What an interesting Missal, tomjaw... I've had a quick scan of it but can't make head or tail of its actual use! The notated propers combined with the other non-notated liturgical texts have me scratching my head. Was this for the altar, was it for the quire, was it for a wealthy individual? To me, using this on the altar would be akin to substituting a Liber for the Missale Romanum.

From my perspective the notated propers combined with non-notated other things point towards a liturgical organic development of sorts. Here we have the convergence of multiple books that were previously separate - the Graduale and the Sacramentary. So yes to it being a missal that looks somewhat like what we have today, tomjaw, but to me that's analagous to Dunstable's fauxbourdon as a precursor to modern harmony. The parallel is there, but potentially with a completely different intention.

Like a_f_hawkins, I'm very much on the lookout for liturgical sources in relation to textual duplication. It certainly can't be among the most ancient practices of the Church, given that the priest didn't have access to all the texts until the form of the Missal was finally settled. Our Byzantine friends have kept their separate books and, with those, their separate roles such that one minister will not double up upon what another does.

The need for a missal-as-compendium must surely not have arisen in the Western Rites until the priest supplied the roles of all the sacred ministers - that is, when Low Mass came about. The Catholic Encyclopedia seems to suggest that, at first, such missals contained a more limited range of Mass proper texts.

All this said, I would have taken very little issue with these duplications per se (there's enough other material that the priest prays in the 1962 Missal for his own private devotion, so a few more things in a similar vein seem fairly harmless) but for the problems that they create in terms of the Ordinary. That congregations should feel that they need to choose between the 'devout following' in their hand-missals and the singing of the liturgical text would seem to be a perverse outcome. The Sanctus is a particularly good example of this at work. I do not accept the idea that the Sanctus 'delays' the Canon when it is sung in plainchant on account of how brief it is and do not quite understand the rush to exclude the possibility that the celebrant might wait a few minutes to commence the Canon, noting the other generous provisions Ecclesia Dei made around 1997 and therefore wishing to see whether anyone had a record of a similar provision having been made to the Sanctus. I have no interest in implementing such things unless they carry Rome's express approval (and rather wish that the attitude across the board was geared towards allowing Rome to regulate the rites, which has been with Rome since Trent... perhaps having learned from the lessons of the 1970s that lobbying and campaigns do not produce particularly good fruits).

The other issue that the duplications create is that they set up an apparent hierarchy of things that should have a person's liturgical attention (and participation) at any point.

If anyone wonders why plainchant has not received the attention it deserves, if they are too often treated as little more than 'sacred mood music', wonder no more! If what the celebrant is doing at any point in the Mass is given such attention that the only time anything else is considered is when the celebrant is doing nothing (e.g. the Gloria, Gradual, Alleluia, Creed), then there is a serious distortion at work. To me, that manifests in a congregation that seemingly only raises its voice when it does not see that the celebrant is otherwise occupied. The hand missal project is in part to blame for such outcomes. What way forward? Litres of ink spilled in communities in an attempt to re-educate? Culture seemingly eats strategy for breakfast.

@Palestrina you have been needlessly dismissive because you can’t accept that a possible answer was given, you just ignored it and then were rude about the fact that you didn’t find it helpful. But I repeat myself: you have to be willing to police posture a little bit. You have to be willing to do things like put out the Ordinary with some integrated instructions. I don’t think that anyone would pick up the full Ordinary (excluding the silent parts that happen when something is sung, like the prayers at the foot of the altar)

The other issue that the duplications create is that they set up an apparent hierarchy of things that should have a person's liturgical attention (and participation) at any point

But the problem isn’t even from the duplications! It’s from the beginning: you have to cut out the prayers at the foot of the altar (which is fundamentally unserious, since the NO not only is worse for it with the breaking-up of the rite, instead of seamlessly transitioning, but the people don’t sing, they just need to listen…and you can do two things at once in the pew: watch, and listen)

Otherwise, you have to police posture, which you don’t want to do, because people kneel and often don’t rise until the moment that the priest intones the Gloria, which I find distracting. At least ICRSP parishes model getting up earlier; the US, their norm is to not kneel in choir even for the prayers at the foot, and they stand before the Kyrie or at least when the priest is moving to the center. But in my parish and in many (especially in France) has very, very strong congregational singing. It varies by setting of the Ordinary; ones that we sing most of the year (XI, XVII with two different Kyries and a different Asperges, Credos I, III, and IV, increasingly Mass I after years of effort) get a better response.

Regarding the delay caused by the Canon, you don’t have to accept it, but it just does. The Sanctus with Benedictus is not that brief, even if it’s shorter than the average Renaissance setting. It takes approximately the recited Sanctus to the first half Canon; where the Sanctus is still split even in chant, you wrap up around the Hanc igitur. My pastor gets to Qui pridie by the time that we the chant Sanctus + Benedictus. There is a series of video streams from Saint-Georges in Lyon which uses 1962/65; I can’t tell if they do the full psalm 42 or if they do the Requiem version, and I didn’t watch to see if they do the Last Gospel, with the further modification that he doesn’t say the Sanctus privately (Rome certainly knows that a bunch of FSSP priests were incardinated in Lyon, I know that they know even more since the beleaguered Missionnaires de la Divine Miséricorde are also assisting, and if they don’t have a formal indult, Rome is away…). If I want that, I’d strongly consider the NO, which is available in chant in Lyon.

I have no interest in implementing such things unless they carry Rome's express approval (and rather wish that the attitude across the board was geared towards allowing Rome to regulate the rites, which has been with Rome since Trent... perhaps having learned from the lessons of the 1970s that lobbying and campaigns do not produce particularly good fruits).

As has been explained ad nauseam, the lobbying and campaigns produce bad fruits, because they were intended to produce bad ones. But a good tree cannot produce bad fruits; there is something fundamentally different about advocating for a return to the earlier forms and by just doing it.

Anyway I’m just going to reiterate that “tsk-tsk” is not going to happen on my watch. I wish people the best, but don’t do it to me, don’t to it to my collaborators. Don’t put us in the box of people who recite the Credo with their fingers crossed behind their backs.

@Palestrina

It is a modernist idea that we are in some way better or more educated than people in the past. I agree with some of the great scientists that we are standing on the shoulders of giants. Once we accept that the people in the past were just like us, with similar faults and failings, and similar thought processes some of the mysteries of previous practice become in little more easier to understand.

For me to participate in the Liturgy I need the following books,

Graduale Romanum 1924 ed
Antiphonale Romanum 1949 ed
Nocturnale ...

The sacred Ministers will also need,
Missale Romanum.
and a Lectionary / Epistles / Gospels book for Solemn High Mass.
and the Pontifical, for Masses with the Bishop.

Now we have a problem my Graduale only has the sung texts, so I need a Hand Missal to follow these, also as I don't sing in choir as part of a community the 7 offices, a Breviary or book of the Day Hours / Diurnal becomes useful.

Printing is now cheap so we can produce all sorts of useful books,
Vesperale, Completorium, Liber, Liber Brevior, Passion books, Holy Week and Triduum
books, Kyriale and various books of useful chants for various occasions.

So why do we have all these books?
1. We need books that have the texts and music we need.
2. They need to be usable, so light and small to be easy to carry.
3. They need to have a print size we can see.
4. They do not need texts that are not useful as part of our Office.

Before we look at the past we have a couple of things to bear in mind,
The rule of Liturgy,

Everyone does what they like!

This historically involves,
1. People that make up or modify the Liturgy to suit their community / building / beliefs.
2. Those that follow the books without question that have been handed down.

We also have,
The Blunderers who when copying books make mistakes.
The Botchers who try to correct errors and make their own instead.

In the past printing and the production of books was very expensive, and time consuming. With every copy we make the Blunderer is always present ready and waiting!

to be continued...

Historical books, provide an interesting insight. We do have one problem, we should assume that most Liturgical books that have been produced have not survived to the present day. So we can ask, are the books that survived representative ?
Do we have the copy consigned to a cupboard, little used, while the copy in regular use wore out?

So what do we find,
1. Graduale are common as they are very useful for the choir, even if they don't have all the texts of the Mass, but smaller and short is cheaper and easier to use. I also notice that choir members that follow the Epistle are not ready to start the Gradual on time! So those missing texts could be deliberate!

2. Missale, these are vital for the Sacred Ministers.

2. Antiphonale, Once again vital for the choir, although these usually have just the Antiphons. They do not really need the psalms as they can be sung from memory! The Hymns are also sootiness missing (see below).

3. Hymnaries, The Hymn is need just once in the Office so why not have a separate smaller book? I notice some do not have all the verses... I can't believe that they sang these from memory, so another book must have been used as well!

4. Processionale, In many of the older Rites and Uses, processions were a key and popular part of the Liturgy, having these in a separate book leads to a smaller and more easily to use volume.

5. Notated Breviaries (we would call these an Antiphonal)

6. Notated Missals, are very interesting! They could be used by the priest also being the Cantor, but also in a smaller sanctuary, with the cantor being in choir they could just use one book! Saves money!

7. We have other Blessings and Rituals so we need a form of the modern Rituale, we find these sometimes called Sacramentaries. We also have Customaries (Sarum) with all sorts of instructions.

8. Lectionaries (and similar), these can sit on the lectern and be used as required.

9. Books of Gospels etc. are needed to be read at extra Liturgical functions such as reading during the various repasts or while in common..

As for practice, we need instructions we are only singing once a week! If you are singing a Mass or two every day plus the Office, you are not going to write down the obvious. Studies have found that small parish churches in England celebrated a full Solemn High Mass most days... With the local conditions this was not as hard as you would think.

As for duplications, If the Liturgy is based around a sacrificing priest interceding and carrying our prayers to God as in the Temple, it is reasonable that this part would be of greater solemnity. Where possible this sacrificing priest would follow the parts of the Mass that belonged to other clergy, just as we follow in our hand Missals (or others a giant screen with a bouncing ball). It would be reasonable for this to gain a set of rubrics to mandate how this could / should be done, it would only be a small step for this to become part of the ceremony.

If God is the centre of our Liturgy it is logical that each member of clergy performing an Office do so in concert with the other clergy. They do not need to sit and wait watching another ceremony before performing theirs. The bigger picture is more important than the individuals.

In a people centred community celebration it is logical for each performer to take centre stage in series to provide a continual entertainment spectacle for all the people all the time.

Palestrina was lauded and mentioned by name in articles on sacred music published by the Holy See

What an interesting comment because there are other musicians who have been lauded by Pope's and Bishops alike and yet their contributions to Catholic music seem to be forgotten.

There are several examples, Eleanor C. Donnelly who gave us the beautiful Catholic hymn "Daughter of a Mighty Father" not to mention her many hymns to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, or her influence on other hymn writers and poets.

Or Sister Mary Paulina Finn (aka M.S. Pine) who gave us the hymn "Mother All Beautiful"

And what about Father Theodore Metcalf who gave us "O Sacred Heart, O Love Divine"

Or Emily Mary Shapcote who gave us the wonderful hymn "O Queen of the Holy Rosary"

Then there is Father John Furniss, C.SS.R., who gave us the hymn "In this Sacrament, Sweet Jesus"

The list goes on. Some of you praise those who gave us beautiful sacred music and rightly so, but dismiss the others who's contributions are just as important. They wrote hymns and composed music for the people of the church in order to pass on the Catholic faith.

"We do have one problem, we should assume that most Liturgical books that have been produced have not survived to the present day. So we can ask, are the books that survived representative ? Do we have the copy consigned to a cupboard, little used, while the copy in regular use wore out?"

Bingo. Always pay attention to the possibility of dogs not barking. The presence of text does not exclude the possibility of subtext, as it were.

Bringing things together (somewhat):
1. The forced introduction of duplications into the rites of the religious orders suggests this was a later development in the Roman Rite (and not welcomed universally).
2. The evidence of a prior prohibition against commencing the Canon in the Medieval period suggests that the practice was apparently introduced and not original.
3. While the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence in relation to the Roman Rite, given the common origins of the rites of the religious orders, one might draw the inference that the developments in the Roman Rite that were forced upon the other liturgies were not a common, universally-held-to-be logical or necessarily organic(!) development.

I certainly don’t think it is productive to begin a discussion about this from a presumptive position that Trent pruned and otherwise simplify ratified the existing rubrical practices; the reforms of the breviary (and the legislated position of the tabernacle in that period) would suggest otherwise.

Bringing things together (somewhat):
1. The forced introduction of duplications into the rites of the religious orders suggests this was a later development in the Roman Rite (and not welcomed universally).

Did all religious orders complain? Did every separate house of the Benedictines complain? How did this effect Sarum and all the other Uses that were gradually abandoned by the 18th century?

Anyway as I wrote above the duplications are a logical development, if you have a Sacrifice focused Liturgy, based on the Temple practices. If anyone dislikes the practices of the Temple I can provide an address for complaints.

2. The evidence of a prior prohibition against commencing the Canon in the Medieval period suggests that the practice was apparently introduced and not original.

Was this a uniform prohibition? Did it affect Sarum? How many local Uses were affected?

3. While the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence in relation to the Roman Rite, given the common origins of the rites of the religious orders, one might draw the inference that the developments in the Roman Rite that were forced upon the other liturgies were not a common, universally-held-to-be logical or necessarily organic(!) development.

I don't think this makes any sense.

I certainly don’t think it is productive to begin a discussion about this from a presumptive position that Trent pruned and otherwise simplify ratified the existing rubrical practices;

The Trent Missal was the Ancient Missal of the Canons of Rome, unless someone can find the Rubrics they used we have no idea one way of the other.

tomjaw, the evidence you seek is set out nearly in the article on the Sanctus in the Catholic Encyclopedia (including the relevant sources).

As the Catholic Encyclopaedia states,

The scanty state of our knowledge about the early Roman Mass ...

I know the answers to my questions, and the answers are we have too little evidence and our sources while reliable are scanty and may not be representative.

I do not know that it is entirely accurate to say that the Trent Missal is the Ancient Missal of the Canons of Rome

If you compare them you will see...

As to the updating of liturgical texts to conform to the Vulgate, I am unsure what the rationale could have been. Surely some of the textual sources of the rites predate the Vulgate?

This is related to the Psalms, the Roman Missal does not use the Vulgate text but usually another text, Jerome collected 3? different Latin renderings of the Psalms.
The Propers for the last century use the Cardinal Bea translation...

As for Adrian Fortescue, the book he is most famous for is mainly the work of J.B. O'Connell, who had to do some major corrections. Historians are an interesting group, they tell us all about the past from a collection of sources that have survived, they tell us things that are one discovery from being shown to be false. They also see to forget that only a minority of material has survived and we have no idea if it is representative.

People in the past did not give us their references in the modern academic style, we have no idea what they had in their libraries, and what they had read. Our significant sources may have been insignificant to them among the greater number of sources they had.

His scholarly works have long been superseded as I pointed out I don’t even know how many comments ago.

But again, what about the breviary reform is so drastic that it warrants mentioning? I should also add that Trent did not do anything.

For those who do care: the psalms of Sunday Prime were redistributed ever so slightly to the days of the week; the readings scheme was redone (I think mostly for the better), and then virtually everything else was left untouched except for the calendar (and even that was tinkered with in the 1580s and then again at the dawn of the seventeenth century…).

And if there are things about the celebration of the rite itself that are novel and not holdovers from the earlier practice of the Roman Curia (and by and large that of the Franciscans) then please, point us to good sources.

. . . or otherwise he had no taste whatsoever.

Well, according to Michael Davies, he did force his parish choir to sing in Classical Latin, instead of Ecclesiastical. So maybe lapses in taste weren't merely sartorial . . .

The revision of the gradual Audi, filia, taken from November 22 and used for the Assumption after 1950 uses the Pius XII psalter.

So the 'duplicated' text is not always the same ! Follow that rabbit !

FSSPmusic, I was unaware of the degree to which the Graduale texts had been modified as a consequence of the Missal duplications...

Talk about the tail wagging the dog!

and also, I think that while I would have left the texts alone myself, it still seems like the vast majority of Patrick’s choices align with the discrepencies between the missal and the 1908 gradual; in other words, they ultimately did not adopt the missal text in the vast majority of cases (or the two matched but not, apparently Patrick’s preferred sources, which is just how it’s going to be sometimes…)