Modifying Alleluia text
  • artdob
    Posts: 24
    Appreciate insight anyone may have regarding boundaries for modifying text for the Gospel Acclamation. Specifically, looking at a setting such as "Alleluia, give the glory" by Canedo/Hurd, where additional text is added following in addition to "Alleluia," is this acceptable? To what degree can additional text be added or modified for the Gospel Acclamation?
  • Adam Bartlett
    Posts: 533
    Sacrosanctum Concilium art 22.3

    Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
  • Paul F. Ford
    Posts: 864
    Looking at the forms of the gospel acclamation in the Graduale Simplex, I see justification for interspersing single and double and even triple alleluias after half-verses of the acclamation texts.
  • JDE
    Posts: 588
    Right, but adding other words entirely, such as in the Canedo/Brown et al. Mass of Glory, is not even to be considered.

    First of all, there is no need for a cataclysmic showstopper on "Amen" at the end of the Eucharistic Prayer. But even if there were, there would not be an additional need to throw in "Alleluia," as Canedo et al. do in that piece. That was the impetus I used to get rid of the show-choir Amen at my church.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,221
    The inflated "Amen" was encouraged by the bygone committee document Music in Catholic Worship:

    The Great Amen

    58. The worshipers assent to the eucharistic prayer and make it their own in the Great Amen. To be most effective, the Amen may be repeated or augmented. Choirs may harmonize and expand upon the people's acclamation.
  • JDE
    Posts: 588
    Oh, so *that's* the source of all the melodrama.

    Maybe one Sunday we should just sing The Lost Chord. That would fulfill these requirements . . . ;-)
  • Erik P
    Posts: 152
    .
  • Adam Bartlett
    Posts: 533
    @Erik P

    There is a lot of great commentary on this document in the Sacred Music archives, and I believe that Jeffrey T. has written about it at length at NLM. A fantastic discussion of the document is also found in Schuler's "A Chronicle of Reform". (I'm not finding this at musicasacra.com right now but I know it's there somewhere.)

    The short answer is that this was a document produced by a USCCB Subcommittee in 1972 and was never voted on by the USCCB itself. It defied and contradicted authoritative legislation from Rome (Sacrosanctum Concilium, Musicam Sacram) but most people in America believed it to be the authoritative document on the musical wishes of Vatican II.

    Fortunately in 2007 it was replaced by Sing to the Lord which corrects many errors, but still is still to be seen as subordinate in authority to SC and MS.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,221
    Also, ''Sing to the Lord'' is not binding legislation, as it was never submitted to Rome for approval.
  • Erik P
    Posts: 152
    .
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,221
    Forum member Chironomo wrote about this question in 2007:
    Part 1 and Part 2

    He also has several informative posts in his 2008 archives about the contents of STTL.
  • mahrt
    Posts: 517
    Msgr. Schuler's "Chronicle of the Reform" can be found at http://musicasacra.com/pdf/chron.pdf
Add a Comment