Dear WGS,

different groups do different things, I've noticed

We always used Chrism's suggestion. The choir (assisted by the ushers) was allowed to receive Communion first. THEN the schola sang the Communio versicle, after brief thanksgiving-after-communion.

Then we usually sang a motet, or Chant hymn.

Is it possible to start the communion antiphone when the priest recieves the Holy Eucharist



Mia, it looks like the rubrics (see post #1) explicitly forbid that. Remember, at the EF, if the people are to receive, the priest receives first and then after the priest receives, the people's Preparation for Communion: the 3rd Confiteor and Absolution (pre-1960 rubric and common custom), the Ecce Agnus Dei and the people's Domine Non Sum Dignus (3x). All of that is omitted if the people are not to receive. Anecdotally, my experience is that the people usually do actively participate in the Preparation for Communion.



Typically what I have seen, if schola is of sufficient strength, is that the Communio will begin when the first server receives and then continue using verses from the Psalmorum. This doesn't always continue until the last communicant has received (although the rubric in post #1 seems to suggest it should), and when it stops there is usually one or more motets or hymns or organ pieces to follow, through the end of the Ablutions.



Another variant (as mentioned before) is that the choir receives first, then chants the verse, etc.



A third variant I have seen--and do not recommend--has the choir start with a motet when the first server receives, then the choir queues up to receive behind the congregation (with organ playing in the meantime), then the choir returns to the choir area/loft and chants the verse once during the Ablutions. This may be an older custom which does not seem consistent with the rubric from De Musica Sacra in post #1. Depending on the speed of the Communion queue (which can vary greatly based on the number of priests administering Communion, a number that may be kept hidden from you until after you have started the motet), the planned motet may end up being too long, so it may end up being cut short abruptly with choir charging full-speed toward the altar rail, or worse the choir may end up not receiving at that Mass. I would not want to be the music director answerable to God for either situation, most especially if a children's choir were involved.

The Communion Antiphon became a postcommunion antiphon at Salisbury and elsewhere during the late Middle Ages because the people did not receive communion at high Mass and the (sung) Agnus Dei extended through the celebrant's communion, pushing the Communion antiphon forward. The 1549 Prayer Book, on the basis of existing custom, directed that the Agnus Dei be sung as a communion anthem and provided "postcommunion sentences" to be sung in place of the communion antiphons.

At most pre-Conciliar high masses communion was not administered to the people. The choir began the communion antiphon as soon as it had finished singing the Agnus Dei. By the time the communion antiphon was finished, the ablutions were also.

When communion of the people was first introduced, the musical routine in some places was not changed. The communion devotions were recited with the communicants (at the rail or approaching the rail) while the choir went on singing the Agnus Dei. The Communion antiphon still followed the Agnus Dei immediately.

I suspect that the 1958 instruction represented an attempt to clean up this mess and that the intention of its framers was that when there were communions, the priest should wait until the conclusiong of the Agnus Dei to begin the communion devotions, and that the singing of the communion antiphon should begin when the devotions were over. The attempt was a stopgap. The mess was not truly cleaned up until the 1969 reform.

It seems to me that in such case the (singing) choir would receive after the people.

I thought that the only place a motet could be added to the post-Tridentine rite of high Mass was after the singing of the Offertory antiphon. I was not aware the communion motets were allowed. Were they?

The De musica sacra directive has always struck me as curious, the idea that the schola would sing the communion antiphon during the priest's communion, which would usually carry across the second Confiteor and absolution (still active in those days, and still encountered today) and the Ecce Agnus Dei. Then, too, I have occasionally experienced a polyphonic Agnus Dei long enough to cover all of this on its own, with the communion tagged on at its conclusion, with the people well on their way to the altar rail.

The usual practice, both under the Indult and now under the Motu proprio, is either to sing the communion following the three-fold Domine non sum dignus, or at the ablutions following the people's communion, i.e., when the priest recites the text of the chant. Either works. The former allows for multiple verses and repetitions, with usually still plenty of time for the schola to receive. With the latter, it is a little trickier to gauge the timing, and makes the thing seem foreshortened. I practice the former, but In the many contexts in which I have sung the traditional Mass, I have encountered very little fundamentalist opposition to either practice. A curiosity, certainly, but not something I would describe as a "mess".

WGS - I'm not aware of a document that specifically changes the timing of the antiphon. Indeed your citation offers two specific times for it to be sung, either when the priest receives or when the congregation receives. It doesn't say that it should "continue" to be sung, so given the conjunction "but" it looks like an either/or situation.

Actually the original seems a bit strange. The Communio being sung calls for a Missa Cantata or Solemnis where there will be a congregation. I don't believe I've ever attended a Mass in which the congregation doesn't receive.

That aside, I might suggest a look at the response from the Ecclesia Dei Commission to questions about music in the Extraordinary Form. ( Ecclesia Dei response ) Msgr Perl says that "[C]ustom and usage in the course of more recent decades have modified some of the strict requirements in the documents which you have cited." The same might well be said of your case. It is not necessary to adhere to rules which in the hermeneutic of continuity have adjusted to contemporary styles.

God forbid Traditional Latin Mass slip down.

Is it possible to contiue the custom without last 40 years, until the Church makes changes or reforms it? Did the council change much in Traditional Latin Mass?