2 questions about SEP
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,640
    I was just discussing the difference in translations with my parish's parochial vicar, and two questions came up:


    1. How is it that the Solesmes translations are "allowed," since they do not line up with the official translations currently in use? Is it just a matter of "close enough" or "better than nothing?"


    2. Why do some of the propers seem to not line up? We picked one at random to compare, and the Communion antiphon for the 17th Sunday of Ordinary Time is ENTIRELY different. I double-checked the Gregorian Missal, since the SEP is based on that, and they also had a totally different (well, 3 totally different) Communion propers ... none of them close to what we'd find in the priest's missal.

    Why is that, and are there any others that have this discrepancy?
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    There is no "official translation." There are for the missal antiphons, but those do not always match up with the gradual (which is the source, as it should be, of the gregorian Missal and SEP)

    Jeff O has a really great article somewhere about the missal propers vs graduale propers that might be helpful to you and your vicar.
  • Paul_OnnonhoaratonPaul_Onnonhoaraton
    Posts: 434
    I believe there are already several threads on this very topic but I am not sure of the URL links.

    Short answer:

    1. The Missal propers were never intended to be sung (although the 2011 GIRM allows this).

    2. The USCCB Secretariat has confirmed that USA Ordinaries (i.e. current Bishops) can approve English translations of the Graduale (although the rubrics don't require this according to some Canon lawyers, and the Gregorian Missal translations have an imprimatur). That approval holds for all USA dioceses, according to the Bishop's Committee on Liturgy.

    3. Several Ordinaries (i.e. current Bishops) in the USA have approved the Gregorian Missal translations. If these translations are chanted, they require no approval, because they are "approved by their very nature" according to the USCCB Secretariat's office.

    This article might be helpful, as it discusses some of these issues.
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,640
    About your first point... I thought propers were always intended to be sung? This is a new development for me. Can you elaborate as to why the Missal propers were not intended to be sung?
  • Andrew Motyka
    Posts: 946
    Really; read the linked article above. It provides some great info about the differences between the propers in the missal and the gradual.
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    The missal propers weren't intended to be sung. They were intended to spoken during Masses with no music, ie, spoken Masses.

    The Graduale Romanum/Simplex propers are the propers for sung Masses.

    The two sometimes match up, but not always.

    But like Andrew said, really, read the article. It explains everything.
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,640
    Looking forward to reading it later. No time right now, sorry for being a broken record.


    One more: Do the Lumen Christi antiphons align with the Graduale or the Missal?
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    Graduale, but using the new Missal translations of the analogous text whenever possible.

    (and this is a big deal, by the way)
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 997
    I just checked the SEP communion antiphons of the 17th Sunday in OT, and they do match the Graduale Romanum texts:

    Year A: Simile est regnum caelorum (GR 519) – The kingdom of heaven is like
    Year B: Honora Dominum (GR 314) – Honor the Lord
    Year C: Petite et accipietis (GR 314) – Ask, and you will receive

    These are the texts intended to be sung.

    The texts from the Roman Missal, however, are indeed entirely different:

    Benedic, anima mea, Domino, et noli oblivisci omnes retributiones eius.
    Or: Beati misericordes, quoniam ipsi misericordiam consequentur. Beati mundo cordo, quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt.

    These are the texts to be spoken if the communion antiphon is not sung. This is what is indicated by Paul VI in his Apostolic Exhortation Missale Romanum of April 3, 1969:

    "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."

    The Lumen Christi Missal has, in the first part with the readings and responsorial psalms, for antiphons at the entrance, offertory and communion the texts of both the Roman Missal and the Graduale Romanum.
  • Adam Schwend
    Posts: 203
    The fact that the propers in the missal are different than the propers in the GR is one of the most ridiculous things found in the post Vatican II missals. I don't see why the propers from the GR couldn't be recited. To have a completely different set of propers that are recited than the ones that are sung requires missals to either include two sets of propers when they differ (which they regularly do) or just include one set and hope for the best. It's completely idiotic and I pray daily that the next edition of the Missal will eliminate it.
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    Agreed, Adam. The whole thing makes no sense. The way I've seen it portrayed, it would appear that the texts of the graduale propers are somehow unsuitable for simple recitation.
  • donr
    Posts: 971
    Didn't the change have something to do with the adaptation of the 3 year cycle?
  • Paul_OnnonhoaratonPaul_Onnonhoaraton
    Posts: 434
    donr, the changes were for "functionality" (see this).
    Thanked by 2donr Jenny
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,782
    All very interesting but the above posts and links look at this problem through the NO Mass. What we should also be aware of is how this problem can be look at through Tradition.

    A great deal of time and effort must have been put into producing the traditional Missale Romanum and Graduale Romanum. The Sung Propers, Readings and Prayers are designed to work together, although in places later changes destroy some of the links.

    It should also be noted that the traditional Missale Romanum and Graduale Romanum do not always have identical texts, this difference is historical and it has been declared that both sources are so ancient that neither should be altered to conform with the other.

    With the 3 year cycle designed to bring in a greater use of scripture, this effectively meant that they would be at least doubling the number of different Proper Masses. It is a small thing to add in extra Readings and Psalms, but would be a great task to write new Prayers and sung Propers for each of the new Masses and to have them linking together not only within in that days Mass but also with the Liturgical season.

    It seems an easier approach was used, to use some of the old and double up the use of the sung Propers. With the creation of said or non-sung Propers we now have even more confusion, and with the writing of new music for these said Propers...

    I could not cope with having so much choise (and confusion) over what texts you are going to sing, (I only attend (and sing at) the EF).
  • JennyH
    Posts: 106
    It should also be noted that the traditional Missale Romanum and Graduale Romanum do not always have identical texts, this difference is historical and it has been declared that both sources are so ancient that neither should be altered to conform with the other.

    With respect, I think you may have misunderstood what we're talking about. We're not talking about minor variations, such as those discrepancies found in the Tridentine Mass. I think those are treated in another post ...
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    Yeah, these are really two different issues that we're dealing with.

    But the concept is still there that the missal is for the priest and the graduale is for the choir.
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,640
    Ben,
    Does that mean that when the missal and gradual offer different texts that the priest should read and the choir should sing? Or should it be just one of those options?
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,193
    My understanding is that the priest reads the missal text only when the corresponding proper is not sung.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,821
    The Graduale IS the choirbook
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    The missal texts are for masses without music (or more specifically, the entrance antiphon should be read from the missal if there's no music at the entrance, and likewise at the communion).

    When there is music, the choir sings from the choir's book, the gradual, and the priest reads nothing.

    The purpose of the missal antiphons is for Masses without music. It's a little more convoluted, because in the US, there's an option in the GIRM to sing the missal texts. But the idea is still the same: the graduale is the book for the choir.
  • Paul_OnnonhoaratonPaul_Onnonhoaraton
    Posts: 434
    The Missal antiphons are only to be used in "Masses without music" or (as Pope Paul VI said) "Read Masses."

    More here.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    I've added this topic to the FAQ page. Thanks to Jeff for his article.
    Thanked by 1Paul_Onnonhoaraton
  • henry
    Posts: 244
    The Missal antiphons are printed in our "missalettes". I use them as a guide for choosing the Entrance and Communion hymns. For instance, oftentimes the Entrance Chant is something like "O God come to my aid, hear my prayer...". On those Sundays I used "O Lord hear my prayer" from Taize since it expresses the same theme. Does this seem like a good idea? I will look at the Gradual though, to see if I could use that.
  • donr
    Posts: 971
    Henry, I do the exact same thing. It can be a good way of finding hymns that will at least be a little closer related to the Liturgy of the day.
Add a Comment