Sequence: before or after the Alleluia?
  • alex
    Posts: 6
    In the OF, when are you singing the sequence: before or after the Alleluia?

    The IGMR, §64, says: “The Sequence, which is optional except on Easter Sunday and on Pentecost Day, is sung before the Alleluia.”

    But in the Solemes' Graduale Romanum (ed. 1979), the sequence is always after the Alleluia. For instance, take today's mass: the Alleluia is p. 378, then you have a note: “Post Alleluia, hæc sequentia ad libitum dicitur…”, then the Lauda Sion Salvatorem p. 379. Well, sequor means “to follow”...

    Who is right?
  • MarkThompson
    Posts: 768
    Before. This was changed in 2002 with the third edition of the Roman Missal.
    Thanked by 1alex
  • Ruth Lapeyre
    Posts: 336
    This is one of the silliest (not evil) things they have ever done!
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,895
    Current practice is that the sequence comes before the Gospel Acclamation.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,306
    It makes more sense that way, in context to how the Alleluia is conceived of and executed in most places. (A short song during a procession, rather than a longer meditation.) Not saying good or bad that THAT has happened, just the change in the Sequence is a sensible move, considering that it has happened.

    Side note- from what I can gather from the Page book, the Alleluia is one of the older chants of the Mass, and seems to have been conceived of as a lesson unto itself. (The more informed here can please chime in on if that is an accurate conclusion for me to have drawn.) Interesting. It's like that old saying: The more things change, the more different they are.
  • MHIMHI
    Posts: 324
    .
    Thanked by 2Adam Wood bkenney27
  • MHIMHI
    Posts: 324
    .
    Thanked by 1Earl_Grey
  • jpal
    Posts: 365
    I believe Adam is just saying that the Gospel Acclamation has a different function than the Gregorian Alleluia. The former is directed immediately toward the Gospel of the day; the latter is not (necessarily). Note that the Gospel Acclamation comes from the Lectionary.

    (FWIW, before the tenth century, sequences were being widely composed as independent pieces, not derived musically or textually from the Alleluia; e.g., Stabat mater.)
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • MHIMHI
    Posts: 324
    .
    Thanked by 1jpal
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,306
    @jpal - that is exactly what I meant.
  • MHIMHI
    Posts: 324
    .
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Adam Wood
  • mahrt
    Posts: 508
    The Gregorian Missal of 2012 (which incorporates the new English translations) still gives the sequence following the alleluia, so it is not just a question of a change in 2002. The alleluia given in the lectionary has been reconceived as a "gospel acclamation—a brief, and not always ecstatic song; and if that is the case, then it makes some sense to sing it after the sequence. But the Gregorian Alleluia is much more than that. It is a melismatic meditation chant following upon a lesson, which has, in addition, a sense of increasing anticipation of the gospel. This increasing sense was the basis of the sequence, which was an amplification upon the Alleluia, increasing and intensifying that anticipation. I think that is why the Gregorian Missal keeps the traditional order. I always sing them in this order, as we did today.
  • MHIMHI
    Posts: 324
    .
  • gregpgregp
    Posts: 632
    To expand on what Adam said, in an Ordinary parish (and I use the term deliberately), when the Gospel Acclamation is sung, everyone stands and prepares to hear the Gospel. To have a long melismatic chant sung at this point would be counterproductive without prior catechesis ("what! we have to stand and do nothing for five minutes?!?").

    At most EF Masses, the people don't stand until the priest chants "Dominus vobiscum", so whatever goes on between the Epistle and Gospel is either followed in their Missals, enjoyed just for the beauty of the music, or ignored completely. In any case, putting the Sequence after the Alleluia there doesn't disturb anyone.
  • mahrt
    Posts: 508
    We sing the melismatic Alleluia (in the OF); the gospel procession is made toward the end of the Alleluia; the congregation stands for the procession. If the timing is right, the priest arrives at the ambo at just about the completion of the Alleluia, and the singing of the Gospel follows directly upon the completion of the Alleluia.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Adam Wood
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 853
    So, I think a logical conclusion to the orginal question would be if one is doing a shorter Gospel Acclamation, it does in many ways make sense to do the Sequence first, but if one is singing the full Gregorian Alleluia, it makes the most sense to retain the traditional order of having the Alleluia first.
    Thanked by 3Adam Wood CHGiffen IanW
  • Ruth Lapeyre
    Posts: 336
    we have to stand and do nothing for five minutes?!?").

    Well, no you are not suppose to stand even if sung in the O.F. it is a meditation which anticipates the gospel. If the priest remains seated so will the congregation. Of course it works best in the E.F. because he is seated for awhile. I often get the phone call in the choir loft with the question, full or abreges chant? If it is full the priest sits if not he remains at the altar.

    it makes the most sense to retain the traditional order of having the Alleluia first. And the priest to remain seated.
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 749
    I wish I were a better person. If I were I would not enjoy observing the growing discomfort of the congregation who (not having read the carefully prepared hand-out with translation and commentary) stand for the Gospel acclamation, only to hear the Schola sing an apparently interminable song in Latin. I was even tempted to switch to the full schtick for Corpus Christi, rather than the short form; but charity and better judgement won out.
    Thanked by 1Gavin