Entrance and Communion Antiphon question
  • PolskaPiano
    Posts: 255
    In the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul VI which is at the beginning of the Roman Missal (US translation, 2011 ed.) there is a paragraph on antiphons, psalms, and music:

    "Moreover, although the text of the Graduale Romanum, at least as regard the music, has been
    left unchanged, for the sake of easier understanding, the Responsorial Psalm which Saint Augustine and
    St. Leo the Great often mention, and the Entrance and Communion Antiphons for use where
    appropriate in Masses without singing    , have been restored." (emphasis mine.)

    I was surprised to read this because there seems to be a great interest in and emergence of compositions and singing of the entrance and communion antiphons. Are these meant to used and only spoken?

    After further digging, I see the US published version of the GIRM (2002) that the preference for the "Entrance Chant" (vague) is the Entrance Antiphon.

    Where these antiphons meant to be spoken and simply "local custom" in the US was to sing so it was put to music? I'd like to know what was the intention in the Missal for the Entrance to be (universally) and what others outside the US have in their General Instructions or similar instructional books to the Missal.

    The disconnect is maddening when one wants to bring liturgy closer to what it was intended to be, but the church documents are as clear as mud.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,942
    This has been the subject of older threads. In the USA, it is clear that the Missal antiphons may be set to music and sung for their assigned position in Mass, even if that was not the original intention behind the Missal antiphons. For other places without the clear warrant, they could still be so used as alius cantus blah blah blah.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • irishtenoririshtenor
    Posts: 1,295
    There is (usually) a difference between the texts of the antiphons as written in the Roman Missal and the antiphons as set to music in the Roman Gradual.

    Strictly speaking, those found in the Roman Missal are intended to be spoken. There is also explicit permission for them to be sung.

    Those found in the Roman Gradual are the truest "First Option" at the Entrance, Offertory, and Communion.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • PolskaPiano
    Posts: 255
    Thank you.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,371
    An excellent compendium of all the approved and not-quite-approved Introits, Offertories, and Communions, in English, exists here, it notes the sources, and all those marked MG or MGS (missal, gradual, simplex) are the same.
    Of the 91 (I think) Sundays and major feasts, two thirds have the Missal introit the same as GR, 29 are different. For example all four of the Sundays of Advent are the same, and three of the Christmas day Introits, but Midnight Mass is different. All the Sundays of Lent and Easter are the same, and most of the remaining Sundays. But between Christmas and Lent, where the calendar was completely restructured in the OF, most are different.
    There are many alternatives among the Communions, but for a majority of Sundays the GR also appears in the Missal.
    Thanked by 1bhcordova
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,371
    PolskaPiano - On your final point
    There are several discussions of this, as Liam says. It has been less of a problem since the new Missal. Bugnini says the intention was to inspire new compositions in the vernacular, but strenuously defend the treasury of Latin chant.
    GIRM for England&Wales is, before Ch 9, a very straight translation of the Latin original. Unfortunately IGMR fails to distinguish Latin from vernacular, I am not sure if it even mentions the vernacular until Ch 9. That means that the difference in principle between Gregorian chant and verncular is ignored. What probably should happen is more like the Ordinariates Divine Worship: the Missal, which presents GIRM and follows it with a specification of adaptations as a Rubrical Directory. Thus GIRM#51 places the Penitential Rite before the Kyrie, and the Rubrical Directory countermands that and places it after the Creed. This mess is entirely the responsibilty of CDWDS, at the very least the printing of GIRM should give a cross-reference to the RD in each place where a modification occurs.
Add a Comment