I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the Sequence is a prescribed text, just like the psalm or Gospel. It's not just an appropriate hymn to be sung at that spot in the Mass, but rather sort of an extended Gospel verse / Alleluia text. Since Veni Sancte Spiritus is the prescribed Sequence for Pentecost, I'd be very reluctant to substitute any other text for it.

If it's the melody that's difficult, I've seen the text (Latin or English) set to O Filii, and there is an even simpler English setting in the old St. Basil Hymnal that's really quite nice in a pinch.

Lois, point already taken in the original post.
Here's the deal in a nutshell:
My schola can sing the "Sancte" eyes closed
My congregation cannot sing it, period, even as printed modern notation in OCP.
Other option is the hymnic text set to Beethoven in English.
Congregation can and does sing "Creator" well at Vigils, confirmation, etc.
Pastor likes the idea, ala Jeffrey's point. But he doesn't want the prescribed text sung in Latin by the schola only; that's his beef and province and I still like my job after 15 years here.
So, I'm just troubling the waters for some sympathy before I make the call.
C

oh so it is a participation question. That seems just wrong to me. I mean, there is nothing that somehow requires that people sing this. I think you should just stick to your guns and say: this and no other is the prescribed text. We can't change the Mass, period. But I guess in that case he will want Beethoven in English.

The choices that the real world gives us! Makes it rather difficult.

Thanks, Jeffrey. I can't believe I missed that on the Cecilia Schola page... that's always the first place I look.

Another question on this here:

My parish's OCP missalettes indicate that there are different readings for the Vigil of Pentecost, with no Sequence indicated. Now, I sing at our Saturday 5pm Mass, which we normally designate as the "Anticipated" Mass. So, ought we be reading the Sunday readings, with the Sequence? Or not, and do the Vigil?

Would the chant in MN be helpful?

Well, I don't know if it is helpful to anyone, but this is what I can put together in an hour or so if you ever need GC in MN. If anyone wants to use it, I will finish it out. This one is transcribed from the Graduale 1961 (digital version from our own website.)

I'm really glad to hear this story. We all face incredible constraints: singers, pastors, hymnals, complaining parishioners, and it never stops. I'm quite convinced that the training of Church musicians must include the spiritual discipline to navigate all these problems with some sense of a willingness to suffer and offer it up. Maybe it is the way we all learn humility. I'm still learning but I long ago tired of the lessons.

The sequence is part of the Liturgy of the Word. If it can't be sung, it should be recited. The congregation is not expected to participate in singing it any more than they are expected to participate in reading the second reading. I would suggest doing whatever you can to avoid the perception that the people need to sing everything. Besides, if your congregation cannot sing the even numbered verses with support of the choir after hearing a soloist sing the identical tune (as they are expected to do every week for the responsorial psalm), there is not much hope for them singing anything at all. That being said, there is an arrangement by Richard Proulx (http://www.wlp.jspaluch.com/pdf/008744.pdf) based on the chant tune and with a refrain for congregation. I think it's a better alternative than using a hymn tune. One could make the transition to the chant in a few years.

I actually prefer that all sequences be sung by all, and Veni Sancte is quite easy. But I tried it last year, and it was silent. So if you have a protestant congregation, go for it, but Catholics won't do it. I HAVE had good luck with the Easter sequence, but perhaps that's because I use it for Low Sunday as well as Easter. So thaaaaank you Vatican II for destroying all of our octaves so that we can't do sequences more than once!

Oh, and FWIW this year I'm having it sung by a choir in alternatim, men on odd verses, women on even, organum in 5ths for "Amen, Alleluia!" VERY effective.

OK, G -- you got me on this one. I shouldn't have used the passive voice. But I think I could be justified in saying "According to the GIRM, the congregation is not expected, that is required, to sing the [insert Entrance, Kyrie, Gloria, Offertory, or Communion] in that it may be sung by the choir alone." Just as I can look at a piece of music and determine, in many cases, whether the composer intended piano or organ (or harp or guitar) I could have gone on to say that "if the composer of the sequence had expected it to be sung in its entirety by a congregation that was not musically literate or vocally skilled, they would have written it differently," or "if the compilers of the Vatican II liturgy and its official music books had intended the sequence to be sung in the same way by said congregation, they would have chosen something different."

It's the (false) expectation that everyone sing the Entrance, for example, that has led to its almost universally being replaced by a non-liturgical hymn. Why encourage that same way of thinking about the sequence, a thing for which most PIP's do not yet have a well-formed concept? It might be better in this instance to assert what is the normative practice, without risk of upsetting expectations (like "why didn't we sing a 'closing hymn'?").

So, with these thoughs in mind, I'd like to rephrase my original statement: "No one (that is, no official liturgical source) requires the external participation of the congregation in the sequence." The lectors and deacon exercise their distinct ministry during the readings, and the psalmist (or cantor) and choir for the chants between the readings. I might suggest, however, that when the choir does sing the sequence straight through without the congregation singing alternate verses, that the latter be encouraged to sing the final "Amen, alleluia."

maui_hudak

The sequence is not part of the Pentecost Vigil liturgy. Not sure why your Ordo says this. The GIRM is correct in that the sequence is for Pentecost Day. There is nothing that says you can't use the sequence at the offertory if your tradition is to sing a hymn instead of the Offertory proper anyway, though. Not sure if there is anything more official than your diocesan ordo. The Solemnes Gregorian missal does not have it either.

As to having the people sing the sequence, OCP’s “Ode to Joy” setting of the Pentecost sequence, IIRC, only repeats words and adds “O” here and there.

Repeating text is an age-old practice, and while I’m about as strict as anyone regarding fidelity to texts in liturgical singing, I do think we can condone adding an “O”. Especially in the case of that goofy English translation, which they apparently thought in the 60s was too antiquated to have “O” and “thou”, so now we’ve messed up the accent patterns and rhymed “divine” with “yours”.

I would hesitate to use anything other than the standard chant melody. Whether the parishioners participate interiorly or physically sing it, this melody, like those of other seasons of the Church year, as it returns year after year after year, gradually becomes a part of the parishioners' mental and spiritual furniture. Over 20-odd years of singing the Veni Sancte Spiritus, I can no longer hear it without a strong association with the golden light that bathes the Liturgy at the end of the Easter Season and the approach of high summer (here in the northern hemisphere anyways). When another melody is substituted, the Liturgy loses a little more richness.

My parish is blessed with a Schola who will sing it at the principal Mass, and then - God bless them - have agreed to return and sing it again, as well as the Communio, for the later Mass. Several of them are returning to sing Vespers in the afternoon, on Mother's Day. So many good volunteers in the Church - we must never fail to be thankful for them.

Does anyone know why the Sequence as presented in the Gather Hymnal omits the "Amen, Alleluia"?

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

Thank you, Paul and everyone. As I've clarified, the issue actually centers around the intrapersonal dynamics at play when "collaborating" with the pastor or other celebrant/priests. (I asked Prof. Mahrt et al about such "politics" at D.C. last year.) The only Proper that I "have" provenance over is the Communio, which we sing weekly. I tried selling the Introit for the schola Mass only; not the pastor's preference. Fealty to the pastor and/or to the documents, not to mention the faithful??? It is a connundrum. What's ironic is that he would welcome "Creator" while nixing "Sancte" in the chant version. Brick by brick, eh?
How's things in Camarillo?

Oh, and if you're going to use OCP's English chant version, please please please sing "hearts of thine" so it rhymes with "divine"!

"It is so far from the original that it bears no likeness at all."

I seem to recall that in that strange puppet liturgy that was recently linked from NLM, they were singing the English text of Veni Sancte during the Preparation of the Gifts to a nondescript pop melody. Maybe it's the same one.

incantu wrote:

There are no "official" singing translations of most of the Entrance, Offertory, and Communion antiphons from the Gradual. I do not know of an "official" English singing version of the Sequence, either. Is there one? There is a version in the Lectionary, yes, but the Lectionary is not a music book. And, like the responsorial psalm, I believe the Sequence need only be taken from an approved collection. Better singing versions do exist. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

I believe you are mistaken. We sing texts, and the Lectionary contains texts. From a certain perspective, all of these texts are, in fact, ideally sung.

The sequence translations in the Lectionary are meant to be sung, which is clear when you notice that their accentuation (generally) matches that of the Latin originals.

My understanding is that there are scant few music collections that carry an explicit approval for liturgical use. Psallite is one, and By Flowing Waters is another. Many hymnals carry approval for publication from the local ordinary, but not technically approval for liturgical use.

One virtue of the translations we have now (the goofy rhymes etc. notwithstanding) is their literalness. Regarding the Scagnelli translation in Gather Comprehensive, there is nothing in the Latin original that says “Lord of Light”. Still, I think the special case of the sequences’ metered verse construction warrants more acceptance of non-literal translation than is apparently going to be the modus operandi now.

Dear Michael,

I am well acquainted with the discrepancies between the processional texts of the Missal and Gradual and the difference between the U.S. GIRM and the editio typica of that document.

I was speaking specifically to incantu’s question about the singing of the sequence in English.

The sung LOH is an interesting animal. I would like to track down a copy of the Ordo Cantus Officii, but it was only published (AFAIK) in Notitæ. Maybe a visit to U of St. Thomas downtown would bear fruit for me there. Hm.

"Also, that metricized one in Gather probably couldn’t work the Amen/Alleluia in gracefully. (Read: Gauntlet thrown down!)"

Then I must be remembering incorrectly what hymnal was the source of my photocopy, er... ENLARGEMENT.
It's not metric.

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

My understanding is that there are scant few music collections that carry an explicit approval for liturgical use. Psallite is one,

Umm, there must be some good material in there. But the examples provided online were, well, let's just say that this doesn't say much for what it means to gain approval.

I should add that it might be different were we singing the proper Alleluia after the Sequence, as the chant books envision in an ideal world. But when in parish practice it is the same seasonal Alleluia based "O Filio et Filiae" every week, the Sequence appears out of the blue on this day as an inserted hymn text before the Gospel Acclamation begins, and so it seems more fitting that it should have its own conclusion.

Your ordo was incorrect. See above, my answer to maui_hudak.

Felice

I take your point. But, lacking episcopal guidance, it would seem that we are left to our own judgment. I would be amongst the first to welcome some solid guidance from my bishop on these questions. But in the absence of that, I believe it is preferable to follow the Church's established tradition.