Can you clarify? I performed these chants in concert last August, so I'm pretty familiar with them. As I recall the gradual in the OF is Audi Filia, and there is no repeated text in that chant. The text is the same as in the St. Gall manuscript, with as far as I can tell only one ornamental pes (first syllable of "speciem")that did not make it into the Vatican edition. What two editions are you comparing? Are you perhaps looking at a different version of Audi Filia (e.g., for another date)?

Hi Incantu,

Nope same date for the chants and they are both Audi filia I down loaded the chant score from the Isaac Jogues site and it is also here that they repeat antiphon, as WJA explains. The text from the EF is from Ps 44 just as is the text from the OF. I pulled out my Missal and it indicates vs. 11, 12, and 14 In the OF the psalm verses are 11, 12 and 5

This is how the EF reads:

Audi, filia, et vide, et inclina aurem tuam:
et concupiscet rex pulchritudinem tuam.
Tota decora ingreditur filia regis,
texturae aureae sunt amictus ejus.

The OF:

Audi, filia, et vide, et inclina aurem tuam:
quia concupivit rex speciem tuam.
Specie tua, et pulchritudine tua intende,
prospere procede, et regna.


It's not a big deal as the chant is basically the same I'm just curious as to why the difference. Generally there is no difference other than at times the chants are changed up a bit chronologically in the OF from what they were in the 62 Missal probably to fit the different cycles of readings. But, I have not heard or seen so far a change in the text used, I was just intrigued.

I don't know Chonak but I know one of the verses is different, at least according to the score from the Isaac Jogue web page and the 62 missal and I am curious why they would change the verse. There must be some reason. I have read that some of the texts used in some of the propers is from the Vetus Latina. What is the Nova Vulgata, a different translation from Jerome's Vulgate?

Concerning the repetition of the respond after the verse, this is allowed, but not mandatory, in the Extraordinary Form. It appears, though, to be seldom done. See De ritibus servandis, § IV in the 1961 Gradual, or Psallite Sapienter by B. Andrew Mills, § 50; this book, recommended by the Ecclesia Dei commission in their correspondence, says: «This is the ancient form of the chant, and is to be preferred whenever possible.»

In the Ordinary Form, the repetition is also allowed, but again not mandatory. See the Introduction of Ordo Cantus Missae, § II 5.

The sole differences in performance between the Extraordinary and Ordinary Form are:
- in the EF, the respond must be intoned up to the asterisk by the cantor(s) when sung for the first time;
- in the OF, this may be done, but the choir may sing the respond right from the beginning (easier to do when the organ is played);
- in the EF, the beginning of the verse is sung by the cantor(s) up to the asterisk; then, if the respond is not repeated after the verse, the final part of the verse after the asterisk must be sung by the choir; only if the respond is repeated do(es) the cantor(s) sing the whole verse all alone;
- in the OF, the whole verse is sung by the cantor(s) all alone whether the respond be repeated or not.

PS - I call respond to the part of the Gradual before the verse, following Willi Appel's book Gregorian Chant.

Valerio is right, the gradual is a responsorial not an antiphonal chant, and the first part is the respond, not the antiphon. The same is true for the offertory. Responsorial chants have melismatic verses, antiphonal chants have psalm-tone verses.

dvalerio - yes I found an interesting article in the Gregorian Review archives Vol. 1 No 4 by Dom Gajard which discusses at length what happened in 1950. Very interesting

Thus saith the 1961 Roman Gradual, De ritibus servandis, § 4: «Two [cantors] say the verse of the Gradual, which is concluded from the asterisk down to the end by the whole choir; or, after the responsorial manner, when this is seen to be more fitting, after the verse sung wholly by the cantor or the cantors, all repeat the first part of the respond, down to the verse.» (My translation, as usual I apologise for eventual mistakes.) The choir began to finish the verse because it would no longer sing the respond again, so that the chant might still be finished by all voices together; hence it does not make much sense to have the choir finish the verse if the respond follows, but, frankly, it's not such a ghastly mistake...