Ship of Fools: Psalms at mass/holy communion

Thread: Psalms at mass/holy communion Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027854

Posted by magnum mysterium (# 3418) on :

Anyone have a succinct reason that the "Glory be" (or modern equivalent) isn't sung/said after the psalm during mass/holy communion in the modern (ie. post 1960s) rites?

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Sure is here ...

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

(presumably though because it is an external interpolation to the scriptural text ...)

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

It isn't in pre-1960s rites either, assuming by "the" psalm you mean the gradual (the only one that survives most of the time), between the readings.

Posted by Planeta Plicata (# 17543) on :

I suspect the psalm the OP is asking about is the Introit, in which case the answer is that the Gloria Patri wasn't jettisoned in the 60s. The 1970-72 Ordo Cantus Missae requires omitting the Gloria Patri where it would cause the Entrance Antiphon to go too long, but appears to contemplate its inclusion otherwise.

[ 31. January 2014, 06:36: Message edited by: Planeta Plicata ]

Posted by Planeta Plicata (# 17543) on :

Sorry for the double post, but here's a translation of the introduction to the OCM—paragraph 1 contains the instructions for reciting the Gloria Patri. You can find the tones on pages 822-24 of the Roman Gradual.

Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on :

I think the reason is that instead of being seen as something in their own right like the Psalms are in the Psalter in the Daily Office and then the minor propers of the mass, the new Psalm, between the Lesson and the Epistle, is really seen as more of a part of the readings. In this case, I can see why you might omit the extra-scriptural bits.

My own parish accomplishes this inconsistently with what I say above, however. We have the Lesson, the Psalm (which is just titled the Psalm) usually sung to an Anglican chant with the Gloria Patri at the end. Then comes the Epistle, then the choir launches into the Gradual, then comes the Alleluia, then the Gospel.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
I think the reason is that instead of being seen as something in their own right like the Psalms are in the Psalter in the Daily Office and then the minor propers of the mass, the new Psalm, between the Lesson and the Epistle, is really seen as more of a part of the readings. In this case, I can see why you might omit the extra-scriptural bits.

My own parish accomplishes this inconsistently with what I say above, however. We have the Lesson, the Psalm (which is just titled the Psalm) usually sung to an Anglican chant with the Gloria Patri at the end. Then comes the Epistle, then the choir launches into the Gradual, then comes the Alleluia, then the Gospel.

Interesting. So in effect you have two graduals? Is the graudal psalm before the Gospel treated differently than the gradual psalm before the Epistle? And are the Prophecy and the Epistle read from different places (or even different gradus (steps)? which would be neat)?

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
I suspect the psalm the OP is asking about is the Introit

I suspect not, as I don't know of anywhere that does an introit psalm anyway.

As to why the Gloria is omitted, I really don't know but it doesn't seem to be universal. We don't sing the Gloria after the psalm and I can think of plenty of others who don't, but I'm also aware of plenty of places that do. Those that do sing the Gloria tend to sing the psalms to traditional Anglican Chant where those that don't tend to sing responsorial psalms. I don't know if that is relevant.

[ 31. January 2014, 15:54: Message edited by: Spike ]

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

We sing the minor propers, including the Introit. The Introit always has a Gloria Patri, unless the Mass is taking place in Passiontide or is a Requiem.

It's very rare that any of the minor propers are an entire psalm. I think the Tract for Palm Sunday is the entirety of Ps 22, but I'd have to look it up to make sure. Of course, the Introit was originally a full psalm with the antiphon sung between each verse. Must have been some procession! [Biased]

Posted by Planeta Plicata (# 17543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
I suspect the psalm the OP is asking about is the Introit
I suspect not, as I don't know of anywhere that does an introit psalm anyway.

The alternative – that the OP is referring to the Gradual/Responsorial Psalm – doesn't make much sense, since as LQ pointed out, that didn't conclude with a Gloria Patri in the pre-1960s rites either.

The only remaining possibilities are the Offertory and the Communion, but the 1960s changes didn't alter the use of the Gloria Patri after those propers (at least not in the Roman Rite). The introduction to the Liber Usualis notes that the Gloria Patri is only included if the Offertory and Communion chants are extended to cover additional action by including additional verses from the same psalm, which is both the OF and EF practice.

As for the inclusion of an Introit psalm, the GIRM requires one at the entrance if there's no singing (see paragraph 48), so it's often included in RC weekday masses.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

I think magnum mysterium may be confusing the Office with the Mass: as folded chasuble says, the Gradual doesn't have a Gloria.

ETA: though I suppose it might be deployed if one had a particularly long way to go for the gospel procalmation...

[ 31. January 2014, 16:38: Message edited by: Vade Mecum ]

Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
I think the reason is that instead of being seen as something in their own right like the Psalms are in the Psalter in the Daily Office and then the minor propers of the mass, the new Psalm, between the Lesson and the Epistle, is really seen as more of a part of the readings. In this case, I can see why you might omit the extra-scriptural bits.

My own parish accomplishes this inconsistently with what I say above, however. We have the Lesson, the Psalm (which is just titled the Psalm) usually sung to an Anglican chant with the Gloria Patri at the end. Then comes the Epistle, then the choir launches into the Gradual, then comes the Alleluia, then the Gospel.
Interesting. So in effect you have two graduals? Is the graudal psalm before the Gospel treated differently than the gradual psalm before the Epistle? And are the Prophecy and the Epistle read from different places (or even different gradus (steps)? which would be neat)?

So yes, in a way we do have two graduals, but they aren't called such. Like I said, between the Lesson, read by an unvested layperson at the lectern, and the Epistle, read by the subdeacon at the same lectern, we have a full Psalm as laid out by the new lectionary with the Gloria Patri. Then after the Epistle comes the gradual verse as laid out by the Anglican Missal and then the Alleluia from the Anglican Missal.

I think the idea is that the new full Psalm is a lectionary reading, chanted in full, and the idea of a full Psalm like that takes a page from the Daily Office, so a Gloria Patri closes it out as in the Daily Office. The old verse or two "gradual" from the missal stays in its old place after the Epistle and before the Alleluia.

I know this is a little circumlocutionary, but I think it does have some internal logic. Especially if you want to keep using the old missal graduals and be faithful to the new lectionary.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

There are some cases in the pre-V2 rites where there is an OT lesson or Prophecy in addition to the Epistle (on Ember Saturdays, there are several!). Quite often there is a Tract separating the OT lesson(s) from the Epistle, and sometimes an additional Collect as well.

Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
I think the reason is that instead of being seen as something in their own right like the Psalms are in the Psalter in the Daily Office and then the minor propers of the mass, the new Psalm, between the Lesson and the Epistle, is really seen as more of a part of the readings. In this case, I can see why you might omit the extra-scriptural bits.

My own parish accomplishes this inconsistently with what I say above, however. We have the Lesson, the Psalm (which is just titled the Psalm) usually sung to an Anglican chant with the Gloria Patri at the end. Then comes the Epistle, then the choir launches into the Gradual, then comes the Alleluia, then the Gospel.
Interesting. So in effect you have two graduals? Is the graudal psalm before the Gospel treated differently than the gradual psalm before the Epistle? And are the Prophecy and the Epistle read from different places (or even different gradus (steps)? which would be neat)?
So yes, in a way we do have two graduals, but they aren't called such. Like I said, between the Lesson, read by an unvested layperson at the lectern, and the Epistle, read by the subdeacon at the same lectern, we have a full Psalm as laid out by the new lectionary with the Gloria Patri. Then after the Epistle comes the gradual verse as laid out by the Anglican Missal and then the Alleluia from the Anglican Missal.

I think the idea is that the new full Psalm is a lectionary reading, chanted in full, and the idea of a full Psalm like that takes a page from the Daily Office, so a Gloria Patri closes it out as in the Daily Office. The old verse or two "gradual" from the missal stays in its old place after the Epistle and before the Alleluia.

I know this is a little circumlocutionary, but I think it does have some internal logic. Especially if you want to keep using the old missal graduals and be faithful to the new lectionary.

So, in effect, we're not treating the full Psalm as a "gradual" because that comes later. Instead it's just a Psalm as if from the daily office.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
The alternative – that the OP is referring to the Gradual/Responsorial Psalm – doesn't make much sense, since as LQ pointed out, that didn't conclude with a Gloria Patri in the pre-1960s rites

The Gradual Psalm (or any other psalm for that matter) doesn't even exist in either the 1662 or 1928 Holy Communion services, but I suspect a psalm crept in at some point which may explain the confusion as to whether the Gloria Patri should be sung or not. This seems to be one of those things that is probably put down to "local custom"

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by magnum mysterium:
Anyone have a succinct reason that the "Glory be" (or modern equivalent) isn't sung/said after the psalm during mass/holy communion in the modern (ie. post 1960s) rites?

I'd ask the question the other way round: why do we do so in the Office?

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
I think magnum mysterium may be confusing the Office with the Mass: as folded chasuble says, the Gradual doesn't have a Gloria.

I'm pretty sure that magnum mysterium is referring to the Mass/Eucharist, and to the psalm typically appointed in RCL-type lectionaries and sung/said between the first and second readings. (I was going to refer to them as the OT and Epistle, but they aren't always; particularly in Eastertide.) mm doesn't refer to it as a Gradual; I'm more used to encountering a hymn in the 'Gradual' location between second reading and Gospel, although I have encountered the appointed psalm in that position (back in the days of the ASB, I think).

Spike's distinction fits with my observations. Places that chant the psalm to Anglican chant often append the Gloria Patri, perhaps because that's what they're used to doing with psalms (which they chant regularly at Evensong or perhaps even Matins). Places where the psalm is said, or sung with a response, don't tend to do so.

Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :

The 'gradual' is anciently a psalm led from the step ('gradus') often by a deacon or minor cleric. As I understand it, in the old rites the 'gradual' and the pre-Gospel alleluia (or the tract in penitential seasons) became conflated when the reading that separated them dropped out of use.

In the restored Roman Rite the psalm still seems to be referred to as the 'gradual' in the Latin exemplar, and the traditional brief texts may still be sung. The gloria patri was anciently never part of this psalmody.

In RCL the psalm is intended as a response to the (usually) OT lesson it follows, whereas after the second lesson the dynamic seems to be to look forward to the Gospel reading (often this singing covers a Gospel procession, for example.) I tend to announce that which preceeds the Gospel as 'the Gospel Greeting'.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:
the restored Roman Rite

I take exception to that description. The new Roman Rite is not "restored".

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Maybe not. But the third reading certainly is.

Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :

In the daily offices, the Gloria Patri is added at the conclusion of each psalm to indicate that the psalms, when they are used in Christian worship, are to be interpreted in the light of the New Covenant.

I suppose that one of the motives for inserting a longer passage from the psalms in the new Roman Rite was to display the experts' historical knowledge that the individual verses preserved as "propers" in later versions of the rite had originally been entire psalms. Ironically, many churches which had never officially accepted the Mass propers not only accepted the new lectionary with three readings, but also took enthusiastically to the psalm between the Old Testament reading and the Epistle.

More recent scholarship has revealed that the Roman Rite (unlike the Ambrosian and Gallican) never routinely provided an Old Testament reading. Perhaps we shall soon be learning that the longer introits, graduals, etc. were also figments of the scholarly imagination!

Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
More recent scholarship has revealed that the Roman Rite (unlike the Ambrosian and Gallican) never routinely provided an Old Testament reading. Perhaps we shall soon be learning that the longer introits, graduals, etc. were also figments of the scholarly imagination!

Tell me more please! Where did you encounter this interesting information about the Roman Rite?

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:

quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
More recent scholarship has revealed that the Roman Rite (unlike the Ambrosian and Gallican) never routinely provided an Old Testament reading. Perhaps we shall soon be learning that the longer introits, graduals, etc. were also figments of the scholarly imagination!
Tell me more please! Where did you encounter this interesting information about the Roman Rite?

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "the Roman Rite." Certainly the eucharist celebrated in Rome c. 150, as described by Justin Martyr, included readings from the Old Testament.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

The Roman Rite does routinely provide readings from the Old Testament. The lessons of Matins, for instance, and the prophesies on certain feast days.

Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :

The traditional Roman Mass did provide a few OT lessons - from memory I think the Ember Days. Are these now seen as an interpolation, rather than a survival of a more general custom? Genuinely interested, Ad Orientem - not looking for an argument!

[ 02. February 2014, 07:48: Message edited by: Oferyas ]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

To be honest, I don't know. It's interesting to note that the Byzantine Rite Divine Liturgy also only has an Epistle and Gospel on most days, with the Old Testament mainly being read during the Hours.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Simple question. Were the OT reading and psalm added as an exercise of arcane liturgical scholarship, or because it was felt that the average congregation, who weren't likely to be attending the offices, needed to experience them?

Second simple question, does the first option always have to trump the second?
(Away from this board of course where we all know best).

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

The reformed Roman rite is not a work of arcane liturgical scholarship.In introducing a regular reading from the OT as well as a three year cycle of readings instead of the same cycle being read each year, the idea was surely to expose those attending the Liturgy of the Word and the Eucharist to a greater selection of scripture readings within a Sunday Mass.During the week there are usually only two readings,one being the Gospel,the other being from some other part of the OT or the NT.In recent weeks the weekday readings in the Roman rite,apart from the Gospel have been mainly from the Book of Samuel.
Before the reform of the Roman rite,the entrance psalm(Introit) usually had only the Antiphon,first verse,Gloria Patri and Antiphon.This was the way of shortening what might have been very long.One shouldn't also forget that on a Sunday the Sung Mass was preceded by the Asperges ceremony,so the Introit would not be sung as an entrance procession,but rather while the priest was saying the Introibo ad altare Dei and the Confiteor.(Introibo as antiphon with most of the Psalm Judica me...)
The Roman rite nowadays accepts the singing of an Entrance hymn instead of the traditional Entrance Antiphon.

Posted by magnum mysterium (# 3418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:

quote:
Originally posted by magnum mysterium:
Anyone have a succinct reason that the "Glory be" (or modern equivalent) isn't sung/said after the psalm during mass/holy communion in the modern (ie. post 1960s) rites?
I'd ask the question the other way round: why do we do so in the Office?

I think that is a better way of putting the question, yes! [Smile]

Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :

Forthview is is right, I am sure, in asserting that the primary motive for adding an Old Testament reading to the Eucharist was didactic: to expose churchgoers who seldom attend any of the offices to the riches of the Hebrew scriptures on a more frequent basis.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0