I'm a "schola of one" at our OF Mass. As I've mentioned many times on various occasions on these boards, I sing the Gregorian Introit as a prelude, plus the Gregorian Offertory (usually, that is — this last week I actually sang from the SEP), and the Gregorian Communion chant (with English verses, à la Richard Rice) — all with a colleague playing NOH accompaniments on the organ.

One of the things on the distant horizon at my parish is the possibility of replacing the Responsorial Psalm with the Gradual… either the Gregorian original, or more likely an English adaptation such as those by Bruce Ford in his "American Gradual."

I'm thinking of starting another thread to discuss that more, actually. I just feel that the more I read and learn about all of this, the more the Responsorial Psalm just seems so out-of-place.

With the current success of the SEP, I'm wondering if people are feeling similarly regarding the Introit, Offertory, and Communion chants — that is, if they're suddenly feeling "wow, hymns seem so out-of-place now, compared to the propers." If so, then perhaps the next logical step is a more concerted effort to restore the Gradual and Alleluia chants. (I am, of course, still extremely appreciative of the resources CCW has made available for higher-quality Responsorial Psalms and Gospel Acclamations… I sing them every week.)

CW I'm with you on the Responsorial Psalm. It's part of the Lectionary now, and is part of an integrated whole with the OT and the Gospel.

That doesn't mean it needs to be sung in a badly paraphrased pop setting with an arm-flapping cantor, though.

Charles, I disagree with the premise that plainsong propers from the Graduale constitute a recreation of the 1962 Missal. If the plainsong propers weren't meant to used in the 1970 (or 1975, or 2003...however you want to render it) Missal, than the Graduale Romanum and Gregorian Missal would never have been revised to provide the propers for the 1970 Missal. As for the psalm, here's what the IGMR says:


"In the dioceses of the United States of America, the following may also be sung in place of the Psalm assigned in the Lectionary for Mass: either the proper or seasonal antiphon and Psalm from the Lectionary, as found either in the Roman Gradual or Simple Gradual or in another musical setting; or an antiphon and Psalm from another collection of the psalms and antiphons, including psalms arranged in metrical form, providing that they have been approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop. Songs or hymns may not be used in place of the responsorial Psalm."

The psalm or "Gradual" from the Roman Gradual (Graduale Romanum) is given as the first choice, the "responsorial psalm" is given as the second choice. The Gradual was not removed by the Council or the Consilium. It simply fell out of use, despite the instructions of the Missals and from the Holy See making it the first choice. We shouldn't put it back just because "we like it", we should put it back because, "All other things being equal, Gregorian chant holds pride of place because it is proper to the Roman Liturgy." (IGRM #41)

Ah, so according to the GIRM, doing the Gradual instead of the Lectionary's appointed Psalm would constitute a replacement.
Licit, but a lower choice on the hierarchy of options (which, as we know, are ALWAYS placed in order of preference. Therefore, you can do it, but you shouldn't do it because it isn't the real desire of the Church.

I feel like I've heard this somewhere else.

It is permitted for the antiphon to be sung before the verses and after all the verses has been sung.

Found it… it was actually in a footnote from "Active Participation and Listening to Gregorian Chant," in the Spring 2011 issue of Sacred Music. In this case, it was actually in reference to the Gregorian Alleluia. Here it is (broken into three paragraphs for clarity), emphasis mine:

There are some contradictions between the general principle that, on one hand, Gregorian chant has first place, and on the other hand, the rubric in the GIRM prescribes that the alleluia "is sung by all while standing (¶62)." This rubric is evidently aimed at a rather simple, non-Gregorian antiphon (like the little three-fold alleluia from Holy Saturday) and a short verse, which is the usual practice in the parishes. The congregation is not capable of singing the entire Gregorian alleluia, yet these melodies are the summit of that art and reflect their own exquisite liturgical function; to rule them out absolutely would be a contradiction of Sacrosanctum concilium, which is a more authoritative document than the GIRM. Moreover, the Gregorian alleluias appear in the Gregorian Missal (1990 and still in print), which is a book prepared for parish choirs.

The liturgical function of the Gregorian alleluia is more complex than the GIRM prescribes (the congregation welcomes the Lord in the gospel and expresses their faith); it is at once a meditation chant which reflects on the reading just heard and an anticipation of the singing of the gospel. Likewise the duration of the alleluia is considerably longer than a simple gospel procession takes (except at Westminster Cathedral, where at the Pope's Mass the entire Gregorian alleluia was sung, and it lasted exactly the same time as the procession, which went about a third of the distance from the nave to the great pulpit); if people stand at the beginning of the singing of a Gregorian alleluia, they are left standing for quite a while, apparently for no purpose. If the alleluia is a meditation chant reflecting on the previous lesson, then it is more appropriate for them to remain seated.

In my own practice, the gospel procession begins toward the end of the alleluia verse, and the people stand approximately at the repeat of the alleluia. This fulfills the status of the Gregorian alleluia as one of the highest of the Gregorian forms, but it is in technical violation of the GIRM, since the congregation does not sing any of it. I have proposed a solution for those who wish to observe the GIRM strictly, that the congregation sing the repeat of the intonation of the Gregorian alleluia, after which the choir sings the jubilus. Congregations are able to repeat most Gregorian alleluia intonations without difficulty, and in doing so, they sing almost as much music as the little antiphon seen above [i.e., the Holy Saturday "triple" alleluia], and they listen to quite a bit more.

aquinasadmirer, I don't know the answer to that. It is a real problem that Rome has produced documents, then turned over the revision and interpretation of those documents to the conference of bishops. In some cases, Rome seems to have given nearly all liturgical authority to the episcopal conferences. It's no wonder documents don't agree, and those on both liberal and conservative sides, interpret them to suit their own agendas. I would agree that MS was binding in its day, but the episcopal conference now has the authority to make regulations, and has done so.

My choir sings the psalm of the day on Sundays, and the psalm of the day is read on weekdays. I don't use seasonal psalms.

But I don't think you can just wish away that that is what the document says, and (as I said above) I don't think it's right to be biased and selective about how to read this.

I would further say, though, that same spirit of pastoral sensitivity and deference to custom which allows for Processional Hymns instead of Introits can be reasonably invoked on behalf of those communities which find it more apt to use the Graduale's Gradual Psalm. I would suggest even further, though, that using the Graduale setting of the the Lectionary Psalm might be the highest good from the standpoint of following rules while honoring tradition. That practice, though, seems highly unlikely.

But can we really simply leave things up to the community? That's how we ended up with bongos and guitars at Mass. I think this begs the question of WHY processional hymns are more acceptable to some communities. I understand that a small country church that barely is able to find an organist and ANYONE who can sing might find it quite difficult to sing even the simplest plainsong. Hymns seem reasonable in this situation. However, I have a hard time believing a large Cathedral couldn't implement plainsong as a standard. Certainly, this could take time for education, and perhaps it couldn't be done in a fell swoop, but little by little, but I have a hard time honoring the 100 year tradition of a parish singing hymns and ignoring the Church's 1000 year tradition of singing plainsong.

Getting back to the original question...

We are currently Simplex-based. At one Mass, we take the Introit, Offertory, and Communion antiphon directly from the GS (with a strong bias toward the Mozarabic Psalm 34 at Communion). At the other Masses, we do English settings of the same, using the Revised Grail psalms and my own settings of the translated antiphons (which are not simplified ala BFW). The goal, ultimately, is to graduate to GR/SEP. The responsorial psalm is chanted straight through (a legitimate option in the GIRM) to a very simple psalm tone: the choir or a cantor (by which I mean, a singer in the choir) sings one verse, the congregation sings the next, and we alternate like that all the way through. We do the Gospel acclamation the same way it's done most places, with a simple chanted alleluia refrain and the verse set to a psalm tone. At the recessional, we sing the seasonal Marian antiphon.

This is a parish that had a 30+ year diet of Glory & Praise until a year ago, and we are doing a clean sweep. The ordinary parts are currently spoken, because it wasn't worth teaching good music settings of them on the eve of the new translation. When we can, we'll start singing the settings that are in the Missal.

So it's a lot of chant. Some people are discovering and loving it, and others hate it, but either way, the people are (slowly) finding their voice (especially since nothing is accompanied). I wouldn't say that we are going to be 100% chant at every Mass all the time, but going this direction gives us a firm foundation. Some people are realizing for the first time the unity of the Mass from start to finish, and that's really what we are trying to convey. I approach the subject of traditional hymnody at Mass with some trepidation, because once the "oneness" of the Mass is realized, even these pieces, as worthy as they may be textually or musically, can be incongruous and jarring, creating an artificial "high point" and throwing off the balance of the Mass.

We're trying to educate as much as possible; for instance, we have regular bulletin messages, and we're currently presenting two (completely free) seminars on sacred music: one seminar on the history and theology of Roman Catholic sacred music, and the other seminar is practical -- learning to sing, read neumes and modern notes, etc. It's a bumpy roller coaster, and we're not always perfect about communicating well to the parish, so I cannot tell for sure what the prognosis is.

I would love to hear from others that are similarly trying to do a complete 180 in their parish!

Jon Laird