• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

Pope Saint Paul VI (3 April 1969): “Although the text of the Roman Gradual—at least that which concerns the singing—has not been changed, the Entrance antiphons and Communions antiphons have been revised for Masses without singing.”

  • Donate
  • Our Team
    • Our Editorial Policy
    • Who We Are
    • How To Contact Us
    • Sainte Marie Bulletin Articles
    • Jeff’s Mom Joins Fundraiser
  • Pew Resources
    • Brébeuf Catholic Hymnal
    • Jogues Illuminated Missal
    • KYRIALE • Saint Antoine Daniel
    • Campion Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Repository • “Spanish Music”
    • Ordinary Form Feasts (Sainte-Marie)
  • MUSICAL WEBSITES
    • René Goupil Gregorian Chant
    • Noël Chabanel Psalms
    • Nova Organi Harmonia (2,279 pages)
    • Roman Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Catechism of Gregorian Rhythm
    • Father Enemond Massé Manuscripts
    • Lalemant Polyphonic
  • Miscellaneous
    • Site Map
    • Secrets of the Conscientious Choirmaster
    • “Wedding March” for lazy organists
    • Emporium Kevin Allen
    • Saint Jean de Lalande Library
    • Sacred Music Symposium 2023
    • The Eight Gregorian Modes
    • Gradual by Pothier’s Protégé
    • Seven (7) Considerations
Views from the Choir Loft

Free Communion Antiphons!

Andrew R. Motyka · March 27, 2013

t’s Holy Week again, which means that music directors the world around have very little spare time to do important things like write blog entries. Therefore, I am copying an article I wrote for Corpus Christi Watershed 2 years ago. It’s not plagiarism if I copy my own work, right?

Laudate Dominum Communion Antiphons

I had been working on the project that was to become Laudate Dominum Communion Antiphons for about two years when my wife and I decided to go live with the project. I didn’t realize that within a day I would receive an invitation from Jeff Ostrowski to write an entry for Corpus Christi Watershed discussing the project. The project stems from a pastoral need in my own church for liturgically worthy yet simple music for the Communion rite in the Ordinary Form, but it originally began as an attempt to reconcile two seemingly contradictory demands of Communion music that are found in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM).

That the GIRM puts the antiphons in the Graduale Romanum and the Missal in the first option for Communion music is well known, as is the tendency of most parishes to use the fourth option, “some other liturgical chant” (GIRM 87). Whether the order chosen in the GIRM is hierarchical or arbitrary is irrelevant in this case; it is not my job to rehash The Liturgy Wars™. What is clear from both the GIRM and almost all previous musical legislation is that Gregorian Chant is to have pride of place in the liturgy. If we are to follow the letter of the GIRM, however, #87 needs to be tempered with #86: that the Communion chant’s “purpose [is] to express the spiritual union of the communicants by means of the unity of their voices, to show gladness of heart, and to bring out more clearly the “communitarian” character of the procession to receive the Eucharist.” The proper chants found in the Graduale Romanum are, for the most part, too difficult for the average lay person to sing, yet the GIRM expresses the desire for the congregation to sing at this part of the Mass. One way to reconcile these two desires is to simplify the Communion antiphons and their music, especially placing them in a responsorial style (which they are anyway). A short, simple response is good congregational music should the communicants want to sing. They require no hymnal or worship aid for reference while approaching the Blessed Sacrament, and still keep the Word of God in the mouths of the faithful. Responsorial antiphons were surely the way to go.

Where does that leave the proper music in the Gradual? Well, one principle of music by which I live is that the closer a particular piece of music approaches the Gregorian chant proper to a particular instance of the Mass, the more appropriate it is for that moment. More specifically, if the chant itself is not being used, the music becomes more appropriate if it approaches the chant melodically and textually. Laudate Dominum Communion Antiphons attempt to stay closely related to the chant in two ways. First, each antiphon is a translation of the proper taken from the 1974 Graduale Romanum. Often these antiphons have had to be abridged so to make them short enough to remember in procession without an aid. Unlike the Graduale Romanum, the English antiphons come with the full text of the psalm verses that are appropriate for the antiphon. Second, each antiphon corresponds with its mate in the Gradual not on textually, but modally. Each antiphon is set in the same mode as its Latin cousin. This allows the Laudate Dominum Communion Antiphons to be used not only as a substitute for the proper chant, but also in conjunction with them. When choosing a starting pitch, make sure it uses the same final as the English setting. After singing through the chant, a cantor introduces the English antiphon, and a cantor/choir and the congregation alternate singing verse and antiphon until the reception of Holy Communion is complete. Each Laudate Dominum Communion Antiphon includes the doxology for a final verse, but in this case I omit the English doxology and sing the Latin one from the Gradual instead. Then the schola repeats the chanted antiphon. In this way, a parish can use a schola to chant the propers of the Mass and still conform to GIRM #86. Of course, the English antiphons can be used on their own if your parish is not ready to chant the Latin antiphons. These options provide a good way to get “from here to there.”

Laudate Dominum Communion Antiphons can be found for free at www.communionantiphons.org. I came up with the idea for composing them from several different sources. First, Christoph Tietze’s excellent paraphrases in his Introit Hymns gave me the motivation to explore other ways of using the propers of the Mass in English and in a simple setting. Shortly thereafter I discovered the renowned Chabanel Psalms right here at Corpus Christi Watershed. It was Jeff’s own blank staff at the bottom of one psalm saying “compose your own” that got me started. I tried it and said, “it certainly isn’t Jeff’s scholarly compositional method, but I can do this,” and off I went. My later involvement with the Church Music Association of America, both online and at their conference, turned me on to the value of publishing free music online. If I truly see the value in a musical project, why should I hamper distribution by charging money for it? Lastly, the grace of God has given me both the will to continue composing this large number of antiphons, as well as the serendipitous realization of the implications of using the matching modes for each antiphon. I originally started composing in each antiphon’s respective mode just to give me a musical framework for each antiphon. It wasn’t until a few months later that I realized the possibilities of using the English antiphons in conjunction with the Latin ones.

I would like to thank Jeff Ostrowski and Corpus Christi Watershed for giving me the space to “plug” my work on their website. I also would like to thank my wife and webmistress, Julie, for supporting me through this whole thing and for patiently hearing time and time again, “how do you think this sounds?” I hope these antiphons can be of use to you and your parish. After all, did I mention they’re free?

Laudate Dominum Communion Antiphons

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

Filed Under: Articles Last Updated: January 1, 2020

Subscribe

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

* indicates required

About Andrew R. Motyka

Andrew Motyka is the Archdiocesan Director of Liturgical Music and Cathedral Music for the Archdiocese of Indianapolis.—(Read full biography).

Primary Sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

President’s Corner

    PDF Comparison Chart • “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”
    EARS BEFORE truly revolutionary changes were introduced by the post-conciliar reformers, Evelyn Waugh wrote (on 16 August 1964) to John Cardinal Heenan: “I think that a vociferous minority has imposed itself on the hierarchy and made them believe that a popular demand existed where there was in fact not even a preference.” We ask the kind reader— indeed, we beg you—to realize that those of us born in the 1940s and 1950s had no cognizance of Roman activities during the 1960s and 1970s. We were concerned with making sure we had the day’s bus fare, graduating from high school, taking care of our siblings, learning a trade, getting a job, courting a spouse. We questioned neither the nuns nor the Church.1 Do not believe for one instant any of us were following the liturgical machinations of Cardinal Lercaro or Father Bugnini in real time. Setting The Stage • To never question or resist Church authorities is praiseworthy. On the other hand, when a scandalous situation persists for decades, it must be brought into focus. Our series will do precisely that as we discuss the Lectionary Scandal from a variety of angles. We don’t do this to attack the Catholic Church. Our goal is bringing to light what’s been going on, so it can be fixed once and for all. Our subject is extremely knotty and difficult to navigate. Its complexity helps explain why the situation has persisted for such a long time.2 But if we immediately get “into the weeds” we’ll lose our audience. Therefore, it seems better to jump right in. So today, we’ll explore the legality of selling these texts. A Word On Copyright • Suppose Susie modifies a paragraph by Edgar Allan Poe. That doesn’t mean ipso facto she can assert copyright on it. If Susie takes a picture of a Corvette and uses Photoshop to color the tires blue, that doesn’t mean she henceforth “owns” all Corvettes in America. But when it comes to Responsorial Psalm translations, certain parties have been asserting copyright over them, selling them for a profit, and bullying publishers vis-à-vis hymnals and missals. Increasingly, Catholics are asking whether these translations are truly under copyright—because they are identical (or substantially identical) to other translations.3 Example After Example • Our series will provide copious examples supporting our claims. Sometimes we’ll rely on the readership for assistance, because—as we’ve stressed—our subject’s history couldn’t be more convoluted. There are countless manuscripts (in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin) we don’t have access to, so it would be foolish for us to claim that our observations are somehow the ‘final word’ on anything. Nevertheless, we demand accountability. Catholics in the pews are the ones who paid for all this. We demand to know who specifically made these decisions (which impact every English-speaking Catholic) and why specifically certain decisions were made. The Responsorial Psalms used in America are—broadly speaking—stolen from the hard work of others. In particular, they borrowed heavily from Father Cuthbert Lattey’s 1939 PSALTER TRANSLATION:
    *  PDF Download • COMPARISON CHART —We thank the CCW staff for technical assistance with this graph.
    Analysis • Although certain parties have been selling (!!!) that translation for decades, the chart demonstrates it’s not a candidate for copyright since it “borrows” or “steals” or “rearranges” so much material from other translations, especially the 1939 translation by Father Cuthbert Lattey. What this means in layman’s terms is that individuals have been selling a translation under false pretenses, a translation they don’t own (although they claim to). To make RESTITUTION, all that money will have to be returned. A few years ago, the head of ICEL gave a public speech in which he said they give some of “their” profits to the poor. While almsgiving is a good thing, it cannot justify theft. Our Constant Theme • Our series will be held together by one thread, which will be repeated constantly: “Who was responsible?” Since 1970, the conduct of those who made a profit by selling these sacred texts has been repugnant. Favoritism was shown toward certain entities—and we will document that with written proof. It is absolutely essential going forward that the faithful be told who is making these decisions. Moreover, vague justifications can no longer be accepted. If we’re told they are “making the translations better,” we must demand to know what specifically they’re doing and what specific criteria they’re following. Stay Tuned • If you’re wondering whether we’ll address the forthcoming (allegedly) Lectionary and the so-called ABBEY PSALMS AND CANTICLES, have no fear. We’ll have much to say about both. Please stay tuned. We believe this will end up being the longest series of articles ever submitted to Corpus Christi Watershed. To be continued. ROBERT O’NEILL Former associate of Monsignor Francis “Frank” P. Schmitt at Boys Town in Nebraska JAMES ARNOLD Formerly associated w/ King’s College, Cambridge A convert to the Catholic Church, and distant relative of J. H. Arnold MARIA B. Currently serves as a musician in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte. Those aware of the situation in her diocese won’t be surprised she chose to withhold her last name.
    1 Even if we’d been able to obtain Roman journals such as NOTITIAE, none of them contained English translations. But such an idea would never have occurred to a high school student or a college student growing up in the 1960s. 2 A number of shell corporations claim to own the various biblical translations mandated for Roman Catholics. They’ve made millions of dollars selling (!) these indulgenced texts. If time permits, we hope to enumerate these various shell corporations and explain: which texts they claim to own; how much they bring in each year; who runs them; and so forth. It would also be good to explore the morality of selling these indulgenced texts for a profit. Furthermore, for the last fifty years these organizations have employed several tactics to manipulate and bully others. If time permits, we will expose those tactics (including written examples). Some of us—who have been working on this problem for three decades—have amassed written documentation we’ll be sharing that demonstrates behavior at best “shady” and at worst criminal. 3 Again, we are not yet examining the morality of selling (!) indulgenced texts to Catholics mandated to use those same translations.
    —Guest Author
    “Music List” • 17th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
    Some have expressed interest in perusing the ORDER OF MUSIC I prepared for the 17th Sunday in Ordinary Time (27 July 2025). If such a thing interests you, feel free to download it as a PDF file. As always, the Responsorial Psalm, Gospel Acclamation, and Mass Propers for this Sunday are conveniently stored at the the feasts website.
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    Communion • “Ask & You Shall Receive”
    All of the chants for 27 July 2025 have been added to the feasts website, as usual under a convenient “drop down” menu. The COMMUNION ANTIPHON (both text and melody) are exceedingly beautiful and ancient.
    —Jeff Ostrowski

Quick Thoughts

    Pope Pius XII Hymnal?
    Have you ever heard of the Pope Pius XII Hymnal? It’s a real book, published in the United States in 1959. Here’s a sample page so you can verify with your own eyes it existed.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    “Hybrid” Chant Notation?
    Over the years, many have tried to ‘simplify’ plainsong notation. The O’Fallon Propers attempted to simplify the notation—but ended up making matters worse. Dr. Karl Weinmann tried to do the same in the time of Pope Saint Pius X by replacing each porrectus. You can examine a specimen from his edition and see whether you agree he complicated matters. In particular, look at what he did with éxsules fílii Hévae.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    Antiphons Don’t Match?
    A reader wants to know why the Entrance and Communion antiphons in certain publications deviate from what’s prescribed by the GRADUALE ROMANUM published after Vatican II. Click here to read our answer. The short answer is: the Adalbert Propers were never intended to be sung. They were intended for private Masses only (or Masses without music). The “Graduale Parvum,” published by the John Henry Newman Institute of Liturgical Music in 2023, mostly uses the Adalbert Propers—but sometimes uses the GRADUALE text: e.g. Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul (29 June).
    —Corpus Christi Watershed

Random Quote

Dom Vitry never claimed chant could not be used successfully with English words. No one need take my word for it. He was a pioneer on the matter of vernacular adaptation, and I need only refer you to the many publications of his own “Fides Jubilans” press. What he said was that adaptation involved some mutilation, and that we were faced with one or the other.

— Monsignor Francis P. Schmitt (1963)

Recent Posts

  • PDF Comparison Chart • “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”
  • “Music List” • 17th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
  • Flor Peeters In A Weird Mood?
  • Communion • “Ask & You Shall Receive”
  • Jeff’s Mother Joins Our Fundraiser

Subscribe

Subscribe

* indicates required

Copyright © 2025 Corpus Christi Watershed · Isaac Jogues on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Corpus Christi Watershed is a 501(c)3 public charity dedicated to exploring and embodying as our calling the relationship of religion, culture, and the arts. This non-profit organization employs the creative media in service of theology, the Church, and Christian culture for the enrichment and enjoyment of the public.

The election of Pope Leo XIV has been exciting, and we’re filled with hope for our apostolate’s future!

But we’re under pressure to transfer our website to a “subscription model.”

We don’t want to do that. We believe our website should remain free to all.

Our president has written the following letter:

President’s Message (dated 30 May 2025)

Are you able to support us?

clock.png

Time's up