Discrepancy between Graduale Romanum and the New Translation
  • SanAntonioCath
    Posts: 77
    Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:04 PM

    Dear Monsignor Hilgartner,

    I am currently writing a paper about the New Translation of the Roman Missal, and I have found some discrepancies. For instance, the Communion Antiphon for Christmas Midnight Mass as given in the New Roman Missal is:

    *The Word became flesh, and we have seen his glory. (John 1: 14)*

    But the Communion Antiphon as found in the Ordo Cantus Missae (1972, Vatican Press) and the official Graduale Romanum is:

    *Amidst the splendours of the heavenly sanctuary, from the womb, before the morning star, I have begotten you. (Psalm 109: 3)*

    I can send you a photocopy of these pages from the relevant books, if you so desire. I have found many other errors like this. What is the reason for these discrepancies, Monsignor Hilgartner? Thanks so much, if you can help me find the answer to my question!

    Sincerely yours,
    SanAntonioCath
  • SanAntonioCath
    Posts: 77
    Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:36 AM

    The antiphons of the Missal do not necessarily correspond to those in the Graduale Romanum. There are many differences, but they are not errors. If you are in doubt, check the Latin text of the Missal (in the example you give, the Roman Missal, Third Edition correctly supplies John 1:14, which is indicated in the Latin text). This is why the GIRM indicates that among the choices for singing at the Entrance and at Communion are either the antiphon from the Missal or the antiphon with its Psalm from the Graduale (because they might be different, though they are often the same). Sometimes the Graduale provides a longer form of a particular antiphon, sometimes a different text all together.

    I do not know the reason why (because I have not researched this particular question) other than that they are two distinct liturgical books. It might make for a worthy research topic for a doctoral student.

    Msgr. Rick Hilgartner
    Executive Director
    Secretariat of Divine Worship
    United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
    3211 4th St. NE
    Washington, DC 20017
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    The resident MS letter-writer is back at it! :D
  • SanAntonioCath
    Posts: 77
    I had thought that these were errors, but it seems they were planned ...
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    Jeff O wrote a great article about it a while back that you might find interesting, and actually covers in passing the exact same propers you were wondering about.

    http://www.ccwatershed.org/Roman_Missal/

    I would send this article to anyone who is confused about the role of the missal antiphons or the graduale propers. I have once or twice.
    Thanked by 1SanAntonioCath
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,223
    Yes, the difference between the Missale propers and the Graduale propers is often discussed here. (Ya could'a asked us and gotten an answer quicker!)

    The Missale propers for the Introit and Communion were apparently placed there (in the 1970 Missale) with the intention that they be used for spoken Masses. However, it has become permissible to set them to music.

    As you've noted, sometimes they do not match the Graduale propers.
  • Paul_OnnonhoaratonPaul_Onnonhoaraton
    Posts: 434
    Thank you for sharing this correspondence. I feel that many people are not aware of the correct answer to this question. I feel that even the great László Dobszay may have gotten this wrong ... see my new entry at the Catacombs Post Office.

    Nothing against Professor László Dobszay (who was AMAZING). Perhaps good people like Christoph Tietze and Steven Van Roode were not around "back in the day" to carefully explain! ;-)
  • SanAntonioCath
    Posts: 77
    Yes, I was aware of the differences from reading this forum, but I thought the Roman Missal, 3rd Edition corrected these.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    wow. Not doctoral dissertation necessary. Reading the introduction to the Missal by Paul VI is all that is necessary.
    Thanked by 1SanAntonioCath
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    >>Yes, I was aware of the differences from reading this forum, but I thought the Roman Missal, 3rd Edition corrected these.

    Nope.

    The English translation of MR3 provided corrected translations, and also eliminates (some of) the English-version-only additions not found in the Latin. But it does not (for the most part) correct any of the flaws in the content of the Roman Missal itself.

    As concerns the (normative) Latin MR3, my understanding is that it has some added feasts, and removes allowances for "these or similar words," but otherwise is not changed as far as content goes.

    That is to say- the differences between the Graduale propers and the Missal propers are in the Latin typical editions, they are not a problem created by translations, and so cannot be corrected in a new translation.
    Thanked by 1SanAntonioCath
Add a Comment