PDF Download • “Antiphonale Romanum” (1949)

Jeff Ostrowski · March 6, 2017

ID YOU REALIZE the CMAA has scanned and uploaded the Solesmes 1949 ANTIPHONALE ROMANUM? It appears to be an edition from 1960, because it contains—at the very back of the book—the feast of St. Joseph the Worker (©1960) and the Queenship of Mary (©1956):

* * ANTIPHONALE ROMANUM (100MB)

* * ANTIPHONALE ROMANUM (38MB)

This book is quite useful. For instance, I used a text found on page 366 to create this SATB Hymn for Lent:

* * SATB Hymn • “O Sol Salutis Inimis”

Notice how beautiful the typesetting is:

For the record, Watershed in 2008 placed many versions of the Antiphonale online—but not the 1949 edition. Later on, we scanned and uploaded the 1934 Antiphonale Monasticum.

Opinions by blog authors do not necessarily represent the views of Corpus Christi Watershed.

About Jeff Ostrowski

Jeff Ostrowski holds his B.M. in Music Theory from the University of Kansas (2004). He resides with his wife and children in Michigan. —(Read full biography).

“Entrance Chant” • Christ the King

Download the ENTRANCE ANTIPHON in English for the Solemnity of Christ the King (24 November 2024). It mimics the Mode III Latin version in a truly spectacular way. Corresponding to the vocalist score is this free organ accompaniment. If you’re someone who enjoys rehearsal videos, I attempted to sing it while simultaneously accompanying my voice on the pipe organ.

—Jeff Ostrowski

“Music List” • (33rd Sund. Ordinary Time)

This coming Sunday—17 November 2024—is the 33rd Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year B. Some have expressed interest in perusing my “ORDER OF MUSIC.” If such a thing interests you, feel free to download it as a PDF file. You’ll notice we’re learning Moreau’s “Congregational Polyphonic Enhancement” for the OUR FATHER. For the record, our opening hymn is particularly beautiful. So is the Mode 6 ENTRANCE CHANT.

—Jeff Ostrowski

Lectionary Errors

If you look at the official Responsorial Psalm (PDF) for this coming Sunday, you’ll notice the current Lectionary has the wrong refrain. Why is this a big deal? Why even mention such a thing? Everybody makes mistakes, right? Here’s why it matters. The USCCB—which makes money by selling the sacred liturgical texts—has historically been ruthless when it comes to such matters. When various publishers point out errors to them, their response has been: “If you dare to correct the error, we’ll sue you.” These errors are not a matter of nuance; e.g. sometimes the previous (English) edition of the Lectionary got them right! Bottom Line: mandatory, indulgenced, liturgical texts shouldn’t be sold; they should be freely available to all Catholics.

—Jeff Ostrowski

The Breviary in the Life of the Laity

Recently I have been enjoying looking through the inaugural (1927) edition of a 20th-century liturgical magazine called Orate Fratres. The July 1927 issue included an excellent article by a Chicago laywoman named Ellen Gates Starr entitled “The Delights of the Breviary: From the Point of View of a Lay Woman.” As we in the 21st century have recently undergone a (blessed!) re-translation of the missal into English, and as we await with joyful hope (please God, before Jesus comes back!) a similar re-translation of the breviary, the opening of her article reminded me of that old saying, “the more things change, the more they stay the same.” Nearly a hundred years ago, she penned words that could just as easily have been written today: “It is indeed a privilege to be allowed any participation, however slight, in the liturgical movement in the Church – the movement to bring back the classics of devotion, the Missal and the Breviary, into general use by the laity. The wonder is that they should ever have fallen into disuse. Nothing can take the place of these great universal prayers of the Church, the prayers of the Mass and the divine Office. One has only to know them to find them indispensable. And alas, how few of the laity know them!” I know that I have been tremendously nourished by regular praying of the breviary as of late, and my wish is that you and I, dear reader, may continue to nourish our interior lives with the official prayer of the Church, which present to us (in the Mass) and extend (in the Office) the fullness of Christ’s greatest gift to us – the gift of Himself – in the Most Holy Eucharist.

—Daniel Tucker

Principles vs Preferences

I ran into this idea recently: principles vs. preferences in planning out a curriculum or music lineup. In this idea, it is imperative to not misconstrue personal preferences into principles—that the music (or subject matter) is great because: “I have good taste, and I like it.” De gustibus… Education, study and docility to the Magisterium of the Church on matters of liturgical music must be present in those who make the music at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Hours. Who knows? Maybe you might start to prefer the music that is fitting according to the principles Catholic Sacred Music?

—William J. Fritz

Liquescent Notes in the Official Edition

The official edition—the EDITIO VATICANA itself—is somewhat inconsistent when it comes to liquescent notes. If you wish to see a perfect “apples-to-apples” comparison, click here. Such “inconsistency” was not owing to ignorance on the part of Abbat Pothier: the manuscripts themselves are inconsistent when it comes to liquescent notes.

—Jeff Ostrowski

Had the Church never spoken on this matter, it would still be repugnant to our Catholic people’s sense of what is fit and proper in the holiest of places, that a priest should have to struggle through the prayers of the Holy Mass, because of such tunes as “Alice, where art thou?” the “Vacant Chair,” and others of more vulgar title, which, through the carelessness or bad judgment of organists, sometimes find their way into our choirs.

— Preface to a Roman Catholic Hymnal (1896)

Subscribe

It greatly helps us if you subscribe to our mailing list!

About Jeff Ostrowski