Propers: Discrepancies between the OF and EF
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 221
    To those of you who use full Latin propers from the GR in the OF...

    When the propers deviate from how they would be grouped together in the EF, do you ever keep the original grouping and invoke "alius cantus aptus" to justify doing so? This may be an unclear question, so let me give an example.

    For Ascension this year (B), the communion is not "Psallite Domino". However, since it seems odd to me to have a full set of matched propers with a somewhat random communion thrown in, and since I trust the original grouping over whatever the "reformers" threw together, I plan to use "Psallite Domino" at communion regardless. I feel a little conflicted however, as I generally view using "alius cantus aptus" as a slippery slope.

    Does anyone else do this in similar situations? Is this in poor taste? Thoughts?
  • JonathanKKJonathanKK
    Posts: 527
    Do you know about the Ordo Cantus Missae ? That is the book / document that sets forth how the propers are to be arranged for the OF calendar, that would be the place to check. That has more latitude than Solesmes gives you in the GR in some cases, e.g. it permits the retention of the so-called neo-Gregorian propers.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,768
    If you are singing the Communion proper in Latin, then assuredly it is Psallite Domino as in GR. The Missal antiphon Ecce ego vobiscum is a spoken alternative and MUST NOT be sung (in Latin). The reformers, whatever their faults, were very explicit about that. There is no authentic chant for that text in Graduale synopticum.
    GIRM 87. In the Dioceses of the United States of America, there are four options for singing at Communion:
    (1) the antiphon from the Missal or the antiphon with its Psalm from the Graduale Romanum, as set to music there or in another musical setting; (2) ...
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 889
    @a_f_hawkins - The question is about the chants given in the Graduale, not in the Missal. For the Ascension there are different chants in the Graduale for each of the years of the 3 year cycle of readings.
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 889
    A note in the Graduale (p. 13) may give you the "out" you're looking for: "In omnibus Missis de Tempore eligi potest pro opportunitate, loco cuiusvis cantus diei proprii, alius ex eodem tempore", translated roughly as: "In all masses of the proper of the time, one is allowed to choose a chant from the same season in place of the proper chant of the day." So since "Psallite" is a chant of Ascensiontide, you can legitimately sing it in place of the chant assigned to the day in Year B.

    (FYI, an interesting discussion on the Forum on this topic of "seasonal" propers.)
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,768
    Apologies - my eyes just slid over that bit in GR and focussed on the antiphon. Slap on the wrist for inattention
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 221
    Thanks for the input. I suppose my concern is not so much whether or not the practice is licit (since it most assuredly is), but rather whether or not this would be considered to be poor form. I'm also curious about whether or not others on the forum choose to do this in similar situations.
  • Trentonjconn,

    It partly depends on what you mean by "poor form".

    Since what you have proposed to sing is clearly set for the Ascensiontide, and since that which doesn't have a proper melody is required to be spoken instead of sung, I can't see that what you propose is illicit (which you've already established) or going against the grain (?poor form?) of the liturgy itself.

    Basically, are you asking " Given a choice between Jacques Berthier's Ecce ego vobiscum and the Gregorian Chant Psallite Domino, which is preferable?", I think the answer would be Psallite Domino
    Thanked by 1trentonjconn
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,768
    CGZ the option of Ecce ego vobiscum is not at issue, that was my mistake. The question is whether the antiphon given in GR(1974), Signa eos, should be preferred to Psallite Domino, which is given in GR(1974) for next year and is the only one for Ascension given by LU(1961). Signa eos is a direct quotation from the Gospel reading this year.
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 912
    However, since it seems odd to me to have a full set of matched propers with a somewhat random communion thrown in, and since I trust the original grouping over whatever the "reformers" threw together, I plan to use "Psallite Domino" at communion regardless.
    This is merely your opinion - the given option for this year is certainly not a "random" Communio, but is part of the set for this year, and is just as valid as Psallite Domino is for other years or in the EF.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,382
    That's also just your opinion… That is, it doesn't actually answer the question: is it licit to sing a proper chant that is given in the traditional liturgy and for one or two years in the modern Graduale Romanum, when another one is provided for other years (usually due to the Gospel cycle)? The answer, I think, is "yes," but some people might want more justification than that;

    And yes, it's "random," in the sense that there's no rhyme or reason to change the proper: sometimes there are three options, sometimes two, very rarely just one… I'm not sure which is the real problem: forcing the communion to fit the Gospel more regularly, or changing the Gospel cycle in the first place.
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 912

    And yes, it's "random," in the sense that there's no rhyme or reason to change the proper: sometimes there are three options, sometimes two, very rarely just one… I'm not sure which is the real problem: forcing the communion to fit the Gospel more regularly, or changing the Gospel cycle in the first place.
    You could say that about anything in the reformed liturgy. We shouldn't be picking and choosing what we like from the EF when we work in the OF - these were laid out for reasons, and not liking certain aspects of the reform doesn't let us just override it willy-nilly.
    Thanked by 1Jehan_Boutte
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 854
    a somewhat random communion


    As other commenters above have pointed out, the choice of the communion antiphon is not quite random. Actually, for Year B the set of propers with Signa eos is even better matched. There is a correspondence between the Scripture read at Mass and what is sung at communion: it "reminds us of the intimate relationship between the Book of Gospels and the altar, between the Word and the Eucharist" (Boselli, p. 67).

    Goffredo Boselli in his The Spiritual Meaning of the Liturgy (2014, pp. 68-69) offers a wonderful mystagogy of the communion antiphon: "Also significant is the fact that the communion antiphon is proclaimed just prior to the distribution of the Eucharist to the faithful. Preceding communion, the gospel verse becomes an invitation. The same word of God that has called the believer into his presence now invites the believer into communion with God, to be nourished at the table of the bread of life and to drink from the chalice of salvation: "Wisdom has mixed her wine, she has also set her table, and proclaimed: 'Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine I have mixed'" (see Prov 9:1-5). But the communion antiphon proclaimed before receiving the Eucharist is also an appeal, almost an admonition addressed to the faithful: do not nourish yourselves on the eucharistic body of the Lord if you have not heard, accepted, and obeyed his word. There can be no true manducatio panis without a manducatio verbi."

    But, even though I think Signa eos is the better option here, there's nothing wrong to substitute it with Psallite Domino. Go ahead!

    By the way, that has nothing to do with using the option of alius cantus congruus (yes, updated language since 2002), but with legitimately using the available options in the Graduale Romanum. Alius cantus congruus comes in play when you substitute the chant from the Graduale Romanum or Graduale simplex with a chant or song from another approved collection.
    Thanked by 1Schönbergian
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,768
    I don't see this as at all random. Solesmes in revising the Graduale, as ordered by the Council, brought treasures from the authentic sources which had been omitted by the de/re-visers in Rome in the later 7th century. The use of texts from the Gospel of the day was evidently the guiding principle of the 7th century team. And of course they were free to extract texts and compose tunes, unlike Solesmes. But Solesmes managed to find in some cases suitable texts set elsewhere not used by the original team. So the principle is the same, but constrained to existing material, that is not 'random'. And also constrained by the Gospel texts, chosen in accord with the Council's request for a greater selection from scripture.
    Signa eos has a perfectly sound pedigree.
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 221
    I suppose my choice of the word "random" was a bit hyperbolic. The liturgical crisis being what it is, I suppose I (perhaps wrongly) tend to view changes like this with overt skepticism.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,768
    A measure of skepticism is always called for, in my experience. No project I know of has ever fully achieved its goals. That includes the missals of both Trent and VII, the graduals of the Roman schola in 690?, of Solesmes in 1908, and of 1973. or similarly the Tennessee Valley Project, the London Docklands Light Railway or the Manchester Metrolink. Though all of these should I think be rated successful.
  • "Random" assumes a lack of plan. Read Bugnini's books to learn otherwise.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,397
    it seems odd to me to have a full set of matched propers with a somewhat random communion thrown in

    I usually go from the assumption that the minor propers are matched to the pericope as a whole rather than each other. It's a little odd therefore that Mark 16 used to be paired with Psallite Domino rather than Signa eos. In Ascension Year B the EF Epistle Acts 1 is now the first Lesson and is followed by the Responsorial Ps. 47 XLVI, (corresponding to the first Alleluia). There is a choice between Eph 1 & Eph 4 for the Epistle; "led captivity captive" in the latter is a better match for Alleluia Dominus in Sina, or maybe undesirable redundancy in Year B, depending on one's point of view. The lectionary Acclamation ABC though is "Go and teach all nations, says the Lord; I am with you always, until the end of the world."

    On the more general topic chosen for the thread title, we've already looked at Responsorial Psalms: remnants of the Propers?
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 854
    the minor propers are matched to the pericope as a whole rather than each other

    That's true for feasts and seasons. Although, I would rather say that they are more matched to the feast or the seasonal day instead of the Gospel pericope. But outside feasts and seasons (i.e. during tempus per annum), the minor propers are generally aligned individually with their liturgical place and function instead of with the readings, with the occasional exception of the communion antiphon.
    Liturgies per annum don't have a specific 'theme', but are an amalgam of excerpts from Scripture that together show light on the mystery of salvation (only the first reading and the Gospel are somehow aligned).
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,397
    I have to confess I haven't looked closely, but isn't the EF Epistle often as 'matched' to the season as it is to the Gospel? They're not quite the sequential readings given as an alternate to RCL in the Methodist lectionary, but I think I see a pattern:
    PP IX 1Cor10
    PP X 1Cor12
    PP XI 1Cor15
    PP XII 2Cor3
    PP XIII Gal3
    PP XIV Gal5
    PP XV Gal5

    I'm not sure whether I was correct in understanding the original post to be arguing for a '5 movement symphony' unity to IntrGradAllOffComm. A case Corinne's Isaac editing recently made me wonder about is the Communion Nos autem for Holy Cross, a bookend for for the Introit. Was the tridentine Per signum Crucis just the replacement of a local variant or a 'reform'? Hard to argue greater aptness in this case…
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Andris Amolins
    Posts: 133
    Was the tridentine Per signum Crucis just the replacement of a local variant or a 'reform'?

    If this was a reform, then certainly not tridentine. Per signum is used by Roman curia at least since 13th century. Perhaps local variation.