When is the Sequence?
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,640
    I have not worked at a parish yet where they actually do this - and I'm not sure about what the priest expects this coming Sunday. If a sequence is requested (I think its actually required for Pentecost, no?), when does it occur in the mass?

    Before or after the homily? Before the prayers of the faithful, or after? In place of or before the offertory?
    I'm totally clueless and I don't have any good resources for this on-hand at the moment.
  • Yes, the sequence is required for Pentecost Day (but not the vigil).

    It occurs between the second reading and the Alleluia.

    I'm assuming you're dealing with an ordinary form mass. I believe in the extraordinary form, the sequence retains its historic position after the Alleluia.
  • canadashcanadash
    Posts: 1,501
    The sequence is sung prior to the Gospel acclamation, after the second reading. This is the first time we are singing them too. Yes, they are required.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,850
    ryand

    this one uses the latest English translation adapted to the accompaniment of the NOH

    download score in C minor

    download score in D minor

    download score in E minor
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,640
    Yes, it is for OF - so I would sing the sequence, and then follow it immediately with the Alleluia?
  • Yes.
  • I had wondered why in recent times numerous choirmasters were suddenly singing the sequence before, rather than in its historic place following immediately upon Alleluya. I had assumed that it was because they didn't know any better. It has since been pointed out to me that this is prescribed in GIRM. Am I the only one who thinks that this is a bizarre perversion dreamed up by our over-abundant and over-rated 'liturgists'? (In the Anglican Use we continue to sing sequences where they belong.)
  • Here is a bit of correspondence you might find interesting:

    February 21, 2012

    >>Msgr. Richard Hilgartner wrote:
    >>The GIRM never speaks to every possible scenario that could take place.

    Monsignor, what about the Sequence and Alleluia? The Ordo Cantus Missae (1970 and 1988) says "8. The Sequence, if there is one, is sung after the last Alleluia, in alternation by cantors and a choir, or by two parts of a choir, omitting the Amen at the end. If the Alleluia is not sung with its verse, the Sequence is omitted."

    But in our current Lectionaries, the Sequence has an "Amen." Also, in our current GIRM, the Sequence is to be sung BEFORE the Alleluia.

    I would appreciate clarification. Thank you.

    SanAntonioCath


    March 2, 2012

    Dear SanAntonioCath,

    The more recent directives are always the more accurate ones.

    Msgr. Rick Hilgartner

    Executive Director
    Secretariat of Divine Worship
    United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
    3211 4th St. NE
    Washington, DC 20017


    March 5, 2012

    Thank you, Monsignor. By the way, are you aware of the reason behind changing the directive in the Ordo Cantus Missae of Paul VI ?

    SanAntonioCath


    March 15, 2012

    Dear SanAntonioCath,

    I am not aware of the rationale, but I’ve never given it any thought either. There might not be any particular reason other than the ongoing development of the ritual books.

    Msgr. Rick Hilgartner
    Executive Director
    Secretariat of Divine Worship
    United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
    3211 4th St. NE
    Washington, DC 20017
    Thanked by 1Ragueneau
  • francis
    Posts: 10,850
    I have always sung the sequence before the alleluia (OF). I just looked up in my Lectionary (which I finally found in the organ bench!) and the order of readings does put the sequence before the gospel alleluia, right after Reading II. Hope that helps.
  • gregpgregp
    Posts: 632
    I claim no liturgical knowledge whatsoever about why the Sequence would be sung before the Alleluia in the NO, but I DO know that, when sung after the Gregorian Alleluia, the Pentecost Sequence seems to flow seemlessly from it in both text and mode
  • Perhaps the (absent minded) rationale for reversing the order of Alleluya-Sequence has been the desire to have Alleluya sung immediately before the Gospel. However, if the Sequence had not been shorn of the Alleluya at its conclusion this would not be a potent reason. In the case of Victimae Paschali and Veni Sancte, there is an Alleluya (do-fa-mi.re-re) following the Amen. Likewise for Lauda Sion, Alleluya (la-fa-la.sol-sol) follows Amen. Like so much else, these details did not seem to pass muster with so-very-moderne liturgists and make their way into current liturgical books. But Anglican Use Catholics continue to observe them.

    The historical order, for those who might want to follow it is:
    Alleluya+Verse+Sequence+Sequence's Alleluya
    One will note that Alleluya is not repeated after its verse. One goes immediately on to the Sequence.

    However: GIRM (64) does indeed say this: 'The Sequence, which is optional except on Easter Sunday and on Pentecost, is sung before the Alleluia'.
    (And note that the word GIRM uses is 'SUNG'! A new low in liturgical idiocy is reached by those who actually sit and read, not stand and sing, the sequence.)
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,200
    Makes me wonder, did they feel the Sequence's Alleluya was/is somehow insufficient or might not be sung? Anyway, it's really unfortunate from a logical, musical, and liturgical standpoint.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    I always assumed the change was made so people could sit down during the Sequence and stand for the Alleluia. But this is pure speculation on my part.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,986
    I don't know the reason for the change, but I follow the liturgical instructions that are in force now. We will be singing the sequence at all the Pentecost masses next Sunday.
  • My pastor asked me tonight if my cantor was prepared to sing the sequence tomorrow night (Saturday vigil). I thought it was only required for Pentecost Sunday, not the vigil. Can anybody confirm this?
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,200
    AFAIK the Pentecost Sequence is not sung at the Vigil Mass for Pentecost.
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 1,000
    Indeed, the Sequence is only sung during at the Mass during the Day, and not at the Vigil Mass.
  • irishtenoririshtenor
    Posts: 1,333
    Is it a true Vigil Mass or an anticipated Mass?
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,117
    Pentecost has a proper vigil (of course, for the purpose of fulfilling preceptual obligation, it functions as an anticipated Mass), and this year in English the vigil has an extended option for the first time since the reform of the missal.
  • My pastor just e-mailed me and said the Ordo lists the sequence at the vigil mass, so I will do it then.
  • btodorovich
    Posts: 32
    FYI, our Ordo (Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend) lists the sequence at the Vigil and requires it.
  • Curiously, I noticed in the Burgandy Ordo that many churches use, it actually stated having the Sequence on the Vigil. I was shocked, so I went to the priest before mass, and asked, he of course said, no we didn't have to do it. I was shocked to see it in the Ordo. Even more curious was that fact that OCP actually got it right, because when I went to check their online Ordo, it was dead on about not doing the sequence on the vigil.

    I guess someone typo-ed in the Ordo.

    @musicteacher56, you must have that same Ordo up there. I think the whole state uses that one. I saw that entry too.... The thing is if there was a required sequence, it should have been noted in the lectionary?
  • I was VERY confused since the lectionary did NOT have it for the vigil, but I was ready with it. I guess we do have the same Ordo down here. My priest is a Diocesan Florida priest. As far as OCP, that's where I got my info that we did NOT have to do it. Breaking Bread only lists it for the Sunday masses. In any case, my cantor did an amazing job and it was worth hearing him tonight!
  • Yes, you definitely have the same one then. I believe all the Arch/dioceses have the same Ordo. It called for it, but OCP actually had it right, (surprise), it isn't required or called for, on Vigil. I took a look in the lectionary, and it too, didn't specify, or state it.

    We didn't do it tonight, but we will tomorrow, 7 times tomorrow. :O)
  • mahrt
    Posts: 517
    Concerning the nature of the sequence: it is called a sequence, because it follows the alleluia. Originally, it was a text added to the jubilus of the alleluia; from there it developed into a more independent poetic genre. Still, as some have observed here, the sequence flows directly from the alleluia musically.

    I believe the reason for the change in the new rite was that the reformers wanted to change the nature of the alleluia from a meditation chant which follows the lesson to a "Gospel acclamation." Thus in the Easter Season the presence of two alleluias (in the tradition, as well as in the Graduale Romanum of 1974 and the Gregorian Missal), is in the lectionary of the new rite replaced by a responsorial psalm and then an alleluia. Likewise the rubric to stand during the alleluia suits its function as a gospel acclamation. This, of course, poses a problem for those legitimately using the Graduale Romanum or Gregorian Missal, since the Gregorian alleluia is longer than the usual performance of the gospel acclamation, and the procession to the ambo is finished quite a while before the alleluia is finished, and the priest stands there waiting for the conclusion of the alleluia, sometimes seemingly impatiently. In the Mass where my choir sings, the procession to the ambo takes place only towards the end of the singing of the alleluia, at which point the congregation stands. This works very well--the function of the meditation chant is fulfilled, but the function of the anticipation of the gospel is also clear, emphasized by the ecstatic quality of the jubilus of the alleluia. In fact, I contend that the Gregorian alleluia is a more suitable gospel acclamation than the little antiphon from the Easter Vigil, the nearly syllabic three-fold alleluia. The jubilus is a part of the essence of the Mass alleluia, and is not sufficiently replaced by a syllabic chant.

    Concerning the vigil Mass: there has been some confusion about this. Many solemn feasts in the tradition had vigils, but the vigil was the Mass of the day, celebrated in the morning. These vigil days were fast days, and the liturgy for them was somewhat penitential, no Gloria, etc; thus the absence of the sequence. Since the new rite eliminated vigils in the old sense, the Mass formulae were simply (perhaps mindlessly) transferred for use in the position of an anticipated Mass.

  • mahrt
    Posts: 517
    Concerning the Vigil of Pentecost: this is a special case, since historically this was analogous to the Easter vigil, with a number of lessons, blessing of the font, ringing of bells at the Gloria, etc. This was the case for the old rite before the reform of Pius XII. The presence of baptisms there in the tradition was the reason it was called Whitsunday (white Sunday, for the white garments the newly baptized wore). The new rite provides two forms of the vigil, the first, joined to vespers and with a choice from several lessons (similar to the readings of the Easter Vigil), the second, is like an ordinary Mass, and is evidently for use as a normal anticipated Mass. It doesn't seem to include the sequence, though, logically, if it is an anticipated Mass, it might have.
  • Paul_D
    Posts: 133
    Quite an interesting and thorough discussion of the matter can be found here:
    http://blogs.nd.edu/oblation/2011/07/15/a-sequence-of-thoughts-on-liturgical-sequences-part-ii/
    (but if you have time, there's a part i linked within).
    Thanked by 1canadash
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    Thank you for that very definitive note, San Antonio Catholic.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    (This might have been mentioned above- I didn't read every reply.)

    What strikes me as the biggest practical reason for the "new" order (Sequence, then Alleluia) is that the Alleluia, for all practical purposes, has become a part of the Ordinary instead of the Proper. It makes very little musical/liturgical sense that the Sequence extends the Alleluia unless the Sequence is musically a part of the Alleluia. The result would end up being a Gospel Procession with two different and unconnected pieces of music. Considering the form, style, and understanding of the Gospel Acclamation in the Novus Ordo, it makes perfect sense to place the Sequence before the Gospel. (Whether the present form, style, and understanding of the Gospel Acclamation makes any sense in the first place is a whole other question.)

    This is what I do:
    -Sequence proclaimed- in English, in a chant setting
    -(For Easter, invite the congregation to respond after each stanza with Alleluia.)
    -After last line of Sequence, directly into the Alleluia, using the same melody as the Sequence, so it is a single, unified piece of music.
    -All stand with the ministers as the Gospel procession begins, without a break in music.

    It may or may not be a perfect solution, but it fulfills (I think) both the NO rubrics and the spirit of the tradition wherein the Alleluia and Sequence are a single piece of music, and it doesn't cause anybody to be confused about what is going on.
  • What's a good day at the Secretariat of Divine Worship?

    No mail from SanAntonioCath.

    Maybe he thinks it's the bishop writing under a pen name? He's awfully polite, which is nice.

    SAC, keep on ....image
  • I claim no liturgical knowledge whatsoever....

    GregP, don't you know that you have just announced to the world that you now are qualified to be a liturgist?
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,200
    Just because the Alleluia is sometimes (too often?) sung without the appointed Verse does not make it a de facto part of the Ordinary. It is still part of the Propers.
    Thanked by 1DougS
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    I didn't say it IS part of the Ordinary, just that it is pretty much treated as a part of the Ordinary in common practice. Just pick up any recently published Mass Setting- you'll find the Gospel Acclamation, right there between the "Glory to God" and the "Holy, Holy."
    Thanked by 1DougS
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,200
    True, Adam, many new settings include the Gospel Acclamation(s), even though these are not part of the Ordinary. Some also include(d) the "Great Amen" (I hate that term, though). And yet they all too often omit the Credo. Oh well! :)
    Thanked by 2DougS Gavin
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,221
    I prefer the "Modest Amen" m'self.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen PMulholland
  • You should try teaching Catholics just what the Ordinary and the Proper chants of the Mass are, it isn't easy. Adam you are correct, the way the Alleluia is used in the OF anyone would think it is part of the Ordinary sung parts of the Mass.
  • It's true. Until about five years ago, I thought the Alleluia was part of the Ordinary.
    Thanked by 1E_A_Fulhorst
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,986
    I never really cared whether it was part of the Ordinary or Proper. I just do it and leave the parsing and nitpicking to those with the time or interest for such things. The thing that does bug me a bit, however, is the loss of "levels' of Alleluias. It is still printed in missalettes that there is, for example, a triple Alleluia for Easter, and double Alleluias at other times. Try following a standard hymnal for music and parts. They are all triples and a bit difficult to edit into another form. I know, many would say it isn't worth the trouble, but the distinctions seem to have disappeared, for any practical purposes.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,200
      It's true. Until about five years ago, I thought the Alleluia was part of the Ordinary.

    Until about five years ago, I never realized that some people thought the Alleluia was part of the Ordinary.

    But I only knew the Mass settings of the masters: Palestrina, Victoria, etc. How could these venerable composers have been so wrong!

    O! the consequences of out of sequence Sequences!
    Thanked by 1ClemensRomanus
  • Ted
    Posts: 204
    Dr Mahrt above is right about the Mass Alleluia being changed from a "meditative" chant into a "Gospel Acclamation". This change was a radical novelty in the Roman Mass of Paul VI, based totally on the idea of "active participation" as people doing something external like singing through their mouths. It only recently has come to maturity as Msgr Hilgarter in the above response intimated through the use of the words "ongoing development", and as Mr Wood above has suggested, into being treated as part of the Ordinary.

    This Gospel Alleluia, as it is often called, entered the Roman Mass from Byzantium sometime in the 8th century, as the chant books sent to Francia were very incomplete on these, so almost all the Gregorian Gospel Alleluias are Frankish compositions or compilations. Byzantium had 2 psalms as OT readings, the second one being an Alleluiatic psalm. Most of the Gregorian Gospel Alleluias are taken from the psalms. Non pslamic ones occur exceptionally during the Paschal season.

    The Sequences were the "real" Gospel acclamations at the time, if you like, but Trent got rid of almost all of them. Some of our Protestant brethren do retain a Gospel hymn, by the way.

    This also raises another issue. Is it licit to use the psalmic text for the verse from the Alleluia in the Graduale Romanum instead of the one in the modern lectionary that invariably has NT pericopes based, or taken from, the Gospel?
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 1,000
    Is it licit to use the psalmic text for the verse from the Alleluia in the Graduale Romanum instead of the one in the modern lectionary that invariably has NT pericopes based, or taken from, the Gospel?

    Yes. GIRM 62 confirms that the text for the Alleluia can be taken from the Lecionary or the Roman Gradual:

    a. The Alleluia is sung in every season other than Lent. The verses are taken from the Lectionary or the Gradual.

    b. During Lent, in place of the Alleluia, the verse before the Gospel is sung, as indicated in the Lectionary. It is also permissible to sing another psalm or tract, as found in the Gradual.
  • Ted
    Posts: 204
    smvanroode:
    Thanks. But I was wondering more about an English translation of the GR text. The Gregorian Missal has them for Sundays. I think the SEP uses these older GM ones for the other propers even though the new Missal translation has the Introit and Communion, which can be different. Because the Alleluia psalm verses are to substitute for the texts directly found in the lectionary, I wonder whether their translation should be "official" in some capacity or not.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    The SEP translations are not official, though taken from the Gregorian Missal. (The Missal's intro is very clear about how not official those translations are). These were used in the SEP for lack of anything more official- there is no official translation of the Propers from the Graduale Romanum (the sung propers).

    The new Roman Missals (like the old Sacramentary) do not contain translations (official or otherwise) of the Graduale Romanum propers. What the new English Roman Missal contains is (official) translations of the Proper Antiphons contained in the (Latin) Missale Romanum- propers intended to be spoken, not sung.

    The name "Gregorian Missal" is a little bit confusing. A better name for that book would have been "The Roman Gradual, with everything in Latin- plus with instructions and translations in English so that you might have some clue as to what is going on."
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,221
    The psalm verses in the SEP are from the Revised Grail Psalter, which is approved for liturgical use. Does that help?
  • I use, where they correspond, the translations from the 1965 Roman Missal for the propers.
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    Since we're on the topic of SEP antiphons, I've found that quite often, when I'm working on my ferial english propers project, one can usually use the verse citation, and simply find the text of the antiphon in a verse or two of the psalms.

    Take said verse from the RGP, compare the latin GR text with a latin psalter to be sure the text is the same, and boom: (almost) automatically approved translation for 80% of the propers. Not sure how many of the alleluia texts are like that, but it's worth looking into.

    Here's an example:

    June 1st's introit from the proper of Saints (Justin Martyr).

    Latin text and citation:

    (Ps 118: 46, 47)
    Loquébar de testimóniis tuis in conspéctu regum, et non confundébar: et meditábar in mandátis tuis, quæ diléxi nimìs.

    Go to the RGP, find verses 46, 47, and here's what you find:

    46 - I will speak of your decrees before kings, and not be abashed.
    47 - In your commands I have found my delight; these I have loved.

    Add punctuation according to the text from the GR, and you get this:

    I will speak of your decrees before kings, and not be abashed: In your commands I have found my delight; these I have loved.
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 1,000
    Ben: be careful with changing the punctuation: this may be part of the copyright agreement.

    The Lumen Christi Missal has a new translation of the Graduale propers (IN, OF, CO) for Sundays and Feasts that matches the new translation of the Roman Missal. The acknowledgements say:

    The English texts of the antiphons of the Graduale Romanum that are not found in the Roman Missal were translated by Fr. Robert Johansen, S.T.L., with the assistance of John Pepino, Ph.D., in collaboration with the Association for Latin Liturgy, U.K. Ecclesiastical approval for these texts has been granted by +Thomas J. Olmsted, Bishop of Phoenix, on May 30, 2012.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,221
    To my surprise, I find that different hand missals (Pauline Books, Midwest Theological) punctuate the texts of responsorial psalms differently. Go figure.
  • JennyH
    Posts: 106
    The Lumen Christi Missal has a new translation of the Graduale propers (IN, OF, CO) for Sundays and Feasts that matches the new translation of the Roman Missal. The acknowledgements say:

    The English texts of the antiphons of the Graduale Romanum that are not found in the Roman Missal were translated by Fr. Robert Johansen, S.T.L., with the assistance of John Pepino, Ph.D., in collaboration with the Association for Latin Liturgy, U.K. Ecclesiastical approval for these texts has been granted by +Thomas J. Olmsted, Bishop of Phoenix, on May 30, 2012.

    Is this another copyrighted, proprietary translation? And how did Fr. Johansen get permission to adapt the Revised Grail (from GIA) and the antiphons (from ICEL)? Permission is usually not given to do this ... I smell a cease and desist letter ...
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,221
    Is there some misunderstanding? It says that Fr Johansen translated some Latin antiphon texts from the Graduale Romanum to English; nothing about the RGP or about adapting ICEL texts. (Note also that this is about the Lumen Christi Missal, a separate project from the Simple English Propers.)
  • JennyH
    Posts: 106
    If it truly "matches the the new translation of the Roman Missal" (c.f. above), then it is based on the ICEL. The ICEL is, in turn, based on the Grail, Jeffrey Tucker wrote an article about this some time ago. I will dig it up.

    In any event, modifications can only be done with permission from the copyright holders.