I plan on writing soon, like later today, a bulletin article for next weekend entitled something like "what the heck has Mara been singing at Communion?" I got a LOT of positive feedback this weekend. So I know the time is ripe for some serious explaining.
(the real reason I'm writing this all in here, is cuz last time I wrote that I was going to write a bulletin article but didn't really know what to write about...as soon as I posted it here, the ideas and resources just started flowing!
so here goes...
Communion antiphons...
why I am singing them...(GIRM 87) then also quote GIRM 88?
how ancient a practice it is in the Church of singing Psalms at Communion...
the intrinsic beauty of what I have been singing...
explain what a "Proper" is?
how I would like to get people to join me to make a schola (ok, I'll word that better,)
how I am planning on getting the translations to those who want them. (I'm thinking of having a monthly sheet that has the 4 or 5 Communion antiphons with their translations available in the back of the church for those who want to pick them up.)
should I go into how, "if you're following along in your Missal, what I am singing at Communion just might not be what it says is the 'Communion Antiphon,' " that could be a really in-depth discussion that could just cause more confusion than it explains. sigh.
I don't think I'm going to talk about the fact that it's Latin, -people don't seem to mind if they don't have to sing/say it. and that could be a whole additional bulletin article. or pamphlet. or homily...
a nice follow-up article would be to write about what the Church says about "active participation," and how that doesn't necessarily mean that YOU have to be singing! That's not an issue for right now, because no one wants to sing during Commuion, but that could be if we begin incorporating more of the propers at other places in the Mass.
open to more ideas over the next few hours/days!
2 comments:
Somewhere in your history, you might point out that the post-V2 liturgical reforms restored the practice of singing communions responsorially. Though (IIRC) they were originally sung responsoriall as well, for centuries prior to V2 only the antiphon itself was sung. (This explains the asterisks by some of the psalm indications in the OCM and 1974 Graduale; the asterisks indicate that any appropriate psalm’s verses may be sung.)
I mention this not for pedantry, but to let people know that this is not a “rewind” to 1955; this practice itself reflects the liturgical renewal, since the way you’re doing it now is not how it was done in 1955.
I, personally, would have a hard time accepting an argument about “intrinsic (aesthetic) beauty” - in an objective sense, that is. The number of competing theories for realizing the notation is, IMO, itself enough to cast a lot of doubt on any such propositions.
(Unless, of course, we intend to categorize liturgical singing in general as intrinsically beautiful - with which I agree.)
I agree about avoiding the Missal vs. Graduale thing.
The new translation of the Missal is being delayed because of the new translations of the antiphons. As it was explained to me the ICEL group when translating the Propers the first time, didn't just translate them but in some cases changed them. They got approved, like the Mass did, but only just.
But as this information is hearsay on my part, I may be wrong, but this would explain alot. Does anyone know if the antiphons in english match up with the antiphons in say Italian or Polish.
Post a Comment