One thing to be aware of. I was reading through Gregorian Missal ordo yesterday, and when it comes to the Sanctus, it says, plainly, it is sung by all.

There you are. But this isn't a Vatican document. discuss.

It's clear from Bugnini's memoir that the Missal propers are intended to be both spoken texts in read Masses, and the basis for compositions in the vernacular (I don't have the book in front of me so I can't give you the page number or quotation). The reformers apparently thought that the proper texts of the Mass were in need of reform, but for celebrations with Gregorian chant it was thought best to use existing repertory rather than neo-Gregorian settings of the new texts where they differ. It's like the LOH - in sung vernacular settings, the ICEL translations of the antiphons in the Latin LOH are the texts that are set to music, although these differ from the texts of the Gregorian antiphons indicated in the OCO.he intention of the reformers would seem to be - for sung celebrations in Latin, make use of existing Gregorian settings. For sung celebrations in the vernacular, if you want to sing the propers, set the Missal propers.

For sung celebrations in the vernacular, if you want to sing the propers, set the Missal propers.

Or sing the first option (chant from the GR) as an "alius cantus aptus."

Or, put a lampshade on your head and dance around a statue of Pan.

The notion that Masses in the vernacular would have special texts is....bizarre to me.

Vatican II merely said that, under certain conditions, vernacular could be used in the Liturgy, but Latin was to be retained.

I've never read anything in Sacrosanctum Concilium that said, "And we will make up special texts for when the Mass is in the vernacular."

You know, I wonder: did the priest even (originally) read the Introit, or Offertory, or Communion verse, or Gradual?

I don't think he did. I think the choir sang it, and originally, he just listened.

OK, I have the big Bugnini book with me now - the relevant sentence I was thinking of is at p. 891:

"The entrance and communion antiphons of the Missal were intended to be recited, not sung, and to inspire the creation of suitable songs in the vernacular." (my emphasis)

Now, I realize that the official justification for introducing "Missale propers" was the bit about having texts for recitation, but I suspect that the secondary reason is what was operating in the background. Just a theory...but the whole business of introducing antiphon texts for recitation strikes me as bizarre. The "two track" idea Richard describes above seems to me to be a more plausible explanation of what they were going for: they wanted to reform the proper entrance and communion antiphons just as much as they did the collects, readings, and chants between the readings; not messing with the Gregorian repertoire (beyond a general reorganization) is a concession to the sacred music camp, and Solesmes in particular.

The Tietze article clears up a lot of confusion, but I think it would be wrong to draw the conclusion (hinted at, I think, in his article) that composers such as Fr. Weber (or Richard Rice) who have been setting the Missale propers are somehow on the wrong track. In fact, what they are doing is very much in harmony with part of what the Missale propers are intended to be; and whatever one thinks of the ICEL translations, they are officially approved liturgical texts. The fact that there is an official English translation of the Graduale Simplex but not of the Graduale Romanum is telling: is it perhaps that no one thought the latter endeavour necessary, in light of the Missal texts? It would be strange to argue that a setting of an approved ICEL translation of an entrance antiphon, set beautifully to a neo-Gregorian melody, is somehow liturgically inferior to a text from the Gregorian Missal or some other translation not approved for liturgical use sung to a psalm tone.

Looking at this from another angle: how important is this debate, really? I have in the past been captivated by the idea that it is the immemorial tradition of the Roman Rite that there is a unique proper Introit text (etc.) for every celebration, just as there are proper scripture readings, collects and prefaces, which in recent practice have been usurped from their rightful places by the Other Suitable Songs. But this idea doesn't hold up to scrutiny: it isn't completley true historically (the Tridentine Missal has its repetitive phases, e.g. after Epiphany and in the final Sundays after Pentecost). And for all intents and purposes, the modern liturgical reform has jettisoned the idea of a musical proper of the Mass in favour of a wide range of options--Musicam Sacram uses the term "proper" only in scare-quotes, and this in the original Latin. The lone exception--perhaps--is the Ordo Cantus Missae whose embodiment is the modern Graduale Romanum and which represents an ideal. However, even this allows all kinds of flexibility and deviation from the proper scheme "pro opportunitate." There may be something after all to the audacious claim of Music in Catholic Worship that "the former distinction between the ordinary and proper parts of the Mass with regard to musical settings . . . is no longer retained [in the modern rite]."

Also, it is a VERY good thing that there are no official "translations" of the Graduale. That permits scholas to sing actual translations, even in an elevated language.

adapted? That's one way to put it

My understanding is that this new translation was proposed at the recent USCCB meetings but rejected.

[From Adam's embedded post:] "This tells me that the Vatican has given us approved translations of the proper antiphons of the mass, even if the U.S. Bishops won't."

As far as I know, the Vatican has never been in the business of providing approved translations of anything; that's what Conferences of Bishops are for, and a significant part of why they were set up in the first place. Which is why the Proper texts are such a fascinating problem: the only truly official "translation" of the Graduale texts are the Latin originals. To the extent that they are sung in the vernacular, and to the extent they don't concur with the Missal texts, it would seem to me any heretofore approved English translation of the relevant Scripture (and we have had several to date, in various liturgical contexts) would be acceptable. Of course, there is still the question of non-scriptural texts...

Here is the quote from Fr. Dennis Gill's new book:

It is important to note at this point that option one for the Entrance chant has been amended as of November 2007 by the US Bishops so that the antiphon provided in the Roman Missal is no longer among the sung possibilities for the Entrance chant. The antiphon in the Roman Missal was never intended to be sung but rather to be recited when no singing occurred. This amendment also applies to what is currently in the General Instruction for the Offertory and Communion chant. Confirmation of this amendment awaits a recognition of the Holy See.

Does anyone have any information on this that is more recent?

Also, I would be very interested if anyone has a different interpretation of LA 36, or a reaction to its apparent insistence upon "uniform" translation of the liturgical books, among them the Graduale Romanum.

Bruce-- This is fascinating. I followed the Resurrexi example you cited and it is in fact both different in the Vulgate and the Nova Vulgata. I suspect that this will also be the case with many other texts of the liturgy, not just in the Graduale Romanum. I would be very curious to see a study that compares the official Latin liturgical texts with the "approved" Latin editions of the scriptures, both the Vulgate and the Nova Vulgata.

I have only browsed Peter Jeffrey's book, but will make a point to read it.

What strikes me about this whole thing is that Liturigam Authenticam is asking for something that the official Latin liturgical texts apparently don't have: scriptural-textual uniformity across all of the liturgical books. It seems to be a noble desire on the part of the Vatican, and I suppose that we should still follow the instruction out of obedience. Still, I would like to see to what degree the various Latin liturgical texts vary, say, maybe a percentage. And the question might be asked as to what affect this variation truly has on the liturgy. For example, should the "Resurrexi" introit even be cited as being from Ps. 138, or does it vary enough to be considered as a source in and of itself? I would suspect that the variations are minimal enough that it can still be considered Psalm 138, and that the essential significance of the text could be communicated (translated) faithfully in a variety of ways.

Bruce--

I really appreciate this conversation. I was previously unaware of this reality. Thank you. I would look forward to discussing the topic further after reading the Jeffrey text.

I read through the transcript posted here but saw no mention of this. The only mention of changing American adaptations of the GIRM was in regard to the Mass in Thanksgiving for the Gift of Human Life.