The article by Christoph Tietze in Sacred Music 133.4 (Winter 2006) is very enlightening. Most readers of this forum are no doubt aware that there are vast differences in the antiphon texts found in the Missale Romanum (Roman Missal) (MR) compared to those found in the Graduale Romanum (Roman Gradual) (GR). The historical difference is that the MR antiphons were composed for the spoken recitation of a priest at spoken masses, while the GR antiphons have always retained their primacy in sung masses. Tietze demonstrates that in the current U.S. edition of the GIRM there is no real differentiation between the MR antiphons and the GR antiphons. He suggests that "the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy assumed that the MR and GR antiphons were identical" which is evidenced by reading the rubrics that govern the processional chants. The Latin General Instruction without U.S. adaptation makes the distinction between the two clear.
I previously assumed that where the MR texts stray from the GR it was likely for the purpose of matching more closely the readings of the 3-year lectionary cycle. Most of the Introits generally agree, and so do the Communions during the privileged seasons. However the MR Communions depart from the GR Communions quite a bit during Ordinary Time, just as the 3-year lectionary does from the old 1-year cycle. I studied Tietze's data on the differences between the MR and GR antiphons more closely and found some pretty alarming results.
Here is his chart with my own highlighting added in 4 colors to Tietze's original nomenclature.
-Underlined texts are taken from the First or Second readings or to the Gospel of the given liturgy.
-Yellow shows where the GR texts match the MR
-Purple shows GR texts that were replaced by new MR texts
-Green shows instances where a MR antiphon replaces a GR antiphon and the MR is more closely connected to the readings
-Red WITHOUT AN UNDERLINE shows instances where MR antiphons that have no apparent connection to the readings replace GR antiphons
-Red WITH AN UNDERLINE shows instances where MR antiphons do have a connection to the readings BUT replace GR antiphons that ALSO have a connection to the readings
(edited 2.2.2010)
I'm guessing that a part of the reason why this is is because the MR antiphons were composed before the GR of 1974 was rearranged to coordinate with the 3-year lectionary. (Is this correct?) The tragedy, though, is that the GR wasn't rearranged first so that new additions to the MR could have been made from existing sung texts from the chant corpus.
In the end it seems that the GR antiphons make more sense for the 3-year lectionary than do the MR antiphons, all obvious distinctions between the two sets aside.
I previously assumed that where the MR texts stray from the GR it was likely for the purpose of matching more closely the readings of the 3-year lectionary cycle. Most of the Introits generally agree, and so do the Communions during the privileged seasons. However the MR Communions depart from the GR Communions quite a bit during Ordinary Time, just as the 3-year lectionary does from the old 1-year cycle. I studied Tietze's data on the differences between the MR and GR antiphons more closely and found some pretty alarming results.
Here is his chart with my own highlighting added in 4 colors to Tietze's original nomenclature.
-Underlined texts are taken from the First or Second readings or to the Gospel of the given liturgy.
-Yellow shows where the GR texts match the MR
-Purple shows GR texts that were replaced by new MR texts
-Green shows instances where a MR antiphon replaces a GR antiphon and the MR is more closely connected to the readings
-Red WITHOUT AN UNDERLINE shows instances where MR antiphons that have no apparent connection to the readings replace GR antiphons
-Red WITH AN UNDERLINE shows instances where MR antiphons do have a connection to the readings BUT replace GR antiphons that ALSO have a connection to the readings
(edited 2.2.2010)
I'm guessing that a part of the reason why this is is because the MR antiphons were composed before the GR of 1974 was rearranged to coordinate with the 3-year lectionary. (Is this correct?) The tragedy, though, is that the GR wasn't rearranged first so that new additions to the MR could have been made from existing sung texts from the chant corpus.
In the end it seems that the GR antiphons make more sense for the 3-year lectionary than do the MR antiphons, all obvious distinctions between the two sets aside.
