At the Vatican website there is a liturgical calendar with booklets posted for major liturgies with the Holy Father, including a PDF of this year’s Christmas Missa in nocte celebrated at 10pm on Christmas eve.
I did not view the liturgy, so I have only the booklet to go on. A few comments:
Office Responsories
Mass is preceded by the Office of Readings in Latin. The great responsory “Hodie nobis caelorum” (36) is printed in four-line notation for the assembly to sing! Because this is taken from the 1983 Liber Hymnarius, it is in the revised notation following the semiological prinicples of Fr. Eugene Cardine of Solesmes. I hope everyone in the basilica stayed together on the augmented liquescents (eg. caelorUM) and the torculus with weak beginning (VIRgine) – did they all follow the conductor? They got another chance on the responsory “Hodie nobis de caelo” (41).
Mass Propers for Everyone
At Mass, the assembly was given notation to sing along on the Latin introit Dominus dixit (57) and communio In splendoribus (104). Historically, responsories and Mass propers were sung by the schola, not the congregation. The innovation here of giving the antiphon to everyone no doubt comes from a laudable desire to foster active participation in song. Perhaps St. Peter’s is one of those rare places where there actually are clergy, religious, and exceptional laity in the congregation able to join in. But I suspect for the vast majority of participants by far, no thought was given to singing along. (It’s hard to hold your camera in one hand and your booklet in the other, trying to watch the conductor out of the corner of your eye as you focus your camera on the center aisle – all the while translating the Italian translation of the Latin text for spiritual benefit.) Printing music for the proper entrance and communion is a highly interesting decision, considering that the General Instruction explicitly allows these chants to be sung by choir alone.
New Chant Notation
A very interesting change has been made to the chant notation, also reflecting the semiological principles of Fr. Cardine. First, a bit of back story. In 1908 the Graduale Romanum was printed in the Vatican edition without any rhythmic signs such as the dot or ictus or horizontal episema. The Solesmes editions reprinted identical melodies, but with rhythmic signs added according to “Old Solesmes” semi-equalism. One was always free to sing from either edition, but probably about 99% used the Solesmes books. After Vatican II no Vatican edition of the reformed Gradual was published, only a directory (in 1972) listing where to find the chants for the reformed liturgy in the old books, and printing of a few chants brought back into use. Solesmes published a Graduale in 1974 with all the chants in the right place – ironically this meant that the only Graduale in print now was one with the Solesmes rhythmic signs, though scholarship had long since moved beyond that interpretative approach. The Graduale Triplex in 1979 gave the 1974 book with the early lineless notation from ancient manuscripts copied in. This allowed one to see one every page how the old Solesmes rhythmic signs didn’t match the earliest rhythmic manuscripts.
Are you still with me? Here’s the change. The Vatican’s Christmas leaflet reprints the entrance and communion antiphon with altered rhythmic signs, obviously based on the early lineless notation from 1979. The horizontal episema over MEus, for example, extends over both notes of the clivis, not just the first. There is an episema on HOdie. By underlining this word, the original rhythm emphasizes the TODAY character of the events of salvation – Our Lord’s saving work is made present to us NOW in the sacramental mysteries.
Don’t Sing the Responsorial Psalm – Just Listen to the Gradual
The gradual Tecum (68) is sung by schola alone at the Pope’s Mass – no more is there a Responsorial Psalm refrain for the people. Do you know about The Great Responsorial Psalm/Gradual Debate? The official documents from Rome allow either one after the first reading, but state clearly that the Responsorial Psalm is to be preferred because it better matches the readings of the postconciliar 3-year lectionary. The General Instruction says that the people listen to the psalm and generally sing a response, except when it is sung straight through without a response. Reform-of-the-reform folks prefer the preconciliar gradual, sometimes citing official documents about the primacy of Gregorian chant to make their case.
I’m not sure what the significance of the Roman shift in policy is. That the gradual psalm is sung by choir alone is not contrary to the postconciliar directives, since the responsorial psalm or gradual can be sung straight through without a congregational response. That the text is the gradual rather than the lectionary psalm is a bigger issue, since the Roman directives clearly prefer the lectionary psalm. But the gradual text is still permitted, to be sure.
The shift seems to strengthen the hand of the reform-of-the-reform folks, many of whom don’t care much for the postconciliar 3-year lectionary. It seems to emphasize that participation can also be by listening, not only by singing, which is certainly true. But to be fair, the entrance and communion antiphons are now given to the people for their singing, so there doesn’t seem to be an agenda of silencing the people. Does the change intend to slight one of the great successes of the liturgical reform, the responsorial psalms of the reformed lectionary? I hope not.
Alleluia, no Offertorium, Amen, Strophic Communion Hymn
The Gospel acclamation “Alleluia” (70) is congregational, as the directives say it must be, which means that the chant alleluia from the Graduale Romanum is passed over. The acclamation makes clever use of the tune Resonet in laudibus – a rare gesture of recognition toward the popular piety of Christmas carols.
The proper offertory antiphon Laetentur caeli is replaced by another piece, “Hode Christus natus est, noe, noe” (85).
The Amen of the people concluding the Eucharistic Prayer (96) begins with the simple chant Amen of the missal, but it is made three-fold by the addition of two more Amens in meter. Since this is where the assembly gives assent to the Eucharistic Prayer, it is nice to see that an enhanced version is used. There are people around, believe it or not, who argue that it is not permitted to sing three Amens since the missal has only one. But now we see that even the pope does it – whom will they report him to?
“Adeste, Fideles” is sung after the communion antiphon – the only strophic hymn within the order of Mass. But be it noted – since this too is a sticking point with some folks – that a strophic hymn is added to the liturgy.
Some Questions
This liturgy is mostly in Latin – only the readings, homily, and intercessions are in a vernacular. Chant predominates. Is this appropriate and only to be expected for a papal liturgy in Rome? Is it the best solution when the participants have dozens, if not hundreds of varied vernacular tongues?
It would open a Pandora’s box to bring in more music from cultures throughout the world. It would be exceedingly difficult to select which music from which cultures. Not all English-speakers live in the U.S., and so on with all the world’s languages and cultures. Including some means excluding others. Is it wiser to keep most everything in Latin and exclude (so to speak) everyone equally?
On the other hand, difficult decisions are made about which language to use for the readings and intercessions, and all sorts of languages are necessarily excluded. Should the risk be undertaken to do the same with the music so as to give at least some expression to the wondrous diversity of the universal church?
Someone from the U.S. probably shouldn’t raise this next question, but I will anyway. In the fourth century the Roman church shifted from Greek to Latin because Latin had become the predominant language for most of the people. Should the Roman church now begin moving toward English as one of its liturgical languages? Should the pope use English for, e.g. the Eucharistic Prayer? (Does anyone know how many of the world’s Catholics understand English? Do most Spanish speakers, e.g. also understand English? I don’t know.)
I welcome your thoughts.
awr
Please leave a reply.