Imposition of Ashes : propers are not optional
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,168
    In the Missal, for the Blessing and Distribution of Ashes, there are three Antiphons and a Responsory. The rubric says "[m]eanwhile, the following are sung". After them is another rubric "[a]nother appropriate chant may also be sung".

    Unlike at the Entrance and Offertory, there is no provision here whatever for substituting or omitting the proper antiphons. Quite apart from the "chant vs. song" dispute, which this isn't about, what is the justification for singing "Ashes", or "Deep Within" -- or for that matter the Allegri Miserere -- until the propers have been sung?

    I must be missing something.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,460
    what is the justification


    "We want to."
    Thanked by 6Salieri Gavin CHGiffen marajoy Ioannes Andreades tomboysuze
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,606
    There are quite a few psalms to be sung at the dedication service, specified. When they are sung the bishop complains, "Not enough songs the people knew how to sing and too much Latin."

    Sorry, but is there a required IQ test for bishops? In many parishes, what the people want trumps rubrics. Choose your parish and your battles carefully.
  • RobertRobert
    Posts: 343
    For the record, the rubric in Latin is "Cani potest etiam alius cantus aptus."

    Is the only possible sense of the phrase here "You can sing other suitable songs as long as you sing the proper chants" or can it be interpreted as "You can sing other suitable songs instead of the proper chants"?
    Thanked by 1chonak
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,168
    Consider the other places in the rubrics where there are propers other than in the "usual" places in the Mass. Holy Thursday: "cantantur aliquae e sequentibus antiphonis, vel alii cantus apti". Good Friday: "cantantur antiphona ...vel alii cantus congrui". No etiams. The rubric here clearly means "in addition". Blessing and Sprinkling: "peragitur unus e cantibus qui sequuntur, vel alius cantus aptus."

    Nope, for whatever reason the vel alius aptus has been omitted from the rubric for Ash Wednesday. Instead we have etiam alius aptus.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    Paging Liam, paging Liam.... I feel like we're due for the usual lecture about "Roman Law" vs "Anglo-American Law".
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,182
    My Stelten dictionary of ecclesiastical Latin gives for "etiam": "also, and, too, yea, certainly".

    Yea!
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,003
    Gavin

    Sorry to disappoint, but I don't see that dynamic as fully in action here. I usually employ the tired reminder when I see people having expectations about enforcement that are mismatched to the realities on the ground. I know some will be bored by the reminders, but over the years, I've realized so many people don't fully grasp how salient the issue can be.
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,168
    I think the rubric at this point is clear enough.

    I did not find musical settings (Gregorian or otherwise) of these antiphons in English (other than in Palmer, of course), which surprised me, since they are obligatory.

    (Edited: I didn't look hard enough. Thanks to smvanroode.)
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 978
    The antiphon Dele Domine is found in the Graduale Simplex, p. 86:

    image

    English settings by Adam Bartlett of all three antiphons (texts taken from the 2010 Roman Missal) are found here:

    http://illuminarepublications.com/downloads/cantor-scores/ash-wednesday.pdf
    Thanked by 4Andrew_Malton PMulholland CHGiffen fp
  • Bruce E. Ford
    Posts: 429
    Juxta vestibulum can be found in The American Gradual.
    Thanked by 3CHGiffen Andrew_Malton jpal
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    My point in invoking Liam (who always has an interesting and different perspective) is his mantra (as I understood it) that Roman law is based on describing an ideal situation, rather than Anglo law, where a set of conditions is given. That is to say, the singing of these antiphons is something that the legislation envisions as ideal, with exceptions being tolerated.

    I think this would seem a logical conclusion here, given that, besides the lack of permission for omission of the propers, the text also makes no allowance not to have music. Which would be a truly strange and unduly burdensome law.

    That said, DO THE PROPERS if you can. They're great texts. Or I always use Paul Ford's setting of Psalm 51 with the respond "Take away O God..." That too is a beautiful setting, and even a full church hasn't taken up too much time for it to cover.
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,168
    I suppose you could take a similar view of the obligatory sequences. Or the Exsultet, eh?

    The traditionally tolerable declination from the rules is: if you aren't not singing the texts, say 'em.

    In the reformed liturgy, that practice was slightly extended to allow (a) substituting another chant, even when singing (for the introit and offertory only), (b) substituting a specific text when not singing (for the introit, offertory, and communion), and (c) the omission of a text which is not sung (eg. the Alleluia verse, on ferial days). Each of these extensions is described explicitly in the rubric.
    Thanked by 1Ben
  • ghmus7
    Posts: 1,473
    My two cents:
    Yes we all agree that the propers are in the rubrics etc.
    But what are you going to do if a Pastor or Bishop insists otherwise?
    This is the real question. We can preach to ourselves all day, it really is preaching to the choir.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,955
    Good point. Many here stress the importance of Propers. That is far from a universal opinion. Options do exist, and some priests prefer those options. I use Propers, but I wouldn't risk my job over them.
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,168
    Garn, this wasn't supposed to be a tussle over preferences, binding power of rubrics, meaning of rubrics, practicalities, Anglo vs Roman legal culture, etc etc. Guess I learned a lesson here.

    I really only wanted to know if the rite envisaged omitting or substituting those propers (it doesn't), and where the music for them in English is (found, thanks to all).
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,182
    Maybe I should see if there is a feature on the forum to let readers rate the responses for helpfulness / off-topicness. The closest thing there is now is the "Thanks" option.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,955
    But we love getting off topic. Many of the conversations here would be dull as mud, otherwise. Those off topic posts frequently have some new information I wouldn't have thought of.
    Thanked by 5CHGiffen jpal tomboysuze Heath Ben
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    I think we can do without a popularity contest in the form of pluses and minuses.

    As Charles said, the veering off topic is what makes this fun and profitable. Otherwise, one may as well simply consult a book and be done with it. Andrew got his answer, and there was an interesting side question of whether one ought to feel bound by this particular rule. No one was injured, and everyone had a good time.
    Thanked by 5Adam Wood CharlesW tomboysuze Ben CHGiffen
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    I agree, I've learned a so much from "off topic" posts. The wealth of knowledge here is amazing! There's not many places that will discuss the neo-gregorian propers composed for papal Masses mere hours after they are sung. Seriously! :)
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,640
    Since there are 3 antiphons, are they intended to be sung one after the other, or are they 3 options to choose from? I'm planning on using Adam's but the one with verses is very short. If only one option should be sung, could 1 or 2 be combined with the verses of 3? The psalm tones would need to be different, obviously, but I can pull those from matching modes in SEP. Or, if its licit to do so, I'll just sing through all three antiphons and use the verses at the end, as needed.
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,168
    We are going to sing all 4, with (Canadian) verses from ps 50/51 with the third. I transcribed the first three from the Graduals, because Adam's versions seem only to share the mode and not the melody -- but Adam's "Let Us Correct Our Faults" is a beautiful adaptation! We are singing that. Since they are short, a cantor will go on to sing something appropriate from the CBW.
  • RobertRobert
    Posts: 343
    Here is a question. Assuming that these antiphons indeed cannot be substituted with something else, wouldn't this be a case of propers that have an official translation?

    It's often argued in this forum that there is no official translation of the Graduale Romanum, therefore we are free to use any translation. This would seem to be an exception and would preclude the use of Palmer-Burgess, etc., wouldn't it? The official translation for these sung propers is right there in the missal.
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,168
    I agree with you, but there are quite a few propers that are translated in the Missal. All the Good Friday venerations. The proper Sequences. The proper offertory on Holy Thursday.

    The difference here is that in this one place, for whatever reason, the usual option to replace or omit the proper is clearly not envisaged.

    I agree that Palmer wouldn't be appropriate here.
Add a Comment