Missal online (introits/entrance antiphons)
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,069
    Would anyone happen to know of a page that hosts the introits/entrance antiphons of the revised translation of the Roman Missal? Thanks in advance.
  • jpal
    Posts: 365
    Kathy, Gary P does this in his planning section at CanticaNOVA, starting with Advent B. I do not know how far ahead he has gone, however. Is that what you were looking for?
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,069
    jpal, thank you, it is what I'm looking for. CNP is my go-to resource for planning NO liturgies.

    When I looked at the Liturgical Planning page, however, I was and still am a little confused by the notice regarding the update of pages. Obviously this is a big job. Like you, I am just unclear about how much of it has been done. Are the Advent B propers current, with the new version?
  • Aidan
    Posts: 8
    They don’t seem to have been updated yet. First Sunday of Advent (B) is still the old translation.
  • jpal
    Posts: 365
    Kathy,

    Surprisingly, it doesn't look like any of the antiphons are from the new translation at all. I do not have our new Missal in front of me, but I'm looking at the received text on WikiSpooks. Here are the Advent antiphons given there.
    First Sunday:
    (Ent) To you, I lift up my soul, O my God.
    In you, I have trusted; let me not be put to shame.
    Nor let my enemies exult over me;
    and let none who hope in you be put to shame.
    (Com) The Lord will bestow his bounty, and our earth shall yield its increase.

    Second Sunday
    (Ent) O people of Sion, behold,
    the Lord will come to save the nations,
    and the Lord will make the glory of his voice heard
    in the joy of your heart.
    (Com) Jerusalem, arise and stand upon the heights,
    and behold the joy which comes to you from God.

    Third Sunday
    (Ent) Rejoice in the Lord always; again I say, rejoice.
    Indeed, the Lord is near.
    (Com) Say to the faint of heart: Be strong and do not fear.
    Behold, our God will come, and he will save us.

    Fourth Sunday
    (Ent) Drop down dew from above, you heavens,
    and let the clouds rain down the Just One;
    let the earth be opened and bring forth a Savior.
    (Com) Behold, a Virgin shall conceive and bear a son;
    and his name will be called Emmanuel.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,069
    Okay, thanks a lot for that. It is a huge job and I don't imagine anyone has been able to get around to it yet. I'll just use the book. Thank you for your help!
  • I think I lifted this off the USCCB web site. [Now I can't find this online. Maybe it was a study text? And I think I messed up Epiphany and Baptism.]
  • Remember that the Introit from the Graduale Romanum and the entrance antiphons from the missal are two completely different animals (for reasons that are beyond my comprehension). The Entrance Antiphons from the Missal were put there for use in recited Masses. The sung antiphons are assumed to come from the Graduale. Now, it would sure make sense if they were the same antiphon. Of course, though, they're not.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,069
    Right, Adam, I'd forgotten. But Richard points to the Introits, not the entrance antiphons, correct?
  • Way overstated, Adam. In fact, there is a very high degree of correspondence between the entrance antiphons of the Missal and the Introits of the revised Graduale for Sundays. (Shall I do that table next?) Furthermore, with all due respect to the wise voices who periodically pontificate to the contrary, there is nothing in the General Instruction that would suggest the Missal texts are not to be sung. Indeed, regarding the "Entrance Chant", the GI states:

    48. This chant is sung alternately by the choir and the people or similarly by a cantor and the people, or entirely by the people, or by the choir alone. In the Dioceses of the United States of America, there are four options for the Entrance Chant: (1) the antiphon from the Missal or the antiphon with its Psalm from the Graduale Romanum, as set to music there or in another setting; (2) the antiphon and Psalm of the Graduale Simplex for the liturgical time; (3) a chant from another collection of Psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including Psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) another liturgical chant that is suited to the sacred action, the day, or the time of year, similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.

    Can we please put this urban legend to bed, once and for all?
  • Does anyone have an electronic copy of the 1965 interim Missal antiphons for the Introit, Offertory, and Communio? I've only found the Ordinary online. Thanks.
  • Richard R. is right that "there is nothing in the General Instruction that would suggest the Missal texts are not to be sung." The introduction to theRoman Missal plainly states that the Missal antiphons were written for spoken Masses and that the Graduale remain normative for sung antiphons. That doesn't mean, however, that the Missal antiphons cannot be sung.

    There are no urban legends here. It's just a crazy confusing thing, a subject on which I answer one or two emails every single day.
  • "The introduction to theRoman Missal plainly states that the Missal antiphons were written for spoken Masses and that the Graduale remain normative for sung antiphons."

    Please quote this source with a link.
  • This might be the text that Jeffrey is referring to:

    Even though the text of the Roman Gradual, at least that which concerns the singing, has not been changed, still, for a better understanding, the responsorial psalm, which St. Augustine and St. Leo the Great often mention, has been restored, and the Introit and Communion antiphons have been adapted for read Masses. (Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, 3 April 1969)
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    Richard doesn't need to post a chart. One can just look at the congregational responses for his excellent Entrance Antiphons (full version available for five bucks from lulu.com).

    To make matters more difficult, however, sometimes the Missal antiphons give two choices. What??? How are we supposed to choose? And if we are to recite the texts together at Mass, how do we know which one it's going to be?
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,307
    Obviously, if there are multiple options, we're only supposed to ever do the first one.
  • A comparison of the Entrance Antiphon texts in the 2010 Missal and the Gregorian Missal is attached. For Sundays and Solemnities, at least, the texts are remarkably congruent. Things get trickier with Communions. I think the options were an effort to provide texts that harmonize with the Gospel reading (like has been done traditionally with the Sunday Benedictus and Magnificat antiphons). The modern Graduale also gives options, but often different ones, because Solesmes (or whoever) had to pick from the existing chant corpus. I suppose some day this could all be worked out when the Church commissions a set of neo-Gregorian chant adaptations for the new texts. Lots of precedent... but a heck of a big job.

    I appreciate the plug, Steven, but would caution that many of my Entrance Antiphons are freely adapted textual paraphrases.
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    Ah yes, that is true. I had only meant to point out the relative number of times that the two texts differ, which is, i believe, reflected in your adaptations. Is that correct?

    But yes, also a plug!
  • yes, klbarragan, that's it. It is clearly printed in a letter from Paul VI in the introduction to the Missal that is right now being read by every parish in the English speaking world. Far from being some myth spread by me or others, it is the clearly stated purpose of the MIssal antiphons that they are designed for spoken Masses -- which is NOT to say that there is some ban on their being sung. It is only that the normative SUNG antiphons are from the Gradual, period. There really is no controversy about this at all. And it is not a reason to argue or be irritated or whatever.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,307
    that is right now being read by every parish in the English speaking world

    My favorite thing about Jeffrey Tucker is his optimism.
  • . . . or his irony . . .
  • Yes, I probably overstated that...and thank you Jeffrey for saying that, although the missal antiphons were placed for spoken Masses, there is nothing saying they couldn't be sung. However, my utter confusion as to why completely different antiphons would be chosen instead of simply translating the introit still stands.

    And Adam W., if several options are listed (such as for the entrance antiphon), it is my understanding that they are list according to preference. So, if you have the ability to do the first option all the time, I would assume you would do so...rather than simply changing it up for variety's sake.
  • "... it is the clearly stated purpose of the MIssal antiphons that they are designed for spoken Masses..."

    ...in 1969, maybe. But I would call that a continuation of an interim situation. In 2010, the stated purpose is clearly different, as the General Instruction makes plain. The current documents say nothing about "normative", only alternative. They say nothing about spoken versus sung. Obviously, Gregorian chant has primacy, for those singing Latin chant. But for composers of new settings of the Propers, in whatever language, either text is appropriate, and not one more than another. That's what the GI says...today.

    I'm sorry, but I can't read the current documents any other way, without resorting to some kind of inverted "Spirit of Vatican II"-type interpreting. This is not argument for argument's sake; it's an attempt to correct what has become pretty standard rhetoric in these discussions, which Mr. Schwend's first comment above exemplifies. It seems to me, if we are going to promote this new Missal in its integrity, we need to listen to what it is telling us on the subject of Propers.
  • Fine. The GIRM is vague about the musical structure of the Roman Rite, and this is well known: witness the tension between the prevailing documents on the choral Sanctus vs. the GIRM on the same. As Fr. Weber says, if you want to set the Graduale, do it; if you want to set the Missal, do it. As to why there are two sets, there can be no controversy.
  • Let me add that this point about the two sets is not understood at the highest levels. This forum understands far far more about this subject that those charged with regulating the liturgy in the English speaking world. I have plenty of evidence to back this up but I'm not going to post it.
  • RobertRobert
    Posts: 339
    An interesting difference between the adaptations in the U.S. GIRM on this point versus the Canadian GIRM:

    U.S. GIRM 48:

    "In the Dioceses of the United States of America, there are four options for the Entrance Chant: (1) the antiphon from the Missal or the antiphon with its Psalm from the Graduale Romanum, as set to music there or in another setting; (2) the antiphon and Psalm of the Graduale Simplex for the liturgical time; (3) a chant from another collection of Psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including Psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) another liturgical chant that is suited to the sacred action, the day, or the time of year, similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop."

    Canada GIRM 48:

    "In the dioceses of Canada the Entrance Chant may be chosen from among the following: the antiphon with its Psalm from the Graduale Romanum or the Graduale Simplex, or another chant that is suited to the sacred action, the day, or the time of year, and whose text has been approved by the Conference of Bishops of Canada."
  • But for composers of new settings of the Propers, in whatever language, either text is appropriate, and not one more than another. That's what the GI says...today.


    This permission is only to be found in the US adaptations of "particular law" in the dioceses of the United States. All other conferences, to my knowledge, have retained legislation closer to the universal law that the Missal antiphons are to be spoken when the Graduale texts are not sung (Cf. IGMR 48).

    Since particular law takes priority over universal law when approved by the universal legislator, what Richard says is in fact true... for the US. But for no one else to my knowledge.
  • This being said, the Graduale Romanum stands side by side with the Roman Missal in this American adaptation, so I don't see how the antiphons of the Missal should necessarily take precedence over those in the Graduale.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    This forum has done a remarkable job in documenting a lot of these items, especially with regard to the American GIRM as compared to the Universal GIRM.

    For those who care, HERE are several documents that address the topics we're discussing in this thread.
  • Setting aside any darkly mysterious rationale for this unique American situation, I would add a practical point in favor of using the Missal texts for modern settings of the Propers. The psychological impact of a congregant seeing the text of the Entrance and Communion antiphon printed in his or her missal, while hearing it actually being sung, goes an infinitely long way to rehabilitate (or resuscitate) the very notion of these liturgical elements. Far from being merely decorative or meditational (like certain extra-liturgical elements of the modern Divine Office), these antiphons can begin to be understood as constitutive of the liturgy... and generally well worth singing, I think.
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    Which is exactly why we need things like the Lumen Christi Missal!

    (Seriously, one of the two of you should hire me as your sales person).
  • Exactly, incantu! Yes, I think I would like to send you an application ;)

    And to speak to Richard's proposal, this is precisely why I've chosen to include both the Graduale and Missal antiphons in the Lumen Christi Missal, utilizing a seamless translation between the two with the Missal translation as the basis. This will do so much to resolve confusion and will allow both sets of texts to be sung and will accommodate the congregation in either situation.
  • There may be some advantage to having musical settings for things that have been up to now called "songs." A couple of anecdotes:
    1. Preparing for a wedding, the couple wanted a Novus Ordo Mass with chant, so they dutifully read through the Missal and selected an Introit, Communion, etc, they preferred. (That's what we do, right, look through the options and pick the one we like best?) Anyway, I had to convince them that even though these Latin texts were in the Missal, there was no chant for them--or the text they had chosen for the Introit was a Gradual or the like. (I'm sure not going to propose composing neo-Gregorian chants for these.) In the end, the couple agreed to the traditional form Nuptial Mass chants.

    2. Some years ago, a schola I was in had an annual all-Latin Mass (Novus Ordo) for Christ the King Sunday. It was the rare occasion we sang propers back then, so we prepared the Introit, Alleluia, and Communio. The well-respected pastor, however, said we weren't allowed to sing the Offertory chant because it wasn't in the Missal, even though it is in the Gradual.

    Lots of misconceptions and confusion out there, even among those who pay attention to this. The growth in interest in the propers, and even the awareness of their existence, is something marvelous to watch.
  • I agree of course on the point about setting the Missal texts - sure makes life easier. And then maybe too the celebrant can begin to understand the relationship between the Mass and the music. this is actually HUGE.

    In general though it can be a tough call but actually one point of setting the Gradual is that it provides an occasion to at least point out that the book exists. I have the sense that it has generally been threatened with extinction over the decades.

    Of course this whole discussion is irrelevant for the offertory proper. I often wonder if the novice reader of the GIRM wonders about this one.
  • Richard R. says, "The modern Graduale also gives options, but often different ones, because Solesmes (or whoever) had to pick from the existing chant corpus. I suppose some day this could all be worked out when the Church commissions a set of neo-Gregorian chant adaptations for the new texts. Lots of precedent... but a heck of a big job."

    I asked a couple of chant scholars about this this earlier this year; they said one of the problems is that no one feels competent at this time in history to take this on. I wonder, however, if anyone will ever possess such competence if there are not attempts made to compose new Latin chants using inherited materials and procedures. If the OF Graduale (in Latin) were to be expanded to conform to the Missal, this might go a long way in conserving (in both awareness and practice) the inherited repertory of "authentic" chants AND restoring the Gradual as a constitutive element of a Missal.
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    Jeffrey -- do you think the celebrant would ever -- gasp -- preach about the offertory chant? Or mention in his discussion of the Gospel "as you will hear echoed in the Communion chant..."?
  • incantu: if the celebrant is Fr. Mark Daniel Kirby, there's a good chance. [example 1] [example 2]
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    A few weeks ago, the celebrant talked about the the difference between hymns and Propers in his homily on Sunday OF Mass. (It was music to my ear:-) Of course this parish choir sings all the Propers, and the congregation sings out responses of the dialogues with the celebrant and Ordinaries as well as a couple of hymns better than any parish choirs. ( Latin as well as vernacular texts, both of them sounded beautiful.)
    It was a beautiful Mass.

    I've seen more and more priests who care for proper celebration of the liturgy and nourishing people with proper texts of the Mass are educating people and paying attention to Propers.

    (One of my schola member was in Fr. Kirby's class at the Colloquium last year with me, he was so enlightened from his talk on Propers and how 'the Word truly becomes Flesh' in the Holy Mass.)
  • The entire missal appears to be downloadable at http://minus.com/lbyBUn4MhKqUzK
  • BruceL
    Posts: 1,006
    Paul, thanks so much! That is very helpful! By the way: do you have your "comparison GIRM" in a PDF format? The ScribD file was very helpful for my purposes, but my liturgy committee might not want to go to the trouble to look it up (yes, sad, I know!)
  • I wish, Bruce. My arrangement with ICEL is that I can make my analyses available for study purposes but not in a way that might hurt the sales of any version of the document being offered for sale.
  • BruceL
    Posts: 1,006
    Paul, *sigh*...the "big business" of translation! ICEL does know that no one's going to buy a separate GIRM so long as it's printed in the RM, right????