The Mission, Goals, and Principles of Adoremus

For more than 25 years, Adoremus has fostered the sound formation of Catholic laity in matters relating to the Church’s worship consistent with the Second Vatican Council and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, and aided Catholics (including priests and seminarians) with reliable information and encouragement. Adoremus provides sound resources to promote a more reverent, beautiful, and holy celebration of the Mass and other forms of worship. Since its founding, Adoremus has held to the following guidelines:

1. Adoremus Society for the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy is an association of Catholics, established on the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul in 1995, to promote authentic reform of the Liturgy of the Roman Rite.

2. The mission of Adoremus is to rediscover and restore the beauty, the holiness, and the power of the Church’s rich liturgical tradition while remaining faithful to an organic, living process of renewal. The purpose of such a renewal cannot be expressed more eloquently than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s statement in Feast of Faith: “Christian Liturgy is cosmic Liturgy, as Saint Paul tells us in the Letter to the Philippians. It must never renounce this dignity, however attractive it may seem to work with small groups and construct homemade liturgies. What is exciting about Christian Liturgy is that it lifts us up out of our narrow sphere and lets us share in the Truth. The aim of all liturgical renewal must be to bring to light this liberating greatness” (75).

3 Adoremus was inspired to reconsider the liturgical renewal by Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter on the 25th Anniversary of the Liturgy Constitution (Vicesimus Quintus Annus, 1988). The pope was concerned not only with questions of liturgical translation, but also with liturgical renewal as a whole. He wrote: “For the work of translation, as well as for the wider implications of liturgical renewal for whole countries, each episcopal conference was required to establish a national commission and to ensure the collaboration of experts in the various sectors of liturgical science and pastoral practice. The time has come to evaluate this commission, its past activity, both the positive and negative aspects, and the guidelines and the help which it has received from the episcopal conference regarding its composition and activity” (20).

4. Adoremus fully and unreservedly accepts the Second Vatican Council as an act of the Church’s supreme Magisterium (teaching authority) guided by the Holy Spirit, and regards its documents as an expression, in our time, of the word of Christ Himself for His Bride, the Church.

5. Adoremus believes the aim of Liturgy is union with Christ in communion with the Church. The experience of the years following Vatican II—declining Mass attendance, dramatic decreases in priestly and religious vocations, diminished belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and in other core doctrines of the Catholic Church, and a widespread loss of the sense of the sacred—makes clear the need for genuine liturgical reform.

6. Adoremus’s guiding principle for authentic liturgical reform is enunciated in Sacrosanctum Concilium: “[T]here must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them, and care must be taken that any new form adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing” (23).

Such a correction cannot, of course, ignore the immediate issues of our time. Much as revelation takes the form of written texts, so the Paschal sacrifice of Christ exists today as liturgical ritual. Consequently, ritual forms—old and new, Latin and vernacular, local and universal, “gathering songs” versus “entrance chants” (see page 5)—are entirely significant. These ritual details are the tangible locus where heaven meets earth. Still, it is only within the larger liturgical vision (Thank you, Pope Benedict!) that liturgical details gain significance. As I have remarked previously in my Bulletin editorials, too much energy is spent in the wrong places: if I were as eager about my divinization as the latest news analysis, I could truly be “excited” to escape my “narrow sphere,” “share in the Truth,” and experience the “liberating greatness” the Church’s liturgy has to offer.

But maybe such a vision is unrealistic in this fallen world. It was, after all, Ratzinger’s own observation that we’re still in a wounded world and living among the shadows: that heavenly Temple in which we wish to abide in today’s liturgy is “still under construction” (The Spirit of the Liturgy, 64). What, then, shall we do?

Here, as elsewhere in the liturgical world, opinions differ—and perhaps they must. For one, none of us (save God) has any idea what tomorrow’s magisterial direction might bring. For another, each of us lives in rather different circumstances with varying liturgical experiences and needs: my small parish in rural Wisconsin differs from the convent in New Mexico which, in turn, is unlike the liturgy at St. Mary Cathedral in Sydney, Australia. Still, while much varies and remains unknown, sound principles do exist for the future of the reform of the sacred liturgy. On this point, I am grateful that Adoremus’s original mission, goals, and principles remain as firm as ever.

As Adoremus’s editor, I will read these from time to time; and I encourage you, our readers, to do the same (see below). Jesuit Father Joseph Fessio, Father Jerry Pokorsky, and Helen Hull Hitchcock have built Adoremus on solid ground. So, too, has Joseph Ratzinger blessed Adoremus with insights that have guided us from the start and that will help us see clearly amidst the liturgical uncertainty in the future. If we adopt this long view, excitement, Truth, liberation, and greatness await.

7. Adoremus accepts the liturgical changes approved by appropriate Church authorities since the Council as the legitimate exercise of the Church’s disciplinary authority over the Liturgy. Adoremus seeks a more authentic observance of the liturgical norms approved since the Council.

8. With Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II (cited above), Adoremus believes liturgical changes approved since the Council should be reviewed and measured against a deeper understanding of the Council’s teaching and a hermeneutic of reform and renewal. We believe the Church should reflect carefully on these changes, and evaluate them in the light of the original conciliar texts and of the experience of Catholic faithful since the Council, including changes more in harmony with the authentic renewal of the Liturgy expressed in the Council documents.

9. Adoremus believes that the liturgical reform mandated by the Second Vatican Council cannot be accomplished by a return to the pre-conciliar Liturgy, although it does not oppose lawful use of the present discipline that permits celebration of the pre-conciliar Liturgy under certain conditions.

10. Adoremus encourages cooperative effort and a fruitful exchange of ideas with all faithful Catholics, and seeks to build support for a new liturgical movement. Adoremus provides a forum for many Catholics concerned about the Liturgy and gives voice to their legitimate desires, opinions, and questions, in order to foster greater understanding and appropriation of and actual participation in the Church’s worship.

Continued from PENANCE, page 1

Christological, and ecclesiological foundations (OP, 1). It shows the connection between Penance and the other sacraments, particularly baptism and the Eucharist (OP, 2). It goes on to consider reconciliation in the life of the Church, which is at once holy but always in need of purification (OP, 3). Here it highlights both the personal and communal dimension of sin and reconciliation (OP, 5). The Introduction then outlines the essential parts of the sacrament, what the tradition has recognized as matter—contrition, confession, satisfaction—and the form—the words of absolution (OP, 6).

The Introduction then turns to the offices and ministries in the celebration of this sacrament. Notably, it begins with “the whole Church, as a priestly people” as the first subject of the work of reconciliation (OP, 8). It then turns to the priest as the minister of the sacrament and some words on his pastoral exercise of the sacrament (OP, 9-10). Finally, it considers the role of the penitent (OP, 11). The celebration of the sacrament is detailed in terms of its place, time, and vestments (OP, 12-14). The in God. There follows an optional reading from scripture, a feature of individual confession regrettably underutilized. Next comes the confession of sins and the acceptance of satisfaction or penance, followed by the “prayer of the penitent,” usually known as the Act of Contrition. The Order provides a number of texts for this prayer (OP, 85-92). The new translation now includes for the first time the Act of Contrition familiar to many Catholics (“O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended you…”). The penitent’s prayer is then met with the absolution of the priest. The celebration ends with the proclamation of praise of God and the dismissal of the penitent. including an intention to confess individually at a proper time the sins that cannot be confessed at this time. The penitents then indicate their desire for absolution by a sign such as kneeling and are invited to make a general act of confession (“I confess to almighty God…”). Absolution is given with the usual formula, or a version containing an expanded tripartite prayer. The celebration concludes with a short proclamation of praise, blessing, and dismissal. In cases of extreme need, such as imminent danger of death, the rite can be shortened even to include simply the essential words of absolution.

The fourth chapter of the Order of Penance includes various texts to be used in the celebration of reconciliation. The variety of texts given for the prayer formulas and scripture readings highlights a treasury of options rarely taken advantage of. The texts are often rich in scriptural quotations or allusions, and provide ample material for a mystagogical catechesis on this sacrament.

Finally, several helpful appendices outline the procedures for the absolution from censures, dispensation from irregularities, as well as several examples of non-sacramental penitential celebrations for a variety of occasions.

New Translation of Order of Penance

The revised Order of Penance is not a revision of the rite itself or even another edition from what was previously in use. It represents a fresh translation of the first (and only) Latin edition from 1973 in line with the 2001 Instruction Liturgiam authenticam, which lays out the guidelines for translations of

Introduction then walks through details of celebrating each of the three forms of the rite (OP, 15-35) as well as non-sacramental penitential celebrations (OP 36-37). We may be less familiar with these nonsacramental celebrations as they are not frequently utilized. Their existence shows that penance, even in its liturgical manifestation, is not limited in the life of the Church to the sacrament of Reconciliation. These are “gatherings of the People of God to hear the word of God, which invites them to conversion and to renewal of life as well as announces our freedom from sin through the Death and Resurrection of Christ” (OP, 36). One could imagine such services being used with children preparing for their first confession, with catechumens or candidates for full communion, or in communities where priests are unavailable to hear confession for a long period of time. The Introduction then closes with the various adaptions within the competence of the conference of bishops, the diocesan bishop, and the minister of the sacrament (OP, 38-40). Needless to say, each aspect of the Introduction is a fitting subject for further study.

The Order of Penance then devotes a chapter each to the three liturgical forms of the sacrament, beginning with the form Catholic faithful are most familiar with, reconciling individual penitents. This form begins with the reception of the penitent which includes a greeting by the priest, the sign of the cross, and an invitation to the penitent to trust

The second form highlights the communal nature of the sacrament. This is the order of reconciling several penitents with individual confession and absolution. Colloquially, many Catholics might recognize this as a “penance service” they experience at Lent or Advent. This celebration begins in the church where all are gathered with introductory rites that include a song, greeting, and opening prayer akin to a collect at Mass. There follows an ampler celebration of the Word of God, the structure of which mirrors the biblical readings at a Sunday Mass. There is then a homily and a collective examination of conscience. The Rite of Reconciliation begins with a general formula of confession of sins. This is not an enumeration of individual sins, but a corporate acknowledgement of sin and the need for God’s mercy. The Lord’s Prayer is said and, after this, penitents disperse to individual confessionals for individual confession and absolution. The liturgy envisions that penitents remain in the church after their individual confessions for a proclamation of praise for God’s mercy, a concluding prayer of thanksgiving, and the concluding rites which include a blessing and dismissal.

The third form is the order of reconciling several penitents with general confession and absolution. Sometimes known simply as “general absolution,” this form does not include the individual, integral confession of sins. The rather narrow applications of this form of the sacrament are dictated by the Code of Canon Law §961-963, as well as the Introduction to the Order of Penance, 31-34. In short, this form may be used in two scenarios. First, general absolution may be granted if danger of death is imminent and there is not sufficient time for individual confessions. One might imagine here soldiers going into battle, or passengers on a sinking ship. Second, the diocesan bishop may determine that there is other grave necessity which, due to the number of penitents and lack of confessors, would preclude individual confession (and thus possibly the grace of Eucharistic communion) within a suitable period of time (the complementary norm of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) interprets this as one month). One could envision such a case particularly in mission territories or other locales that are rarely visited by a priest. In general, the rite follows the pattern of the second form above, with a few exceptions. First, a brief instruction is given regarding the proper interior disposition for the sacrament, liturgical texts into vernacular languages. The International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) prepared the translation according to these principles, and the USCCB voted in June 2021 to approve the translation for use in the United States. In April 2022 the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments approved the text. The new translation may be used beginning Ash Wednesday 2023 and will be mandatory as of Divine Mercy Sunday (Second Sunday of Easter) 2023.

Some might first observe the modification of the title. The Rite of Penance is now the Order of Penance. This reflects the Latin title, Ordo Paenitentiae. It also recognizes that, generally speaking, an ordo is a collection of rites, as is the case in this liturgical text.

The most noteworthy changes are found in the formula for absolution. Catholics have been used to hearing, “God the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his Son has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins.” The new text will read “poured out the Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sins.”

The new translation is, in the first place, closer to the Latin original. The words “among us” do not appear in the Latin and have thus been removed. “Poured out” renders more faithfully the Latin effudit. More than mere literalism, however, the revised text captures much of the biblical language about the mission of the Holy Spirit. Liturgiam authenticam notes that “the manner of translating the liturgical books should foster a correspondence between the biblical text itself and the liturgical texts of ecclesiastical composition which contain biblical words or allusions” (49). The Holy Spirit is often spoken of as being “poured out” in the sacred scriptures, such as on the day of Pentecost in fulfillment of the prophesy of Joel (Acts 2:17, 33). Consider also Romans 5:5 where Paul tells us that “God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.” This pouring out of the Spirit is intimately connected to the forgiveness of sins. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “Because we are dead or at least wounded through sin, the first effect of the gift of love is the forgiveness of our sins” (CCC, 734). Certainly,

“Gathering Song” or “Entrance Chant”: What’s in a Name?

By Father Dylan Schrader

Our gathering song is number 867 in the red book....” Everyone stands. The music starts. The servers and priest enter. For many Catholics in the United States, this is how Mass begins. One almost never hears priests, cantors, and other parishioners referring to the “Entrance Chant,” “Offertory Chant,” and “Communion Chant,” despite the fact that these are the official terms for these parts of the Mass.

Before going further, I want to be clear: My intention is not to condescend to or berate the musicians and singers who give themselves in service to the sacred liturgy. Not at all. Many parish musicians wish they were given more support, more formation, and more resources. Usually, they are the ones whose sense of duty and devotion has emboldened them to charge into the largely thankless field of parish music ministry, where they too often suffer the whims of priests and the complaints of their fellow parishioners.

No, this article is not meant to be a gotcha for music ministers or a pedantic scolding for pastors. It aims merely to identify and explain the official terms for the singing that occurs at several key points of the Mass and to encourage the adoption of the official terms in place of idiosyncratic expressions like “gathering song” or “opening hymn.”

A Brief History

The traditional practice of the Roman Rite is to sing antiphons at the entrance, offertory, and Communion of Mass. An antiphon is a short text, usually a line of Scripture, relevant to the liturgical day being celebrated. The antiphon precedes, is inserted within, and follows the verses of a psalm. The antiphons for a given Mass are part of it, just as the Collect or Prayer after Communion are. The antiphons contribute to the identity of the particular Mass being celebrated.

In fact, it is even customary to refer to a given Mass by the first few words of its entrance antiphon, since this is the first text proper to that Mass. For instance, a Mass for the dead is called a Requiem Mass because the entrance antiphon begins Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine (“Eternal rest, grant unto them, O Lord”). Likewise, the third Sunday of Advent is called Gaudete Sunday and the fourth Sunday of Lent Laetare Sunday after their entrance antiphons.

Before Vatican II, the Missale Romanum contained antiphons for the entrance, offertory, and Communion. The sung versions of each Mass’s antiphons with their verses were found in the Graduale Romanum as well as other collections such as the Liber usualis 1 There were even adapted versions, such as the “Rossini propers”2 for parishes that might need easier versions of the chants. Whether the choir sang the antiphons or not, the priest always recited them at the proper times from the Missal.

When Mass was not sung but only recited (a Missa lecta or “low Mass”), many parishes had the custom of singing hymns at the points during the Mass where the proper antiphons would otherwise be sung. The 1958 instruction De musica sacra expressly permitted the singing of vernacular hymns during low Mass.3 However, the practice of singing vernacular hymns during low Mass, in itself legitimate, created the sense among the faithful that the Mass itself is recited and that hymns are added to Mass at key points, such as the beginning, the offertory, Communion, and the end. Many parishes still labor under this misconception.

The reform surrounding Vatican II aimed to move away from the idea that only the priest and ministers in the sanctuary are responsible for the liturgy. The vision of full, active, and conscious participation meant that the congregation should not be excluded from the liturgical texts themselves—in this case the proper antiphons.

Continued from PENANCE, page 4 the Holy Spirit has been “sent among us,” but the language of pouring out stresses the superabundance of the divine generosity (see CCC, 731).

A second and even more subtle change to the formula comes when the priest says “through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace.” The revised text will now read, “may God grant you pardon and peace.” While for the simple verb “give” one might expect a form of the Latin dare, the Latin of the rite is tribuat. The latter can mean give, but it seems to have a broader semantic range than dare Tribuo has the sense of grant, bestow, or assign. In English, “grant” carries a higher linguistic register than “give” and is often used in legal contexts or is accompanied by a formal act. Though no strict rule applies, it seems more fitting to say that the sun “gives” heat, while the state “grants” certain rights. This slightly elevated way of speaking is fitting for the sacrament; as Liturgiam autheticam states, “it should cause no surprise that such language differs somewhat from ordinary speech. Liturgical translation that takes due account of the authority and integral content of the original texts will facilitate the development of a sacral vernacular, characterized by a vocabulary, syntax and grammar that are proper to divine worship” (47). In a private correspondence with this writer, Msgr. Andrew Wadsworth, executive director of ICEL, said that “there is a powerful suggestion here that God ‘grants’ rather than simply ‘gives’ pardon and peace as a result of the ministry of the Church in this sacrament. So, there is a desire to strengthen the idea of God’s agency in granting forgiveness in direct response to the Church’s

Instead of being busied with separate devotional singing while the priest recited the real texts of the Mass, the people would also join in the antiphons or at least hear them sung by the choir. To this end, Vatican II called for the revision of the official chant books and the publication of a collection of simple chants for smaller churches.4 The Graduale simplex in usum minorum ecclesiarum (“Simple Gradual for the Use of Smaller Churches”), published in several editions from 1967 on, is a fruit of this directive. Thus, a forceful and somewhat famous notice in Notitiae from 1969 explained that the provision of De musica sacra, 33, allowing the congregation to sing hymns while the priest recited the antiphons, had been superseded by the reform. “It is the Mass, Ordinary and Proper, that should be sung, not ‘something’…. This means singing the Mass and not just singing during the Mass.”5

Like the pre-Vatican II editions of the Missale Romanum, the short-lived 1964 Roman Missal, whose instructions for celebrating Mass remained in Latin, spoke of the “antiphona ad Introitum,” “antiphona ad Offertorium,” and “antiphona ad Communionem.”6 The 1964 instruction Inter Oecumenici and the 1967 instruction Tres abhinc annos maintained these terms.7 However, the 1967 instruction Musicam sacram spoke more broadly of the “cantus ad introitum,” “cantus ad offertorium,” and “cantus ad communionem,” and also used the description “cantus ad processiones introitus et communionis” (“chants for the entrance and Communion processions”).8 It also acknowledged the legitimacy of the regional custom of substituting other songs (alios cantus) for the chants of the Gradual.9 When the Novus ordo Missae was promulgated in 1969, this way of speaking entered the Missal itself. What in Musicam sacram had been descriptions crystallized as proper names in the 1969 Missal.

Broad Terms Adopted

Two factors especially influenced the adoption of the broader terminology (speaking generally of cantus instead of only specifically of the antiphons). First, a discrepancy was introduced between the antiphons to be sung and the antiphons to be recited. That is, there would be one antiphon text meant for singing and another—often entirely different—to be recited when the antiphon was not sung.10 The sung antiphons would be found in the Graduale Romanum or Graduale simplex, while the antiphons for recitation would be found in the Missal itself. This difference dovetailed with the decision that in the Novus ordo Missae the Offertory antiphon should be omitted when not sung with the result that there are no Offertory antiphons in the modern Missale Romanum or Roman Missal, whereas the sung Offertory antiphons are still found in the Graduals.

Second, there was the choice to continue allowing the substitution of other sung texts for the antiphons and to codify this possibility in the Missal itself. This meant that what was being sung at the entrance, offertory, or Communion might not be the antiphon at all but instead something else. Naturally, if the antiphon was only one possibility, a more general term was needed to cover the other possibilities. Unfortunately, in most parishes, “something else” became the usual experience, with the majority of Catholics probably having no idea that the proper antiphons even exist.

Like Musicam sacram, the 1969 Institutio generalis Missalis Romani (IGMR), used the terms “cantus ad introitum,” “cantus ad offertorium,” and “cantus ad Communio-

Please see CHANT on page 6

This revised prayer of absolution may be used as of Ash Wednesday, February 22, 2023, and its use is obligatory as of April 16, 2023. Here follows the new approved text, with changes in bold: request.” Thus, the minor change from “give” to “grant” is also a sacramental sign that more clearly reveals both God’s action through the Church and the dignity of the reality unfolding in sacramental absolution. While the revised translation becomes mandatory later this year, it is important to note that the continued use of the previous language would not invalidate the sacrament. Force of habit can be hard to overcome, and it would be understandable if priests who have recited the formula of absolution countless times may, on occasion, use the form to which they have become accustomed. In that case, the penitent need not be concerned that his sins are not forgiven. Indeed, the Introduction to the Order of Penance tells us that “the essential words are: ‘I absolve you from your sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit’” (OP, 19). These words remain untouched by the new translation.

God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his Son has reconciled the world to himself and poured out [vs. “sent”] the Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God grant [vs. “give”] you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, [sign of the cross] and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Amen.

Transition and Opportunity for Renewal

The Order of Penance is likely one of the least frequently utilized liturgical books. The rather simple structure of individual confession, along with its frequent repetition in the ministry of most priests, makes continual reference to the text somewhat superfluous. Nevertheless, we hope that this moment of change will also be an opportunity to refresh and renew the Church’s liturgical practice and vision for the sacrament of Penance. While shorter aids are already being produced that include the changes to the rite, it should be hoped that acquiring the revised Order of Penance will be an occasion for clergy and laity alike to revisit the rich liturgical options it provides as well as the theological and pastoral vision it contains.

Mike Brummond holds a Doctorate in Sacred Liturgy from the University of St. Mary of the Lake, Mundelein Seminary, IL. He is associate professor of systematic studies at Sacred Heart Seminary and School of Theology in Hales Corners, WI.

Continued from CHANT, page 5 nem” to describe what is sung at the entrance, at the offertory, and at Communion.11 The Latin terminology has remained unchanged up through the current edition of the Missale Romanum 12

In contrast, the official English renderings of these terms have changed several times over the years. The initial 1969 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) used the names “entrance song” and “offertory song” for the first two chants. It rendered cantus ad Communionem as both “the song during the communion” and “communion song” due to the rephrasing of other grammatical elements in the relevant Latin instruction.13 These English terms remained the same when the complete translation of the 1969 Missale Romanum was published as the 1974 Sacramentary.14 However, in the 1985 Sacramentary, which served as the English-language implementation of the 1975 edition of the Missale Romanum, these chants came to be called: “entrance song,” “presentation song,” and “communion song.”15

By 1998 the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) had drafted a fresh English translation of the Missale Romanum. In this 1998 draft Sacramentary, the three chants discussed in this article were referred to as: “opening song,” “song for the preparation of the gifts,” and “Communion song.”16 Although essentially complete, ICEL’s 1998 Sacramentary never received approval from the Holy See and thus never came into parish use. The draft was scrapped and a new version begun, which eventually became the Roman Missal now in use since 2011. One of the factors prompting a new English version was the promulgation of the third major edition of the Latin Missale Romanum in 2000, appearing in 2002. Another was the 2001 instruction from the Holy See on translating liturgical texts, Liturgiam authenticam Yet another was friction between the Holy See and ICEL, and the institution of the Vox clara committee to work with ICEL on future translations.

While work on a complete English translation of the 2000/2002 Missale Romanum was beginning, a provisional rendering of the new GIRM was published in 2003 so that rubrical changes could be more easily introduced into English-speaking regions even before the full Missal was ready. In this 2003 GIRM, the three chants are called: “Entrance Chant,” “Offertory Chant,” and “Communion Chant.”17

The 2007 document, Sing to the Lord, prepared by the Committee on Divine Worship of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), incorporates the terminology of the 2003 GIRM, but it also employs a variety of descriptions it treats as more or less synonymous. For instance, it speaks of “the Entrance chant,” “an Entrance chant or song,” “Entrance song or chant,” “the Entrance chant or song,” “the Entrance song,” and “the Entrance Chant (song).”18 In any case, the English terminology of the 2003 GIRM became official with the promulgation of the complete Roman Missal that was introduced in parishes in 2011.19

The following table summarizes the history:

Liturgical Book or Text Terminology Used

1962 Missale Romanum antiphona ad Introitum, antiphona ad Offertorium, antiphona ad Communionem

1964 Roman Missal antiphona ad Introitum, antiphona ad Offertorium, antiphona ad Communionem

1967 Musicam sacram cantus ad introitum, cantus ad offertorium, cantus ad communionem cantus ad processiones introitus et communionis

1969 Missale Romanum – 2008 cantus ad introitum, Missale Romanum cantus ad offertorium, cantus ad Communionem

1969 General Instruction of the entrance song, Roman Missal – 1974 offertory song, Sacramentary song during the communion / communion song

1985 Sacramentary entrance song, presentation song, communion song

1998 draft Sacramentary (never opening song, promulgated) song for the preparation of the gifts, Communion song

2007 Sing to the Lord Entrance chant or song, Offertory chant or song, Communion chant or song

Note: this document also uses a great variety of other descriptions

2003 preliminary General Entrance Chant, Instruction of the Roman Missal Offertory Chant, 2011 Roman Missal Communion Chant

The traditional practice of the Roman Rite is to sing antiphons at the entrance, offertory, and Communion of Mass. An antiphon is a short text, usually a line of Scripture, relevant to the liturgical day being celebrated. The antiphons for a given Mass are part of it, just as the Collect or Prayer after Communion are. The antiphons contribute to the identity of the particular Mass being celebrated. In fact, it is even customary to refer to a given Mass by the first few words of its entrance antiphon, since this is the first text proper to that Mass. For instance, the fourth Sunday of Lent is called Laetare Sunday after its entrance antiphon.

AB

Understandably, when the 2011 Roman Missal was implemented, more effort went into helping ministers and congregations learn the changes in the Mass prayers than into explaining the terminology of “Entrance Chant,” “Offertory Chant,” and “Communion Chant.” However, now, a decade after the new English translation of the Missal, and nearly two decades after the 2003 translation of the GIRM, many parishes remain unaware of the official names of these three chants, continuing to use a hodgepodge of idiosyncratic terms when announcing hymn numbers or filling out liturgy planning sheets.

Clarity in Terms

What are we to make of “Entrance Chant,” “Offertory Chant,” and “Communion Chant”? Each term consists of two words. They are capitalized, which identifies them as proper names. The Entrance Chant is not just a chant that happens to be sung at the entrance but is the proper name of a part of the Mass. The use of the definite article (which Latin lacks) underscores the same point: it is the Entrance Chant, not just a chant during the entrance.

Each term’s first word, as a modifier, identifies the particular procession or event that the sung text accompanies: the entrance procession, the procession with the gifts, and the Communion procession. The singing of the texts at these points in the Mass are not independent rites or acts, like the Gloria or responsorial psalm. Instead, they belong to the class of sung texts that accompany another rite.20

The second word in each term is “chant.” The translators of the Missale Romanum had a variety of options for turning the word cantus into English. “Song,” “singing,” “chant,” and “chanting” can all be legitimate translations of cantus. Why not render cantus ad introitum as “the singing at the entrance” or leave it as “entrance song” like it was in the 1969 GIRM and the subsequent editions of the Sacramentary?

There are several reasons for using the word “chant.” One is the normative value of Gregorian chant. “The main place should be given, all things being equal, to Gregorian chant, as being proper to the Roman Liturgy.”21 Even apart from the particular significance Gregorian chant has for the Roman Rite, the word “chant” has a sacral connotation that “song” lacks. Other words, such as “hymn,” also have religious connotations, but “hymn” would exclude the proper antiphons, which are decidedly not hymns.

Why Adopt the Official Terms?

Why should parishes use the official terminology? One reason is simply that it is official. These terms are standardized, not idiosyncratic. Calling these three chants what the Missal calls them would lead to greater consistency. Printed hand missals and missalettes generally use the official terms, so if the cantor announces a “gathering song,” parishioners who are following along may wonder what happened to the Entrance Chant mentioned in the missalette. It even happens that within the same parish one cantor might say “gathering song” while another says “entrance hymn.” All this creates confusion and gives the impression that the Church has nothing official to say about what is sung at these points during the Mass.

Another reason to use the official terms is that they are not used in other contexts. You might hear “opening song” at a concert; “Entrance Chant” signals that you’re in church. As mentioned above, the official terms also highlight the connection between these chants and the processions they accompany. They are not extraneous musical pieces inserted into the Mass or simply sung while Mass is going on. They are companion chants to the sacred actions taking place.

Finally, deliberately using the word “chant” serves as a reminder that the sung antiphons remain the ideal—they are texts of the liturgical books themselves, part of the particular Mass being celebrated—and that Gregorian chant is proper to the Roman liturgy. Even when Gregorian chant is not actually used (would that it were!), the official terms help to keep it from being forgotten entirely. The vice-regent is not the king, no matter how absent the king may sadly be.

Official Silence: Singing at the End of Mass

The liturgical books are generally silent about singing at the end of Mass, with exceptions such as funerals, where a chant accompanies the procession from the church to the cemetery, and other special situations. As far as typical Masses go, the 2011 GIRM states: “Then the Priest venerates the altar as usual with a kiss and, after making a profound bow with the lay ministers, he withdraws with them.”22

The custom of singing at this time is certainly not contrary to the rubrics, but we are left with a lacuna. There are official names for the Entrance, Offertory, and Communion Chants, but what should we call the singing that accompanies the procession at the end of Mass? For the following four reasons, I submit “Recessional Chant” as a possibility.23

First, the term “Recessional Chant” is congruous with the official names of the other chants. Second, it clearly identifies that this chant accompanies a procession. Third, other options such as “Departure Chant” or “Exit Chant” are jarring and