SEP vs OCP Propers
  • jeremyvacek
    Posts: 6
    Our parish uses OCP's United In Christ missalettes and about 6 months ago they started printing the Entrance and Communion Antiphons. When I compare the text from OCP and the text in SEP, I see a lot of differences. Of course many of the times the translation is simply different, but in a number of instances the Bible verse is completely different.

    For example, looking at the 22nd Sunday in Ordinary Time the Entrance Antiphons match up, but the Communion Antiphon is off:
    OCP has Psalm 30:20 (O Lord, how great is the depth of the kindness which you have shown to those who love you.)
    Or Mt 5:9-10 (Happy are the peacemakers; they shall be called the sons of God. Happy are they who suffer persecution for justice sake; the kingdom of heaven is theirs)

    SEP has Mt 16:24 for Year A (If a man wishes to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.)

    Looking at the gospel reading, the SEP is more fitting. Any idea why there is this difference?
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 993
    OCP clearly prints the propers as they appear in the Missale Romanum:

    Ant. ad communionem Ps 30,20 Quam magna multitúdo dulcédinis tuae, Dómine, quam abscondísti timéntibus te.

    Vel: Mt 5,9-10 Beáti pacífici, quóniam fílii Dei vocabúntur. Beáti qui persecutiónem patiúntur propter iustítiam, quóniam ipsórum est regnum caelórum.


    SEP however uses the propers as they appear in the Graduale Romanum:

    Ps 70, 16-18 Domine, memorabor iustitiæ tuæ solius: Deus, docuisti me a iuventute mea, et usque in senectam et senium, Deus, ne derelinquas me.

    Anno A: Mt 16, 24 Qui vult venire post me, abneget semetipsum: et tollat crucem suam, et sequatur me.


    The Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (April 3, 1969) explains why the Missal propers are sometimes different form the Graduale propers:

    Quod reliquum est, licet textus Gradualis Romani, ad cantum saltem quod attinet, non fuerit mutatus, tamen, facilioris intellectus gratia, sive psalmus ille responsorius, de quo S. Augustinus et S. Leo Magnus saepe commemorant, sive antiphonae ad introitum et ad Communionem in Missis lectis adhibendae, pro opportunitate, instaurata sunt.

    Even though the text of the Roman Gradual, at least that which concerns the singing, has not been changed, still, for a better understanding, the responsorial psalm, which St. Augustine and St. Leo the Great often mention, has been restored, and the Introit and Communion antiphons have been adapted for read Masses.


    So, the Missal propers are intended for read Masses, whereas the Graduale propers are intended for sung Masses. That's why SEP adheres to the propers as they appear in the Graduale Romanum.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    Clearest explanation ever.
  • jeremyvacek
    Posts: 6
    Perfect. My concern was when I start singing some of these and causing confusion when they don't match what's in the books in the pews. That gives me exactly what I need. Thanks!
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,609
    Why, oh why, are sung propers different from spoken propers? Feeble minds want to know. Please, there must be some logic?

    Are the sung ones more singable, like the paraphrase responsorial psalms?
  • benedictgal
    Posts: 798
    At daily Mass, we recite the antiphons. My parochial vicar began this practice two years ago to curtail any hymn singing for both the Entrance and Communion. It gets rather tiring hearing Pescador de Hombres on a daily basis. The final option in the GIRM is that the antiphons may be recited.
  • larry rutherford
    Posts: 10
    I have decided to write my own English propers in psalm tones that match what the congregation would normally see and hear. See my post of Aug 11th.
  • Adam Bartlett
    Posts: 533
    Why, oh why, are sung propers different from spoken propers? Feeble minds want to know. Please, there must be some logic?


    This is one of the most mystifying elements of the post-conciliar reform that remains unexplained. Personally, I find the "for a better understanding" line to be rather bogus. The only logic I can find in this is that often the Roman Missal antiphons are shorter in length than the Graduale antiphons. So maybe their comparative brevity makes them more easily understood? I can't make sense of it at all. How would reading the antiphons of the Gradual, as has been done for most of Church history (when they are not sung) make them any less understood? It truly is a mystery.
  • MaryAnn Carr WilsonMaryAnn Carr Wilson
    Posts: 1,738
    smvanroode, may I have permission to use your explanation in full? It is the most clear and concise I have seen.

    Now explaining the "why" of it is totally beyond me. Eye has not seen, ear has not heard... maybe we'll know then???
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 993
    @Mary Ann: yes of course!

    Looking at the same line in the new translation of the Roman Missal, I noticed how the word "instaurata" has been translated differently:

    Moreover, although the text of the Graduale Romanum, at least as regards the music, has been left unchanged, for the sake of easier understanding, the Responsorial Psalm, which Saint Augustine and Saint Leo the Great often mention, and the Entrance and Communion Antiphons for use where appropriate in Masses without singing, have been restored.


    I can see that this is a better translation, but though the Entrance and Communion Antiphons from the Missal are still clearly intended for read Masses, it's said that they have been "restored". I wonder how this can be, as the corpus of propers is more that 1300 years old.
  • Jeffrey CogginsJeffrey Coggins
    Posts: 360
    Right. How can one thing be left "unchanged" and another "restored"?
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 761
    larry wrote: I have decided to write my own English propers in psalm tones that match what the congregation would normally see and hear.

    I believe this to be a good intermediate step. Whatever the explanation for use of a text that isn't in the Missal, it will strike many in the congregation as odd. The brevity of the Missal introit antiphon also allows it to be combined with an entrance hymn. This avoids priests, choirs and congregations feeling something is being taken away from them (an important consideration at a time when people are beginning to get on board with the idea of fidelity to the Missal). You can then begin to introduce the Graduale text, in whatever form, for major feasts and festivals.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    imageCorpus Christi Watershed has expanded on Jeff Ostrowski's recent publication on the New Liturgical Movement. You can read the full article by clicking here.

    This article explains in detail the answer to the following (frequently asked) question: "Why aren't the Propers from the Roman Gradual identical to the Mass Propers printed in the Roman Missal?" Included are many useful documents, including four (4) translations of an important quote by Pope Paul VI, seven (7) different versions of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, an article by Christoph Tietze, and much more. The author extends his gratitude to Mr. Steven van Roode for his insights.

    Read the entire article by clicking here.


    image
Add a Comment