Vesperale for Sundays and Feasts to be expected next week
  • RobertRobert
    Posts: 343
    I don't have a copy of the Antiphonale Romanum II yet. I read something interesting in a review on a French website: the new book apparently restores the old Vulgate wording of the Magnificat, ("salutari" rather than "salvatore", etc.) Can anyone here who has the book confirm?
  • Adam Bartlett
    Posts: 533
    Indeed it does:

    "Magnificat anima mea Dominum, et exsultavit spiritus meus in Deo salutari meo..."
  • Gilbert
    Posts: 106
    That is something I found particularly interesting when I saw it. Another thing I found very interesting was the option to sing the "Benedicamus Domino. Deo Gratias" at the end. It includes 9 melodies of it total, to cover the different seasons and feasts. "Ad libitum, secundum traditionem gregorianam, dimissio fieri potest in cantu Benedicamus Domino, ut sequitur:"
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 966
    A couple of months ago I wrote a letter to the CDWDS and asked about the publication date of the changes to the Ordo Cantus Officii. Today I received a reply. Because the reply doesn't only answer my question, but also touches on the value of Gregorian chant, I have uploaded it for those interested.
    LetterOnOrdoCantusOfficii.pdf
    76K
  • Adam Bartlett
    Posts: 533
    Wow! This is just incredible!

    The final paragraph:

    It is clear that in an official publication of material as important as liturgical music and the chanting of texts in the latin language, there is demanded the maximum attentiveness and information such that this particular instrument which is being offered to the Church might be truly adapted in such a way as to conserve and promote the treasury of Gregorian chant patrimony, and that this can become an inspiration and also a leaven for the development of a music which is truly liturgical, sacral – something which is very necessary today in the many parts of the Catholic world.


    Amen!
  • OraLabora
    Posts: 218
    >I know that many are tired of hearing my rantings against the LotH, so I'll cool it, but I am surprised that so many here would so gladly work with this liturgical rupture. This a completely new office and has very little to do with the centuries-old Roman Rite.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the pre-Vatican II breviary from the Pius X reforms of 1910? That hardly seems "centuries old". Many of the criticisms against the LOTH would apply to the 1910 Office as well, in particular splitting psalms, composing new antiphon texts for which there was no traditional melody, shortening Matins substantially, and breaking the tradition of the three Laudate psalms together at the end of the psalmody of Lauds. These strike me as pretty radical changes themselves. Moreover Pius X did NOT give clergy the option to revert to the older Office, unlike today when clergy can still use the 1960 breviary.

    The Monastic Office of St. Benedict of course can claim to be "centuries old". Moreover a post-Vatican II version exists that is adapted to the modern liturgical calendar, for those who can't abide by the LOTH. As an Oblate, father, husband and busy professional I have however, found it far to heavy to do in full. I prefer doing the LOTH and getting through all of the 4-week psalter than doing the Monastic Office and missing large chunks of psalms. The LOTH is a godsend for busy folks, and with Les Heures Grégoriennes and Antiphonale Romanum II we have good tools to at least chant it some of the time. Is it perfect? Of course not. But it's not as bad as others make it out to be and there are some interesting options, like the ability to pray Ps. 4, 90 and 133 every day for Compline and the selection of Vespers psalms for Sundays and Week IV, and the use of the Gradual psalms for the other minor hours besides mid-day prayer, that allow one to recapture some of the traditions of the Monastic Office

    Michel
Add a Comment