Communion Antiphons in the GR versus "Missalettes"
  • gregpgregp
    Posts: 632
    I have the feeling that this has been hashed over in one of the many discussions about Propers, but I can't find it. So if there's a simple link to a previous discussion, please let me know.

    A subset of our schola sings monthly at an Ordinary Form Mass where we are allowed to chant the Communion Antiphon. I like to use the Antiphon based on the Proper text in the Breaking Bread (I know, I know) so that if anyone ever questions us, I can point to it and say, "This is what we were singing."

    My question is this: looking in BB, sometimes the the Communion Antiphon is exactly what is in the Gregorian Missal or GR, and sometimes it's completely different. Is there a reason for this, or is it completely random?
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    Chris Tietze has a very informative article about this in Sacred Music.
  • gregpgregp
    Posts: 632
    That was exactly what I was looking for. So, for example, on October 3 (27 OT), while the GR has "in salutari tuo", the Communion antiphons listed in the Missale Romanum are "Bonus est Dominus" and "Unus panis",. To make it worse, there are no chant settings for either of the texts mentioned.
  • Adam Bartlett
    Posts: 533
    Is there a reason for this, or is it completely random?


    Greg, this remains one of the great mysteries of the liturgical reform. I find it absolutely maddening.

    You are correct that there are not musical settings of the newly selected texts in the Missal, as these were not selected from the patrimony of Gregorian chant. Tietze suggests that the reason for this is because the texts of the Missal were not meant to be sung, but recited. In any case, it is licit under GIRM ed. 3 (U.S. adaptations) to sing the antiphons of the Roman Missal and there are settings of these antiphons in English, which you may be already familiar with. My favorite batch is here ;)
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    This whole subject is so weird that hardly anyone even talks about it simply because it is so...confusing. To me, this is one of the least sustainable aspects of the liturgical reform. It almost seems like an accident of history. It is so messed up that not even those who translated the GIRM could make heads or tails out of it. It will be straightened out someday, but there are, ummm, more immediate priorities, like getting a translation of the Mass that is not just a vaguely stylized paraphrase in Muppet language.
  • Jeffrey CogginsJeffrey Coggins
    Posts: 360
    No more liturgical Muppetry language?
  • Mark M.Mark M.
    Posts: 632
    I wish there existed a Missal/Missalette for the congregation which printed both the texts of the Communion Antiphons and the texts of the Communion chants (and likewise for the Entrance Antiphon and Introit, and for the Offertory)… ideally both in Latin and in an English translation of the full texts, but maybe even just with the Latin titles. Just making people aware of the existence of the sung texts would be wonderful.
  • Andrew Motyka
    Posts: 944
    Thanks for the link to that article, incantu. That cleared up a lot of things, and the included table comparing the texts between the GR and the MR is very helpful.
Add a Comment