I’ve been wondering lately whether we give the Psalms full credit when considering the Propers.
If you were to ask me, “What is a Proper?” I would answer, “It’s an antiphon–and some verses of a Psalm if you have time.”
Two things have recently made me wonder if I’m not looking at the Propers from a 180 degree wrong angle. Perhaps I have it backwards, and the introit is A Psalm, which alternates with an antiphon that shows the Psalm in greater light.
The first thing that caught my attention in this matter was the plenary address given at last year’s Colloquium by Fr. Guy Nicholls of the Birmingham Oratory. Fr. Nicholls convincingly demonstrated that the Introit Psalms in Ordinary Time are not chosen according to the readings of the day or according to any other external device, but run sequentially through the Book of Psalms from beginning to end. In effect, the Introit Psalms of the year are a Psalter. If this is true–if we are meant to be singing the Book of Psalms throughout the year as monks sing them through the week–then the Psalms are much less incidental to the Propers than I had thought.
The second indication that I was taking the Psalms less seriously than they deserved, and perhaps taking the Antiphons more seriously than warranted, was this interesting definition of “Introit” from the old, online Catholic Encyclopedia:
The Introit (Introitus) of the Mass is the fragment of a psalm with its antiphon sung while the celebrant and ministers enter the church and approach the altar. In all Western rites the Mass began with such a processional psalm since the earliest times of which we have any record.
I’m sure most of us have had the experience of needing the briefest possible proper, and if you are like me, you would have chosen to sing the antiphon and left the Psalm for another day when there was more time. However, I’m not convinced that this is the right way to go.
The article in the Catholic Encyclopedia, as I read it, seems to suggest that the Introit started as a Psalm only, and that antiphons were added later. Over time the antiphons came to be the defining aspect of the Introit, perhaps in part because the antiphon alone needed to be printed, in order to provide the melody. The Psalm would be sung to a Psalm tone, and by the cantor, who would not need it to be printed in the book. Eventually the Psalm was shortened to one verse with its Gloria Patri unless further verses were needed for reasons of time.
I wonder whether this is a unique scholarly view, or whether it might be safe to say that the Psalm is at least as essential to the singing of the responsorial Propers as is the singing of the through-composed antiphon.
I'm a little puzzled on how Fr. Nicholls could "convincingly demonstrate" such a thing. It seems that little more would be involved than pointing to the psalms and saying "Hey, these numbers are sequential." Is there some issue involved that would make that a more difficult process?
I apologize if this sounds snarky. I am genuinely confused on the point.
While I think that there is some merit in your suspicions, I think that the antiphon has virtually always had primacy in the liturgy of the Roman Rite. Since the Mass Antiphonal was essentially set by the 6th century and since we didn't have "printing" until the 15th, I don't think that the issue of printing was much of an issue. Hand copying manuscripts was very laborious and expensive activity, so ancient liturgical books surely would have reflected the most important features of the liturgy.
Also, I don't believe that the Introits are sequential in the Sundays following Pentecost in the ancient Roman Rite. The Communions of the weekdays of Lent are, for example, and there is something to be said for this. But still, the antiphons have pretty much been there from the beginning and my sense has always been that the liturgical significance within the Mass is in the antiphon, not the Psalm, though the Psalm is not insignificant.
Conversely, the Psalms in the Divine Office are primary since the focus of the particular liturgical action is solely the recitation of the Psalm. In the Mass, however, the propers (with the exception of the inter-lectionary chants) accompany some other liturgical action, and therefore the content of the sung texts is not primary, but secondary. It would seem that because of this the repetition of the same text (an antiphon) would be helpful since there is engagement during this time in both the chant and the liturgical action which it accompanies. This motif becomes a lens through which the liturgical action on that particular day can be viewed, and the particular mystery of that feast contemplated.
I'd like to see Fr Nicholls' paper; is it accessible anywhere? It's quitee easy to show that the Psalm verses in the Introits as we have them in modern liturgical books are NOT sequential; is he suggesting that they once were? There do appear to be some traces of a sequential pattern, i.e. Series of a few Sundays in which the Psalms are in sequential order.
I am also genuinely confused on this point and would welcome elucidation.
At the risk of pushing Kathy and others away from this emphasis on the psalm, I would solidly endorse this approach, and have used it to inform my own planning of songs and hymns.
It can be problematic to use the Bible as its own justification, but the Lord's specific example was to sing the psalms. The psalms and the prophets are often cited at length in the New Testament. Saint Paul emphasizes psalms in Colossians 3:16, among other places. Antiphons seem to be unknown to the apostolic Church. Antiphons are not unheard of in the Psalter itself, but they are few and far between (Psalms 42-43, 46 and 80 among them).
The emphasis among composers since Vatican II has been on the psalm texts, plus the poetic texts from other Biblical sources. Say what you will about the quality of modern compositions for the assembly, but the emphasis on the psalm texts is undeniable. And largely an improvement over pre-conciliar hymn texts. Or most all contemporary ones for that matter.
I also can't imagine a good liturgical experience where the music director would not want to present a healthy chunk of the Psalm text. There's always time for it. Do the research on the Psalm. Determine the logical breaks within the text. Maybe a faith community or priest will fuss about singing all of Psalm 118. Fine. Pick a good section or two and render that well for the praise of God.
The Psalm is way more important than the antiphon (which itself is not insignificant).
For the proletariat POV, I concur with Kathy's interest towards reorienting the importance of the psalm verses. And it seems to me that virtually every address spoken or written by Bill Mahrt I remember emphasizes the acquisition and internalizaton process that the congregant is provided with the gradual/tract and gospel acclamation/verse elevation by the melismatic beauty of couching those texts. And in that Mahrt thus emphasizes that the "responsorial/alleluia verse/sequence" constitutes integral portions of the Liturgy of the Word, rather than lesser events in response to lessons or gospel book procession, it seems necessary to reflect that in how we sing the verses midst the antiphons as well. My two bits.
Christopher Page's book certainly suggests to me that the Psalm was the originating impetus, and that the Antiphons were added and served much the same purpose they currently do in the Office.
To CC's point- it also (to my astonishment) seems that the Alleluia was originally (and for a LONG TIME) considered a lesson in and of itself.
And herein- you can almost see the outline of the development of the other "Processional" Propers. The Alleluia has morphed from a lesson into an accompaniment to a procession. In the process, the "shared" portion ("Alleluia") is emphasized over the cantorial portion, which leads to the evolution in the OF where the "Gospel Acclamation" is essentially a part of the Ordinary.
I imagine a very similar process (whether documented or not) occurred with the other Propers as well. When it comes to these sorts of things, the same sorts of things tend to happen over and over. (Thus you see a never-ending movement of development and resourcement, and then the resourcement itself being the rally for new development, which causes a new wave of resourcement… reforming the reform of the reformed reform…)
I could see "Seasonal" Propers (ala the Simplex or the Common Responsorial Psalms) taking a similar track as the Alleluia, morphing into a portion of the Ordinary as composers and publishers produce unified Mass Settings that also include a setting of each of these, one for each Season. We already have precedent that the "Ordinary" can change with the Season (The "Lenten Gospel Acclamation; the widespread notion that the Kyrie and the Gloria are mututally exclusive and season-dependent) and also the notion that the Ordinary may have options (the Mystery of Faith).
Kathleen, on the historical front, I'm pretty sure I read something very broadly along these lines in Jungmann, unless my memory is playing tricks with me. There is indeed some sort of ordering of the psalms or something like that… alas I don't have a copy on me.
In any event, I do not think it is wrong that the antiphon came to "take over" in the Propers of the Roman Rite, and I don't think we should feel like we should go about re-instating singing more of the accompanying psalm just for the sake of it. The dominance of the antiphon strikes me as something which we should regard as organic development rather than an historical anomaly lost in the mists of time.
I am reminded of the desert father (I forget which) who would say (and I am paraphrasing very loosely) that on days when he was not seeing things clearly or not alert to the truth of God's love he would find himself saying three Our Fathers, when he was having a normal day he would say one, and when he was at his most alert and aware he would find that he could not bring himself to go beyond the first line "Our Father, who art in heaven" because there is such richness in that one sentence that – if we are aware of it – we could happily meditate on it all our life.
Or something like that.
It strikes me that the antiphon is a chance to rest upon and meditate upon one particular bit of a psalm, scripture, or whatever, which is presented to us by the church. I suspect that it presupposes a familiarity with the psalter and scripture more generally such that the mere invoking of that particular line is enough to bring to mind the themes and messages of the psalm in question etc.
It also strikes me that resting on a particular short phrase like this nicely complements the way the liturgy as a whole prays these texts (full recitation having its place in the divine office, for example, whereas a more "hyper-aware" and "in depth pondering" is perhaps more suited to the Mass, and that point in the Mass in particular – where other stuff is going on – and that these two approaches when taken together complement each other).
So I suggest that we should put the Propers into the context of the liturgy and prayer of the church as a whole (not just the Mass) and perhaps regard this as "organic development" and a good thing.
I hope I haven't missed your point.
(sorry I had to split that post into three!)
I agree