An Interview on the Propers of the Mass

[liturgyluver]

Broadly “propers” can refer to any of the changing parts of Mass:

Proper chants (Introit, Alleluia/Tract, Sequence if there is one, Offertory, Communion)
Readings, including Psalm
Proper prayers (Collect, Super Oblata, Postcommunion, Prayer “over the People” during Lent)

But when used by itself, the word “Propers” is usually understood to mean the Proper chants, liturgical texts in themselves, which are almost never used. They are almost always extracts from Scripture of varying length and so, in a certain poetic way, really are, collectively, readings in themselves.

The major complaint with not using them usually stems around the idea that not having the Propers in Mass, at least in some form, is akin to stripping the Mass of the readings and replacing them with poems or stories, or randomly omitting things like the Gloria and the Sanctus. No one would ever think of doing that–wait…–since these things are integral parts of the Mass, and it would always be an impoverishment to replace these parts with randomly-composed other things.

Not really. Before Vatican II they were only ever chanted at High Mass, no sign of them at all at low mass. In any case because they changed each week and translations were rarely provided, there is little nostalgia from those who remember them to be restored. Besides, the GIRM allows for them to be licitly replaced in the OF. A translation is
normally included in the missellete.

 

[jwinch2]

What are the propers?

b16schola.org/what-are-the-propers/

 

[YoungTradCath]

Not really. Before Vatican II they were only ever chanted at High Mass, no sign of them at all at low mass. In any case because they changed each week and translations were rarely provided, there is little nostalgia from those who remember them to be restored.

Sure, there are Proper chants at every EF Mass. If they are not sung then they are recited. Recited Propers is what I was alluding to when I said “at least in some form…”

Also, I’m not sure what you mean by, “In any case because they changed every week and translations were rarely provided, there is little nostalgia…” Why does the fact that the Propers change lessen anyone’s nostalgia (I accept that term because we are talking about period use) for them? Does the fact that the readings or proper prayers change at least as often make people like them less? I don’t quite understand how the rate of change has any bearing on anyone’s liking them.

 

[jwinch2]

I agree with Cat and find the “knock it off” comment discourteous. Cat raised legitimate questions and the questions were not written in an accusing manner but rather a questioning manner.

I find being accused of accusing priests and bishops of disobedience and leading people away from the Church, when restating something which multiple popes have said discourteous. I also find being admonished to “think carefully” about someone’s questions and having the questions written in the manner that one would speak to a 5 year old discourteous.

I found the post I responded to to be incredibly accusatory and condescending, not to mention completely out of touch with what I posted in the first place, or I would not have responded in the manner in which I did. I read it multiple times before I responded. In fact, I even walked away from my computer for a time and asked someone else to read it before replying. Upon seeing the post, their response was “wow, that was uncalled for”. In addition, I have read it multiple times since further explanations have been offered. I still find it to be accusatory and condescending.

I’ll make the same offer I made to Cat, you can have the last word.

 

[Sirach2]

Q. Are the “propers” part of the Roman Missal 3?
If so, are they obligatory?

If not, then isn’t this a futile argument about something over which one has no control, liturgically speaking? [Other than nostalgia for that which is not being practiced according to one’s personal preference … ]

If it is only applicable to the TLM, I never hear ‘propers’ at any of the papal masses or solemn liturgies celebrated here in the US by our bishops, so why such avid defensiveness?

 

[liturgyluver]

Sure, there are Proper chants at every EF Mass. If they are not sung then they are recited. Recited Propers is what I was alluding to when I said “at least in some form…”

Also, I’m not sure what you mean by, “In any case because they changed every week and translations were rarely provided, there is little nostalgia…” Why does the fact that the Propers change lessen anyone’s nostalgia (I accept that term because we are talking about period use) for them? Does the fact that the readings or proper prayers change at least as often make people like them less? I don’t quite understand how the rate of change has any bearing on anyone’s liking them.

Sorry, I didn’t explain myself very well. I meant in comparison to the congregational Ordinary (like the Missa De Angelis, Missa Orbis Facto) Credo, and Sursum Corda dialogue that became fixed in people’s minds and hearts because of regular recitation, unlike the Propers.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Q. Are the “propers” part of the Roman Missal 3?
If so, are they obligatory?

If not, then isn’t this a futile argument about something over which one has no control, liturgically speaking? [Other than nostalgia for that which is not being practiced according to one’s personal preference … ]

If it is only applicable to the TLM, I never hear ‘propers’ at any of the papal masses or solemn liturgies celebrated here in the US by our bishops, so why such avid defensiveness?

Yes, the Propers are very much part of the Roman Missal 3/Roman Rite (OF and EF) and basically every other Rite of the Latin Church ever.

How can we be nostalgic for something that we did not experience and was never taken from us?

The Propers are present not only in the TLM, but also in the OF.

The Propers are used at practically every Papal Mass celebrated in Rome, and are used to a greater or lesser extent at Papal Masses abroad.

Actually, if you watch recent episcopal ordinations/installations you will see that very many of them feature the Propers.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Sorry, I didn’t explain myself very well. I meant in comparison to the congregational Ordinary (like the Missa De Angelis, Missa Orbis Facto) Credo, and Sursum Corda dialogue that became fixed in people’s minds and hearts because of regular recitation, unlike the Propers.

I’ll concede difficulty, at least in some circumstances. Propers are more difficult to sing that the Ordinary parts, not only because the repertoire is much larger, but because the individual pieces are usually more difficult.

However, that is where things like the vernacular translations being done by groups like CC Watershed come in.

 

[Sirach2]

Yes, the Propers are very much part of the Roman Missal 3/Roman Rite (OF and EF) and basically every other Rite of the Latin Church ever.

How can we be nostalgic for something that we did not experience and was never taken from us?

The Propers are present not only in the TLM, but also in the OF.

The Propers are used at practically every Papal Mass celebrated in Rome, and are used to a greater or lesser extent at Papal Masses abroad.

Actually, if you watch recent episcopal ordinations/installations you will see that very many of them feature the Propers.

I am not aware that an introit, gradual, communion antiphon, etc. are used ordinarily in the OF, although I have heard the communion antiphon used on occasion. When I observe the papal liturgies, I have not observed what you claim. Which “proper” are you speaking about that is used in “practically all” of these masses?

I have the sense that Jason is overly concerned that these are not used routinely, as if their absence renders the liturgy less valid, beautiful, sacred, and according to the rubrics. HIs opinion is validated by a video that is supposed to take us to task, I presume.

 

[Elizium23]

The absence of the propers does not make the Mass less valid or sacred, but it is a matter of preference expressed clearly by the Church documents. You can bicker about clergy disobedience all you want, but the letter and spirit of the law are both clear in the documents from Vatican II and later: the Church prefers the propers. The Church also prefers Latin and the use of organ music, but where have these been in evidence in the past 50 years? The lack of organ and Latin do not make a mass less valid or sacred, yet many, many Latin Catholics are being deprived of our rich patrimony by the omission of all these three things. Let us add two more things: incense and singing the Ordinary. The Church has made incense optional, but there is plenty of evidence in Scripture and Tradition that incense is a vital part of liturgy. Now what about singing? The Ordinary Form Mass has made singing optional, and established a patchwork of preference for which parts can be sung. The ideal is a completely chanted Mass, but how often do we see that ideal? We have to seek out Byzantine liturgy in order to enjoy the wonderful chant that has always been a part of Christianity since the beginning. Scripture and Tradition are also clear about the value of singing to the Lord. We have a Divine Command to sing our praises, so I expect our priests to take up that call and learn how to sing, and do it well, and impart that vigor to the whole assembly.

Now it’s certainly a stretch to say that bishops and priests have been disobedient, and nobody in this thread has said that, so put it out of your mind. But I will proclaim that they have indeed been unfaithful to the patrimony that is rightfully ours. No wonder Traditionalists seek out the Extraordinary Form, where so much of these wonderful elements of liturgy are being put back into place like they were never gone. Personally, I prefer to stay in the mainstream of the Latin Church, and that means celebrating the OF, but I am sensitive to being deprived of patrimony, so I long for Masses that include Propers, organ, Latin, incense, and a sung Ordinary.

 

[Sirach2]

The absence of the propers does not make the Mass less valid or sacred, but it is a matter of preference expressed clearly by the Church documents. You can bicker about clergy disobedience all you want, but the letter and spirit of the law are both clear in the documents from Vatican II and later: the Church prefers the propers.

But I will proclaim that they have indeed been unfaithful to the patrimony that is rightfully ours. No wonder Traditionalists seek out the Extraordinary Form, where so much of these wonderful elements of liturgy are being put back into place like they were never gone. I am sensitive to being deprived of patrimony, so I long for Masses that include Propers, organ, Latin, incense, and a sung Ordinary.

Let’s be clear, ok? When a traditionist labels a part of the liturgy a “proper,” are you speaking the same language as the Church today is calling these “presidential prayers?” Your terminology is probably foreign to some of us who do not attend the EF mass. As a traditionist, what propers do you believe you are being deprived of in the OF liturgy, which many of us recognize by using the present liturgical language, such as collect, responsorial psalm, alleluia verse, prayer over the gifts, etc.

You admitted that the propers (so-called) are clearly a matter of preference. So how can you say that our priests are unfaithful to your rightful patrimony? This statement renders a rather harsh judgment upon the clergy.

 

[Elizium23]

The Proper Antiphons which are preferred to be sung in place of hymns at the following points: Introit, Offertory, Communio.

If the Church prefers the Propers over sung Hymns and the standard liturgical practice is to throw out the Propers 99% of the time, then there is a disconnect, a clear misunderstanding of the mind of the Church.

 

[Sirach2]

The Proper Antiphons which are preferred to be sung in place of hymns at the following points: Introit, Offertory, Communio.

If the Church prefers the Propers over sung Hymns and the standard liturgical practice is to throw out the Propers 99% of the time, then there is a disconnect, a clear misunderstanding of the mind of the Church.

That was my understanding of the word. Thank you. However, it brings us back to the fact that it is an optional preference - one that is unfamiliar to those who worship in the OF. Many would not even know where to find this in the missalette. I seriously take issue with you that it is the “mind of the Church.” Can you give a source, especially since it is an “option?” If it is clearly Her “mind” then there should be no option whatsoever, but a clear directive to use the propers at all times.

 

[aemcpa]

I have the sense that Jason is overly concerned that these are not used routinely, as if their absence renders the liturgy less valid, beautiful, sacred, and according to the rubrics.

You thought you could get away with hiding the word “beautiful” among the other terms with which you mean to paint Jason as legalistic.

Yes, the music used at most Masses IS less beautiful than Gregorian chant, and that IS a real concern.

 

[Elizium23]

48. This chant is sung alternately by the choir and the people or similarly by a cantor and the people, or entirely by the people, or by the choir alone. In the Dioceses of the United States of America, there are four options for the Entrance Chant: (1) the antiphon from the Missal or the antiphon with its Psalm from the Graduale Romanum, as set to music there or in another setting; (2) the antiphon and Psalm of the Graduale Simplex for the liturgical time; (3) a chant from another collection of Psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including Psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) another liturgical chant that is suited to the sacred action, the day, or the time of year, similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.

1. In the Dioceses of the United States of America, there are four options for singing at Communion: (1) the antiphon from the Missal or the antiphon with its Psalm from the Graduale Romanum, as set to music there or in another musical setting; (2) the antiphon with Psalm from the Graduale Simplex of the liturgical time; (3) a chant from another collection of Psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including Psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) some other suitable liturgical chant (cf. no. 86) approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop. This is sung either by the choir alone or by the choir or a cantor with the people.

Communion Antiphon with Psalms
Hymns versus the actual antiphons designated for Mass in the Roman Rite

 

[Sirach2]

You thought you could get away with hiding the word “beautiful” among the other terms with which you mean to paint Jason as legalistic.

Yes, the music used at most Masses IS less beautiful than Gregorian chant, and that IS a real concern.

Whoa! This thread is getting very testy, isn’t it?

Let’s look again, please.

Jwinch2:

I can find zero evidence that Vatican II ever called for the removal of the Propers from the Mass in the first place. In addition, I see their restoration as intrinsic to the call of Vatican II to place more emphasis on the Bible in the Liturgy.

While we’re using paintbrushes, do you agree that Vatican II calls for the restoration of the Propers, as being intrinsic to emphasize the bible in liturgy?
Many are very grateful that there is an expanded use of scripture, including the psalms. How often the Old Testment reading sheds greater light on the gospel.

Bear in mind that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You are certainly entitled to your opinion that chant IS more beautiful, but then, others are entitled to their opinions, which may or may not agree with yours. Liturgy is Divine worship, and God alone sees the intent of the heart and the purity of its adoration, even in the most humble of circumstances.

 

[aemcpa]

While we’re using paintbrushes, do you agree that Vatican II calls for the restoration of the Propers, as being intrinsic to emphasize the bible in liturgy?

Many are very grateful that there is an expanded use of scripture, including the psalms. How often the Old Testment reading sheds greater light on the gospel.

Bear in mind that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You are certainly entitled to your opinion that chant IS more beautiful, but then, others are entitled to their opinions, which may or may not agree with yours. Liturgy is Divine worship, and God alone sees the intent of the heart and the purity of its adoration, even in the most humble of circumstances.

Vatican II did not call for the restoration of the propers because it never contemplated their elimination.

The Gradual is almost always a section of a Psalm, so the responsorial Psalm added nothing to the liturgy in terms of Biblical patrimony. Rather, abandoning the other proper chants in favor of hymns reduces the overall use of the Bible in the Mass and obscures the connection between the Scriptures and the Mass.

I do agree that the addition of the second reading, thus allowing more of the Scriptures (and more of the Old Testament) to be read, is beneficial in the whole, but the Psalms were more prominent in the Mass when the propers were regularly used.

Many documents of the Church have denounced the false notion that beauty in music and art as subjective, and have proposed Gregorian chant as the standard against which all music should be measured when determining suitability for use in the liturgy. This is not a matter of opinion or taste, and it is not an issue of EF vs. OF.

 

[Sirach2]

Hymns versus the actual antiphons designated for Mass in the Roman Rite

I suppose I am to consider this your response to my asking you for a source proving the “mind of the Church” is to use Propers? And pray tell, why would I value the single opinion of a traditionalist priest, a trad like yourself … rather than look for the source from those entrusted with liturgical practices in our dioceses? Hmmm? How about an official “Church” source directing us to use Propers as the only option, rather than an elective.

 

[Sirach2]

Vatican II did not call for the restoration of the propers because it never contemplated their elimination.

That’s very true. There is no such article. Vatican II did not call for anything specific such as this, except to appoint a Commission to undertake the liturgical reforms that the Councilors agreed upon as being called for by the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, people do a scant reading of the documents, and if they cannot find a particular paragraph in a document that backs up their notion, they project this type of false premise, “Vatican II did not say (thus and so…)”

 

[Elizium23]

Sacrosanctum Concilium

116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.

1. The typical edition of the books of Gregorian chant is to be completed; and a more critical edition is to be prepared of those books already published since the restoration by St. Pius X.

It is desirable also that an edition be prepared containing simpler melodies, for use in small churches.

1. Religious singing by the people is to be intelligently fostered so that in devotions and sacred exercises, as also during liturgical services, the voices of the faithful may ring out according to the norms and requirements of the rubrics.

What does Sacrosanctum Concilium 116 really say?
WDTPRS:

This isn’t a bad translation, but it is weak. To my ear it doesn’t convey the force of the vocabulary which sounds like legal language having to do with property, possession, heredity. This is a powerful declaration about something being a prized possession, even the most prized of all, since it is in the “princeps locus” the “first/chief/most distinguished place”.

Proper antiphons are in Gregorian Chant. Propers translated to English are not, strictly speaking, in Gregorian Chant itself, but still in plainchant in the tradition of the Gregorian patrimony. The Church is exceedingly clear on this point: Gregorian Chant has pride of place. The practice in the past 50 years has been the polar opposite of this: Gregorian Chant was “on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard’.”