1. Is it still properly legitimate and allowed to sing simply from the ARII, even when there are discrepancies with the current OCO?
2. How much do the ARII and 2015 OCO differ? How often is there a discrepancy?
In summary, is the 2009 Solesmes Antiphonale Romanum II still worth purchasing and using, given that it is already somewhat out-of-date with the selections in the 2015 Ordo Cantus Officii?
I think that there’s just no really good answer for not using the book and accounting for its selections if you’re going to delay publishing a revised list of antiphons. The Holy See can say that it’s a private edition, but the 1912 is so far removed from the NO, and now we are supposed to use the Nova Vulgata (blech) that it’s impossible to used. Frankly I would use (the AR2009) without trying to get it right.
Welcome to the forum, Jeremy! Sure, feel free to use the Antiphonale Romanum II, even if it at times deviates from the 2015 Ordo cantus officii.
I didn’t look into the differences accurately, but from cursory comparisons, I know that there are a few. You could otherwise use Antiphonæ & Responsoria from Alberto Turco, although these publications are not very user-friendly (but they do follow the 2015 OCO).
I have no idea why the 1912 Antiphonale Romanum did come up in the discussion…
Because the Vatican’s official position is that the original books are the official chant books except when chants are taken from elsewhere. This is certainly the case for the Mass.
In other words, it’s not that AR2009 deviates from the OCO. It’s that the OCO does having come later, and that’s just patently stupid, since the Vatican isn’t putting out its own new edition of the chant; the official edition remains the Vatican Edition (and even then; the Vatican Basilica uses dots and episemas…)
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.