Which rubric has precedence?

[DeepeningFaith]

In another thread, it was realized that there was a difference in rubrics for the Gospel Acclaimation for Mass.

The GIRM states:
63.c The Alleluia or verse before the Gospel may be omitted if they are not sung.

According to BenedictGal:

Actually, the General Introduction to the Lectionary states that the Gospel Acclamation should be sung. If it is not sung, it is omitted.

So my question is, what rubric in this instance, and then in all instances would take precedence? Would the rubrics written in the Roman Missal take precedence over the GIRM? etc.

My guess would be the most recently published one. My reasoning for this that the 2002 GIRM completely abbrogated the 1975 GIRM.

Pax!

 

[Digitonomy]

DeepeningFaith:

My guess would be the most recently published one.

I would agree. As a general rule, the more recently published rule supersedes earlier ones.

There may be particular cases where it appears that a more recent document doesn’t appear to have really considered an issue, while an older document is more detailed on the matter. In a situation like that, there could be doubt as to whether the more recent document was intended to supersede the older one on that issue.

The case you present, however, seems fairly clear-cut.

Edit: looking back at the GIRM you cited, the earlier sentences do not seem to contemplate an Alleluia that is not sung. In the light of this and other documents, I think it would be fair to interpret the “may” in the sentence not as permission to simply recite the Alleluia, but as actually meaning “Even though we said earlier the Alleluia is to be sung, if it’s not possible for it to be sung, it’s OK to omit it.” In other words, “may” implies permission not to omit instead of reciting, but to omit instead of singing.

That’s my take, anyway.

 

[Phemie]

In another thread, it was realized that there was a difference in rubrics for the Gospel Acclaimation for Mass.

The GIRM states:
63.c The Alleluia or verse before the Gospel may be omitted if they are not sung.

According to BenedictGal:

So my question is, what rubric in this instance, and then in all instances would take precedence? Would the rubrics written in the Roman Missal take precedence over the GIRM? etc.

My guess would be the most recently published one. My reasoning for this that the 2002 GIRM completely abbrogated the 1975 GIRM.

Pax!

The 1975 GIRM also said “May be omitted.” Interestingly, the Introduction to the Lectionary for Mass says

c) The Acclamation Before the Reading of the Gospel
23. The Alleluia or, as the liturgical season requires, the verse before the Gospel is also a "rite or act standing by itself."41 It serves as the greeting of welcome of the assembled faithful to the Lord who is about to speak to them and as an expression of their faith through song.

The Alleluia or the verse before the Gospel must be sung, and during it all stand. It is not to be sung only by the cantor who intones it or by the choir, but by the whole of the people together.42

(42. Cf. ibid., no. 37-39; Missale Romanum ex Decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli VI promulgatum, Ordo cantus Missae, * Praenotanda* , no. 7-9; Graduale Romanum, 1974, Praenotanda , n. 7; Graduale simplex, editio typica altera 1975, Praenotanda , n. 16. )

 

[benedictgal]

Musicam Sacram puts the Gospel Acclamation as part of the first hierarchy of the parts of the Mass that need to be sung:

1. The following belong to the first degree:

(a) In the entrance rites: the greeting of the priest together with the reply of the people; the prayer.

(b) In the Liturgy of the Word: the acclamations at the Gospel.

(c) In the Eucharistic Liturgy: the prayer over the offerings; the preface with its dialogue and the Sanctus; the final doxology of the Canon, the Lord’s Prayer with its introduction and embolism; the Pax Domini; the prayer after the Communion; the formulas of dismissal.

Oddly enough, even the disposable missallettes that many parishes use indicate that if the Alleluia is not sung, it is to be omitted.

 

[Phemie]

Musicam Sacram puts the Gospel Acclamation as part of the first hierarchy of the parts of the Mass that need to be sung:

Oddly enough, even the disposable missallettes that many parishes use indicate that if the Alleluia is not sung, it is to be omitted.

benedictgal, that doesn’t refer to the Gospel Acclamation, which is listed as the 3rd degree.

1. The following belong to the third degree:
   (a) the songs at the Entrance and Communion processions;
   (b) the songs after the Lesson or Epistle;
   (c) the Alleluia before the Gospel;
   (d) the song at the Offertory;
   (e) the readings of Sacred Scripture, unless it seems more suitable to proclaim them without singing.

What Musicam Sacram refers to as 1st degree is “The Lord be with you.” “And also with you.” “A reading from the Holy Gospel according to …” “Glory to you, Lord.”

 

[japhy]

The General Introduction to the Lectionary (GIL) is older than the present General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), so I would say the GIRM’s newer prescriptions have precedence over the GIL’s older ones where there is a conflict.

GIL 23 says: “The Alleluia or the verse before the Gospel must be sung…” I think this is to be interpreted as “The Alleluia or the verse before the Gospel must be sung [and not simply spoken].”

GIRM 63c says: “The Alleluia or verse before the Gospel may be omitted if they are not sung.” The Latin helps make this a little clearer: Allelúia vel versus ante Evangelium, si non cantantur, omitti possunt. “The Alleluia or the verse before the Gospel, if not sung, may be omitted.”

This implies, then, that the Alleluia or verse before the may be spoken – that is, “not sung” but not omitted. At least, that’s what I think it means. If they meant to say “sing the Alleluia or omit it”, they could have said it more directly.

 

[corsair]

Its a sad state of affairs when the congregation is debating what is to be said and how. To bad the priest doesn’t follow the Rubrics. Even still sadder is why is there so much confusion in the OF.

 

[benedictgal]

The General Introduction to the Lectionary (GIL) is older than the present General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), so I would say the GIRM’s newer prescriptions have precedence over the GIL’s older ones where there is a conflict.

GIL 23 says: “The Alleluia or the verse before the Gospel must be sung…” I think this is to be interpreted as “The Alleluia or the verse before the Gospel must be sung [and not simply spoken].”

GIRM 63c says: “The Alleluia or verse before the Gospel may be omitted if they are not sung.” The Latin helps make this a little clearer: Allelúia vel versus ante Evangelium, si non cantantur, omitti possunt. “The Alleluia or the verse before the Gospel, if not sung, may be omitted.”

This implies, then, that the Alleluia or verse before the may be spoken – that is, “not sung” but not omitted. At least, that’s what I think it means. If they meant to say “sing the Alleluia or omit it”, they could have said it more directly.

What has been in place down here is that the Alleluia is to be sung, not spoken. The versicle may be read, but, the Alleluia is to be sung. The first rector of the Cathedral made it perfectly clear that it was to be sung, not recited. He especially got that point across to the couples who were preparing the music for their weddings.

Phemie, the Gospel Acclamation, as least the way it’s been interpreted down here for years (and in some of the other diocese down this way) is the Alleluia, not the dialogue between the deacon/priest and the people. I bet you that, aside from the Papal Mass, you rarely hear Dominus vobiscum chanted at the Gospel. The word “Acclamation” appears when referencing the Memorial Acclamation. Thus, it would stand to reason that in the case of the Gospel Acclamation, it refers to the Alleluia/Lenten acclamation and not Dominus Vobiscum.

Oddly enough, the one thing that the publishers of the disposable misalletes seem to get right in their little booklets is the notation that the Alleluia is to be omitted if not sung.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

Its a sad state of affairs when the congregation is debating what is to be said and how. To bad the priest doesn’t follow the Rubrics. Even still sadder is why is there so much confusion in the OF.

I concur. That is why I work so hard at understanding the rubrics so that I can communicate with the Priests what they are mandated to do, respectfully, as is my right by Canon Law. The rubrics are so vague to some people that many Priests even think that the General Intercessions are optional, especially for weekday Masses.

Also, BenedictGal, I believe that it has been pointed out that the (GIL) is older than the GIRM. Would you concur then that the GIRM takes precedence, and therefore, basically, if not sung, it may be recited? Or are we disagreeing on the interpretation of it in general?

Pax!

 

[benedictgal]

I concur. That is why I work so hard at understanding the rubrics so that I can communicate with the Priests what they are mandated to do, respectfully, as is my right by Canon Law. The rubrics are so vague to some people that many Priests even think that the General Intercessions are optional, especially for weekday Masses.

Also, BenedictGal, I believe that it has been pointed out that the (GIL) is older than the GIRM. Would you concur then that the GIRM takes precedence, and therefore, basically, if not sung, it may be recited? Or are we disagreeing on the interpretation of it in general?

Pax!

Inasmuch as japhy, Phemie and I are friends, I respectfully disagree with their interpretations. The Gospel Acclamation, if not sung, is to be omitted. Oddly enough, even publishing houses like OCP, will make even that note in their missalettes.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here of what exactly an acclamation is. When Musica Sacram indicates that the Gospel Acclamation belongs to the first order, it is not referencing “Dominus Vobiscum”, as this is a dialogue. An Acclamation is akin to the one at the Memorial Acclamation “when we eat this bread and drink this cup…”.

Furthermore, when the new lectionary was published in the United States (back in 1998-99), the language pertaining to the Alleluia was retained. Now, the versicle may be recited, but, not the actual Alleluia/Lenten acclamation.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

Inasmuch as japhy, Phemie and I are friends, I respectfully disagree with their interpretations. The Gospel Acclamation, if not sung, is to be omitted. Oddly enough, even publishing houses like OCP, will make even that note in their missalettes.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here of what exactly an acclamation is. When Musica Sacram indicates that the Gospel Acclamation belongs to the first order, it is not referencing “Dominus Vobiscum”, as this is a dialogue. An Acclamation is akin to the one at the Memorial Acclamation “when we eat this bread and drink this cup…”.

Furthermore, when the new lectionary was published in the United States (back in 1998-99), the language pertaining to the Alleluia was retained. Now, the versicle may be recited, but, not the actual Alleluia/Lenten acclamation.

I think that you and I agree on what Acclamaition they are talkin gabout in Musicam Sacram. I’ll read this part this evening and let you know if I feel differently. I will also agree that the GIL states that it is to be omitted.

However I have 2 questions for you. Please answer them directly.

1. Since the GIRM was written after the GIL, does not the GIRM superceed it?
2. I believe that if you say that the GIRM does superceed the GIL, then you are left with only 2 options for the rubric. Either the Alleluia MUST be sung. No possibility of omitting it. Or it MAY be omitted if not sung. Which is it?

Also, could anyone direct me to the GIL online?

Pax!

 

[Phemie]

Inasmuch as japhy, Phemie and I are friends, I respectfully disagree with their interpretations. The Gospel Acclamation, if not sung, is to be omitted. Oddly enough, even publishing houses like OCP, will make even that note in their missalettes.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here of what exactly an acclamation is. When Musica Sacram indicates that the Gospel Acclamation belongs to the first order, it is not referencing “Dominus Vobiscum”, as this is a dialogue. An Acclamation is akin to the one at the Memorial Acclamation “when we eat this bread and drink this cup…”.

I originally thought so too, but it specifically says that the “Gospel Alleluia” belongs to the 3rd degree. You can’t have it both ways.

If the Alleluia belonged to the first degree it would mean that you couldn’t sing the Kyrie, the Gloria & the Agnus Dei, which belong to the 2nd degree, unless you sang the Alleluia.

 

[benedictgal]

I originally thought so too, but it specifically says that the “Gospel Alleluia” belongs to the 3rd degree. You can’t have it both ways.

If the Alleluia belonged to the first degree it would mean that you couldn’t sing the Kyrie, the Gloria & the Agnus Dei, which belong to the 2nd degree, unless you sang the Alleluia.

It’s the versicle that fals on the third category, not the actual Alleluia itself. When my parochial vicar, a much smarter man than me, celebrates daily Mass, we sing the Alleluia/Lenten acclamation, the Sanctus, the Memorial Acclamation and the Great Amen. We do not sing the Agnus Dei and rarely do we do the Kyrie.

Now, when a solemnity happens during the week (not a HOD), he will chant the Gloria along with the aforementioned items that we regularly sing.

When he was rector at the Cathedral a long time ago, he insisted that the Alleluia/Lenten acclamation be sung and if it not, then he wanted it omitted.

 

[OraLabora]

Where I attend weekday Mass, when I can, the Alleluia is always sung.

Where I attend Sunday Mass nearly every Sunday, the entire Mass is sung in Gregorian chant and French plainchant. Even the readings are chanted (in French).

The only thing not in Gregorian chant or French plainchant is the homily. Proving of course that despite its detractors, the OF Mass can be done very reverentially.

I consider myself spoiled!

 

[Phemie]

Furthermore, when the new lectionary was published in the United States (back in 1998-99), the language pertaining to the Alleluia was retained. Now, the versicle may be recited, but, not the actual Alleluia/Lenten acclamation.

Our old Lectionary used to clearly state: "If the Alleluia is not sung it is omitted. That was removed from the new Lectionary that was promulgated last year.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

Where I attend weekday Mass, when I can, the Alleluia is always sung.

Where I attend Sunday Mass nearly every Sunday, the entire Mass is sung in Gregorian chant and French plainchant. Even the readings are chanted (in French).

The only thing not in Gregorian chant or French plainchant is the homily. Proving of course that despite its detractors, the OF Mass can be done very reverentially.

I consider myself spoiled!

YOU ARE!!! lol

 

[japhy]

It’s the versicle that fals on the third category, not the actual Alleluia itself.

I think you’re making a distinction that’s not there. 31b says nothing about the versicle; it explicitly says the Alleluia.

1. The following belong to the first degree:
   (a) In the entrance rites: the greeting of the priest together with the reply of the people; the prayer.
   (b) In the Liturgy of the Word: the acclamations at the Gospel.
   (c) In the Eucharistic Liturgy: the prayer over the offerings; the preface with its dialogue and the Sanctus; the final doxology of the Canon, the Lord’s Prayer with its introduction and embolism; the Pax Domini; the prayer after the Communion; the formulas of dismissal.
2. The following belong to the second degree:
   (a) the Kyrie, Gloria and Agnus Dei;
   (b) the Creed;
   (c) the prayer of the faithful.
3. The following belong to the third degree:
   (a) the songs at the Entrance and Communion processions;
   (b) the songs after the Lesson or Epistle;
   (c) the Alleluia before the Gospel;
   (d) the song at the Offertory;
   (e) the readings of Sacred Scripture, unless it seems more suitable to proclaim them without singing.
   Remember that Musicam Sacram is from 1967, so its context was not yet the 1969 Missal. Notice what it’s missing: it says nothing about the “acclamation” after the Lesson or Epistle, only the “songs” (which would be the Gradual or Psalm).

The phrase “Gospel acclamation” only became a popular term for the Alleluia in the 1969 Missal, where it means the Alleluia or its Lenten replacement, although I should point out that the term “Gospel acclamation” does not appear in any magisterial document that I know of. However, the GIRM does speak of the Alleluia (or its replacement) as an “acclamation” once (GIRM 62), but primarily it refers to the other things we say before and after the Gospel as “acclamations” (GIRM 60, 134, 175).

29b is referring to “Dominus vobiscum” and its response “Et cum…”, “Lectio…” and its response “Gloria tibi Domine”, and “Verbum Domini” and its response “Laus tibi Christe”.

31c is referring to the Alleluia as a whole, including whatever verse is included within it.

Musicam Sacram’s three degrees are rarely, if ever, followed to a tee.

 

[japhy]

What has been in place down here is that the Alleluia is to be sung, not spoken.

I agree that there’s really no reason not to sing it. I mean, there are plenty of super-easy tunes, like the triple Alleluia from “Ye Sons and Daughters”.

Oddly enough, the one thing that the publishers of the disposable misalletes seem to get right in their little booklets is the notation that the Alleluia is to be omitted if not sung.

There’s plenty they get right in those books. It sounds like you’re using the occasion of talking about the Alleluia to trash the missals, and you’ve said it more than once in this thread already, as if you’re trying to elicit a response out of someone. Bet you didn’t think it would be me.

 

[japhy]

There seems to be a misunderstanding here of what exactly an acclamation is. When Musica Sacram indicates that the Gospel Acclamation belongs to the first order, it is not referencing “Dominus Vobiscum”, as this is a dialogue. An Acclamation is akin to the one at the Memorial Acclamation “when we eat this bread and drink this cup…”.

Such a thing did not exist in 1967. MS 29b says “the acclamations at the Gospel”, in the plural. There’s not more than one Alleluia before the Gospel, so the Alleluia is not what it means by “acclamations”. MS 31c explicitly says “the Alleluia”, not “the Alleluia verse”. That’s how I interpret it.

GIRM 63c says (translating literally from the Latin), “The Alleluia or verse before the Gospel, if they are not sung, may be omitted (omitti possunt).” It does not say “must be omitted”, but “may be omitted”. If it said “must”, there would be only two options: 1) Alleluia sung; or 2) Alleluia not sung, and omitted. But because it says “may”, there are three options: 1) Alleluia sung; 2) Alleluia not sung, and omitted; or 3) Alleluia not sung, but not omitted. How do you not omit the Alleluia but not sing it? By reciting it.

Furthermore, if GIRM 63c is referring to the versicle and not the Alleluia itself, that would seem to mean that you can decide whether to include the versicle in the Alleluia. I’ve never heard that done, nor heard that interpretation before.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

A few things. First, I started this to talk about how precedence is established. I was using the Gospel Acclaimation as an example, but I would like a general answer, especially from BenedictGal.

Also, based off of japhy’s posts, if the dates are correct, then an argument could be made that Musicam Sacram does not apply to the Missal of Paul VI since it was promulgated prior to the Missal’s promulgation. I believe that there has been a decree from the CDWDS in regards to no rubrics from before the Novus Ordo may be implemented in it, or something to that effect.

My view, GIRM was issued after BOTH GIL and the GIRM and therefore its rubrics superceed all others issued prior. This what I am getting to. Does not the date that something is issued overrule things from before???

Pax!