, the general Novus Ordo is a wasteland but you are overgeneralizing.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 3,031
    Well please point to where I said that because I did not, I never did.

    You'll have to forgive me for misinterpreting your prohibition against a translation as a broader prohibition:
    The rubrics are pretty clear. In the U.S. one may use the missal antiphons in English. But the gradual in translation is off limits

    and
    It’s not debatable. You must use RM3 in English, in the dioceses of the United States of America. You cannot use the gradual or other propers unless you’re willing to fall back into option 4, but that only covers the propers which can “legitimately” be replaced.


    In any case, I'm happy to [weirdly] qualify singing a real proper in translation as a preferable interpretation of option 4 compared to regular hymnody, on sheer principle alone.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,798
    Man I’m just done with this conversation. I couldn’t have been more clear and you blew past everything that I wrote to get to something that I didn’t say.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 3,031
    MR—
    I literally meant what I said: "You'll have to forgive me for misinterpreting..." and then I showed you how I came to that [erroneous] conclusion. I wasn't being ironic.

    Your statements were qualified (re: vernacular) and in context I interpreted a broader meaning than you intended. (Mind you, both of our comments are also appearing in a broader context and discussion involving other people.)

    I am seriously not trying to misattribute what you are saying. You made strong statements, I made strong responses. In both cases, we were quoting official documents. But I think you can also see how I came to the understanding that I did, considering you literally did say the thing*, hence my previous post quoting you. (*in fairness to you: with qualifiers)

    At least from my end, I was not taking (or intending) it personally. It was an academic discussion with both of us citing sources and sharing opinions. Sorry to have riled you.
    Thanked by 1irishtenor
  • francis
    Posts: 11,052
    OK... this will really blow things up.

    You should not use the vernacular in the liturgy. Just Latin for the Roman Rite.
    Thanked by 2MatthewRoth tomjaw
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,546
    Nah! 1965 rubrics were tops, Lefebvre said so! ̫↯☺
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,546
    Is a vernacular gradual licit?

    GIRM#61 provides for
    an antiphon and Psalm from another collection of the psalms and antiphons
    A Gradual (ie the book) is a collection of psalms and antiphons, and such a book could be formed by translating GR. If such a book were to receive the required approval it would contain licit vernacular graduals.
    I have a 1969 book edited by John Ainslie "The Simple Gradual for Sundays and Holy Days" which is a translation (ICEL) of parts of GS. It has a Concordat cum originali, which demonstrates that the possibility exists. Whether such a collection based on GR does exist I do not know.
    Thanked by 3liampmcdonough hilluminar irishtenor
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,798
    the problem is that the Graduale Simplex is not really a graduale, and the gradual, the chant, is manifestly not a psalm and antiphon.
  • davido
    Posts: 1,068
    What about the St Peter Gradual? Is that a real gradual?
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,798
    I mean it’s trying to be, but I think that the project while well-intended is not only illicit but badly executed as I said above. I don’t even like the psalm-tone version in the Liber Brevior (a total waste of space too, and it makes the book poorly organized)

    But to go back to the above: the Graduale Simplex is closer to a collection of psalms and antiphons, such as collection being in addition to and in imitation of the ones provided in the lectionary (albeit this is an official book that everyone may use, in Latin) than a vernacular collection of graduals, alleluias, and tracts would be, whether they’re fully melismatic or not. And that’s why an adaptation of GS to the vernacular as the one mentioned above would be, once approved, be OK.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,015
    [Please note: I have revised the thread title and the opening comment to clarify that the topic under discussion is not the appropriateness of certain books, but of certain chants.]
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,015
    AnimaVocis asked some time ago regarding
    all those who have been using "Simple English Propers" and the like, or any version of the gradual in the vernacular


    CMAA's useful and popular book Simple English Propers does not offer vernacular gradual chants, so this thread is not directly pertinent to SEP.

    I invite AnimaVocis (and anyone else) to get acquainted with a copy of SEP, available for free download at the CMAA web site or in print from the CMAA shop.
  • francis
    Posts: 11,052
    They are different RITES of Mass! The more I serve in both worlds, the more I'm convinced they are incompatible.
    not many have this epiphany. One has to go through a crisis of lex orandi to reach it.

    UPDATE

    At request of moderator (below) I have removed my comment.

    [perplexed]
    The block quote I have posted above is missing from whoever posted it earlier in this thread. Please clarify. Many of our issues revolve around this single root problem, including the question of vernacular gradual.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,015
    Please stay on-topic.
  • GerardH
    Posts: 548
    It has been suggested before on the forum that, being the most recent official translation thereof, the 1965 Roman Missal is a licit source for English graduals, tracts and alleluias.

    Regarding GIRM 61, it looks like "or an antiphon and Psalm from another collection..." is an addition in the USA only.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 780
    What about the St Peter Gradual? Is that a real gradual?


    I mean it’s trying to be, but I think that the project while well-intended is not only illicit but badly executed as I said above.


    I might pass your considered opinion onto our Bishops (one of whom was involved in the development of our the use and its rubrics), for their amusement.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,798
    So I should walk back my mistake because I got it confused with the one from Boston. I remind everyone that the Ordinariate has different rules. And I already acknowledged that a couple days ago. Great! Get those rules for the NO if you want the vernacular for the gradual, alleluia, etc.

    (*However, if the Ordinariate really endorsed a collection of psalm-toned propers…yikes.)

    But I should also tell you to not say stuff like that. You’re being rude to me, again, in a way that is frankly bizarre. Leave the bishop out of this!
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 780
    I don't rember being rude to you on a previous occasion, Matthew. My reference to our Bishops was a gentle reminder of the absurdity of a non-Ordinariate layman condemning as ilicit a Graduale approved for use by our Bishops, one of whom was was tasked by Rome to help frame our Use and its rubrics.

    As for your aversion to psalm-tone propers: in your passion for absolute judgement you are letting the best become the enemy of the good. Just as a low mass is right for many occasions, so solemn psalm tone propers can work well many places and times.
  • francis
    Posts: 11,052
    We don’t have two graduals… (NO and VO), we have three… (what is the two letter term for the Ordinariate?)

    Is the Ordinariate Graduale (and Missal) considered as part of the Roman Rite?
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 780
    The Ordinariate's liturgy is a Use of the Roman Rite, Francis. The St. Peter Gradual is approved for use with it, but is not a part of the Use in the way the Graduale Romanum is a part of the Roman Rite. Incidentally, our rubrics allow us to sing Latin propers from the GR.

    I guess the two-letter term for the Use is DW (for Divine Worship, the name of our liturgy).
  • francis
    Posts: 11,052
    Use of the Roman Rite
    Where does this term come from?
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 723
    (*However, if the Ordinariate really endorsed a collection of psalm-toned propers…yikes.)


    I despise psalm toned propers, but I'll go to bat here for the St. Peter Gradual. Many Ordinariate communities are (or begin as) small under-resourced groups made up of a mix of protestant converts, cradle OF Catholics, and trads. Given the diversity and relative impoverishment of these groups, a one-book collection of easy-to-sing propers is a good way to establish sung-Mass-culture quickly and easily. Should the SPG be used forever without any attempt to sing the real stuff? No, in my opinion. Is it a really great and useful stepping stone in the right direction (especially for people who are not accustomed to all five propers being an integral part of the Mass)? Yes, absolutely.
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 780
    Where does this term come from?


    It's commonly used to distinguish forms of the Rite that differ from the strictly Roman, but which are still recognisably part of the wider liturgical family of the Rite. Not everyone makes this distinction (e.g. the Dominican liturgy is know as the Dominican Rite, but it's clearly a Roman form), but it's a useful one.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • francis
    Posts: 11,052
    Yes, I know that part… but I am wondering where it originated? Where was it first presented? Pope Francis told us himself that the NO and VO are not the same Rite. Just trying to understand why people keep wanting to include one as part of the other. And that goes for the rules. We can’t transfer the rules from one Rite to another Rite… that is where the incompatibility materializes.
Add a Comment