Quick advice needed
  • Felipe Gasper
    Posts: 804
    Dear John,

    I’ll grant that, in English, there is some ambiguity due to the presence of Amen/Alleluia in the U.S. Lectionary. Hopefully there will be better “quality control” in the next U.S. Lectionary; the one we have now is riddled with slight variations in wording etc. I’ve even found different editions of the Lectionary, all with “concordat com originali” statements, that don’t match each other in some places.

    But if you’re using Latin, there is no need for more guidance than we already have; no modern edition of the sequences in Latin includes the Amen/Alleluia, so ISTM there is no rubrical justification for including them.
  • john m
    Posts: 136
    Felice

    But the singing of the Amen, alleluia would be normative in the Extraordinary Form, which would of course follow the Liber Usualis, so it cannot be said that the continued use of the Amen, alleluia is objectively unjustifiable. And in the Ordinary Form, the allowance for alius cantus aptus and the freedom granted to paraphrases of the sequences suggest that to include the traditional conclusion of the sequence is not out of line, at least until the bishops truly take charge and start exercising their duties as the moderators of the Liturgy.

    ISTM that this is an example of the lamentable liturgical confusion that has arisen out of the post-conciliar reforms. My prayers are that some order will eventually arise out of this mess. In the meanwhile I will continue to base my judgment upon the established tradition rather than recent innovations.
  • Felipe Gasper
    Posts: 804
    Dear John,

    There is no commingling of the two forms of the Roman Rite authorized by individuals. I can’t recall which it was, but there was a 1970s document from Rome that specifically stated that when the revised Missal doesn’t comment on something specifically, one should not assume that the practice from the pre-V2 Missal(s) is to be continued. Of course, that’s not the case here anyway, since the current liturgical books (other than the U.S. Lectionary) very clearly omit the Amen/Alleluia.

    There is no “alius cantus aptus” or freedom granted to paraphrases for sequences that I know of.

    IMO, we should act based on what the liturgical books say to do, not based on individual appraisals of tradition. There are many conflicting practices in our tradition; for example, the Easter sequence originally contained a pretty anti-Semitic strophe (or two?). You should at least investigate why the Amen/Alleluia is omitted from the current Latin sources before ignoring that decision made by people probably better informed than either of us.

    (BTW, my name isn’t “Felice”.)
  • john m
    Posts: 136
    Felipe

    Please accept my apologies for the misspelling of your name.

    Summorum pontificum strongly indicates that a cross-pollination is desirable between the two forms of the Roman Rite. While I acknowledge that the leadership in this properly pertains to the bishops, having witnessed the manner in which our bishops conduct liturgical revisions, I have no confidence that anyone will ever, ever see improvement if it does not start at the grass-roots level, which is where virtually all liturgical reform begins.

    If musicians of yesteryear could with impunity make cuts in Glorias and Credos by pasting pages together without regard to musical or textual sense, I do not see that the restoration of two words proper to the traditional text is out of line.

    I would be interested in knowing exactly why the Amen, alleluia was eliminated. Do you or does anyone else here have any information on this?
  • Felipe Gasper
    Posts: 804
    John wrote:
    having witnessed the manner in which our bishops conduct liturgical revisions, I have no confidence that anyone will ever, ever see improvement if it does not start at the grass-roots level, which is where virtually all liturgical reform begins.


    Hmm....I’m not sure that’s actually the case with the bulk of the 1960s reforms. If memory serves, many of the practices that were “grassroots” did actually go through the approval of local Ordinaries. I think things like the new Lectionary and the new Eucharistic Prayers were more products of scholarly work than “grassroots” affairs. Regardless, the post-V2 Vatican documents repeatedly discourage those kinds of things, since the new rubrics give so much flexibility.

    But, yes, it’s a very minor point on which to quibble, I’ll grant you.
    If musicians of yesteryear could with impunity make cuts in Glorias and Credos by pasting pages together without regard to musical or textual sense, I do not see that the restoration of two words proper to the traditional text is out of line.


    They maybe did it with ecclesiastical impunity, but that doesn’t mean they were doing anyone any favors, either.
    I would be interested in knowing exactly why the Amen, alleluia was eliminated. Do you or does anyone else here have any information on this?


    I’m not sure. I’ve been part of email discussions of this with some pretty knowledgeable folks, but I don’t recall the conclusions.

    I believe it has to do with the repeated Alleluia, or the idea that placing the sequence before the Alleluia, not after it, rendered the “Alleluia” part of the sequence extraneous. Of course, this doesn’t explain the omission of the Amen. Maybe the Amen/Alleluia were added later.
  • john m
    Posts: 136
    "...placing the sequence before the Alleluia, not after it..."

    Yes, that was meant to be Part B of my question. Does anyone know why this was done? After all, the very word sequentia means it was intended to follow something, i.e. the Alleluia. In its traditional position in the EF it flowed from the Alleluia; in its new position in the OF it comes across as somewhat of an oddity.

    As to grass-roots reform I was mostly referring to the original Liturgical Movement without which it is hard to imagine the official reforms of the 1960's taking place.
  • janetgorbitzjanetgorbitz
    Posts: 964
    I was cantoring with another singer on Pentecost Sunday and the DoM had planned the sequence to be sung in English a capella. Our schola had been practicing the Latin version (just because it is so beautiful) and I offered to sing it in Latin instead, but the programs were already printed with the English/MN version. So... we sang it in English (rather strange what was done to the melody with the odd little 1/8th notes in some spots). Even though I much prefer the melody and Latin of the original, it was really quite beautiful. After Mass, my husband, who doesn't sing chant (just listens) commented to me about the beautiful text. So... little by little, step by step... perhaps others were struck by it as well (in a good way, hopefully).
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    John, I would suppose that the change could have something to do with a shift in how the Alleluia is used (or at least perceived) in the OF. I've always viewed the Alleluia and verse as being kind of "introductions" to the Gospel. Looking at the EF lectionary, I don't think that's how it's supposed to be, those seem to take on their own character. So maybe part of it was trying to link the Alleluia and Gospel, and thus not letting the Sequence "sever" that link.
Add a Comment