In the end it seems that the GR antiphons make more sense for the 3-year lectionary than do the MR antiphons, all obvious distinctions between the two sets aside

Indeed!

Thanks for this work.

Amen. And there are those who actually wonder why so many musicians have chucked the whole thing.

To clarify, Mr Bartlett, my exasperation isn't with you. It's with the "experts" who hacked all this stuff together in the first place, with zero respect for any tradition.

Okay, here is a simpler way of putting what I'm trying to say. I apologize for the hastiness with which I posted the first post--I have to work on stopping thinking out loud!

This is the issue: I have been told by more than one very educated, seasoned and trusted professional in the field of liturgy that, although the antiphons found in the Missale Romanum (MR) are intended only to be spoken it is okay to sing them because a.) they can be merely seen as "additional options" to the Graduale Romanum (GR) antiphons or b.) they are actually preferred because they were compiled with the 3-year lectionary in mind, as opposed to the compiling of the corpus of Gregorian chant which was composed only with a 1-year cycle in mind.

From this standpoint I assumed that the arrangement of the MR introit and communion antiphons was possibly better suited to the 3-year lectionary than the 1974 GR texts. The musical settings found in the GR, of course, are unchangeable because they belong to the treasury of Gregorian chant, which is strictly speaking a closed canon. It seemed, then, that the arrangement of the chants of the GR (1974) was a sort of compromise to assure the use of authentic repertoire in a way that best, but not perfectly, harmonized with the 3-year lectionary.

I took a closer look recently to Tietze's article (linked to above) entitled "Graduale or Missale: Confusion Resolved" and made an alarming discovery. I discovered that, according to Tietze's analysis of the antiphons, the MR antiphons do not seem to improve upon the GR 1974 antiphons at all in regard to their being based on or closely related to the lectionary readings. In fact there are only 4 cases (only 4!!!) where a MR antiphon is based on the lectionary readings where its GR counterpart is not. More alarming still, there are 22 instances that I count where the MR antiphon is not closely related to the lectionary readings where the GR antiphons are!!!

Now, I know that antiphons do not have to be from or intrinsically connected to the lectionary readings of a given liturgy in order for them to be efficacious. This is very apparent in the liturgical tradition. What I have discovered, though, is that the argument that the MR antiphons are better suited to the 1969 3-year lectionary than the GR antiphons is just simply not true. At least according to the research that Tietze did in his article in question.

Here is a simple breakdown of how I color coded Tietze's chart, with the summary of what it demonstrates:

YELLOW shows instances where GR texts match the MR texts.
Results: 118 (8 of which are truncated, embellished or significantly altered)

PURPLE shows instances where GR texts are not found in the MR. (i.e. supersede authentic chant texts)
Results: 89

RED shows instances where MR texts are not found in the GR. (i.e. newly confected in 1969)
Results: 90

GREEN shows instances where new MR antiphons (confected in 1969) are based on or closely related to the lectionary readings, which replace GR texts that are not based on or closely related to the lectionary readings:
Results: 4 (only 4!!!)

To conclude, as I stated above, not only are the MR texts not more harmonious with the lectionary than the GR is, the arrangement of the texts of the Graduale Romanum (1974) actually seems to be more harmonious with the 3-year lectionary than the antiphon texts of the Missale Romanum! This is clearly not exhaustive research, but just an analysis of another man's research. Surely more would have to be done to prove this point conclusively.

What it demonstrates, though, I think, is that the real proper antiphons of the Mass are found in the Graduale Romanum--big surprise! We all know this already! I hope I'm not just restating something that everyone already knows... (am I?) In the end I tend to agree with Tietze and his conclusion: "I am encouraged by the thought that the new antiphon texts are a product of their time, and that sooner or later, our people will yearn for texts which present a deeper theology and which have provided spiritual nourishment for 1,500 years, and they will find them in the texts of the Graduale Romanum."

also, the file above has been updated with a few corrections...

Adam, this is a very important discovery. If Sacred Music did color, I would run this chart in the publication.

The complications here are almost too much to be believed. Someone was not paying attention to the big picture when the idea of new Missal-specific propers was dreamed up. When I think of the inevitability of the "reform of the reform" this is the first case that comes to mind. It surely cannot stay like this.

I've never heard of a single defense of the current structure. Never. Hardly anyone even understands it. I never bring this stuff up when speaking to groups for example. It is crazy confusing and has no basis in anything traditional, rational, sensible, etc.

By the way, I think it is clear that ICEL doesn't understand this either - and very few Bishops either. Note that the Graduale propers are not part of the translation projects - which is all to the good in my view.

I need to make one clarification in the analysis of this chart. As I was analyzing Tietze's data I was so struck by the magnitude of the "red" and the sparsity of the "green" that I jumped quickly to report the data. It made it to the NLM blog before I could offer the more thorough analysis above. I have to clarify the analysis of the "red" because as it is stated below there's actually an inaccuracy.

Here is how it originally read:

-Underlined texts are taken from the First or Second readings or to the Gospel of the given liturgy.
-Yellow shows where the GR texts match the MR
-Purple shows GR texts that were replaced by new MR texts
-Green shows instances where a MR antiphon replaces a GR antiphon and the MR is more closely connected to the readings
-Red shows instances where MR antiphons that have no apparent connection to the readings replace GR antiphons

This is how it should read to be clearer:

-Underlined texts are taken from the First or Second readings or to the Gospel of the given liturgy.
-Yellow shows where the GR texts match the MR
-Purple shows GR texts that were replaced by new MR texts
-Green shows instances where a MR antiphon replaces a GR antiphon and the MR is more closely connected to the readings
-Red WITHOUT AN UNDERLINE shows instances where MR antiphons that have no apparent connection to the readings replace GR antiphons
-Red WITH AN UNDERLINE shows instances where MR antiphons do have a connection to the readings BUT replace GR antiphons that ALSO have a connection to the readings

I will update the first post above to be more clear. Jeffrey, should this clarification also be made on the NLM? I a very weary of dispersing misinformation or of being too vague.

This was a mistake and I apologize for this. I don't think that it negates any of the conclusions drawn thus far though.

Someone was not paying attention to the big picture when the idea of new Missal-specific propers was dreamed up.

I think that there's a lot that can be explored here, in regard to the intentions of the compilers of the Missale antiphons. What needs to be taken into account, too, is that the Missale antiphons were confected in 1969 and the Graduale in 1974. It seems, though, that by the time 1974 came around there was no apparent interest in updating the Missale antiphons to conform with the Graduale. It may be even more likely that by this time no one sung propers anyway so hardly anyone even knew that the two sets were different.

In fact, this process that happened with the Missale seems to have also happened with the Divine Office (Liturgia Horarum). The Latin edition "Liturgia Horarum" was promulgated in 1971 with the English translation following in 1975. A plan for singing of the antiphons with the new arrangement didn't appear until 1983 (Ordo Cantus Officii), which required a stack of at least 10 different chant books to be useful, and only last week we saw the first official published book that arranges Liturgia Horarum to be sung with authentic Gregorian antiphons. The problem here seems to be that the antiphons of the Liturgia Horarum are not taken from the corpus of Gregorian chant. If they were anyone could easily pull antiphons from the previous Antiphonale Romanum.

So the question seems to be: Why in the Mass and the Office, both of which are intended to be sung, are the antiphons not always taken from the Gregorian chant corpus?

Regardless of the possible answers to this question, it seems that antiphons that were created for the purpose of a spoken recitation did quite a bit in eliminating the singing of Gregorian chant in liturgical practice.

I've never heard of a single defense of the current structure. Never. Hardly anyone even understands it.

I don't know if anyone saw the USCCB session that approved the final portion of the Roman Missal translation, a few months ago. Bishop Trautman was making a stand against allowing the U.S. Bishops to allow the Vatican to translate the antiphons of the Missal. He asserted that it was the right of the USCCB to approve this translation and implored Cardinal George on why he allowed this to happen. Cardinal George's only response seemed to be that the antiphons were "less important" than the rest of the Missal text and he saw no problem in relegating their translation to the Vatican for the purpose of speeding up the process. I have no problem with Cardinal George's decision by the way! But the point is that the antiphons of the Mass definitely seem to be the red-headed step child of the Mass texts, at least in the view of the U.S. Bishops. The U.S. adaptations of the GIRM demonstrate, as said by Tietze, that the Liturgy Committee doesn't even seem to understand that there are differences between the antiphons of the MR and GR.

Tietze said in his article that he sent a letter to the U.S. Bishops, though, pointing out the error. I have heard that those portions of the GIRM have been reconsidered and that they will be updated in the final appearance of the new Missal. Perhaps we will have to wait and see if this has happened.

Adam, you must have posted while I was writing my previous response. You're quite right that the clergy and the laity both seem to view the music as secondary to the other texts of the Mass, probably because they've experienced little else in the past 40 but music that IS secondary to the Mass. But I like to remind people that that there is musical notation for every part of the Mass (except the homily), and that some parts are so important that the most elaborate music is provided.

dvalerio, any info to share?