Or Fr Weber's, and then you have a choice of four, from very simple to masterly adaptation of the Graduale.

I agree with Felipe. The propers are the domain of the choir-schola-cantor. Except for the responsorial psalm and the alleluya - and, let me stress that the psalm and alleluya ARE propers and should be treated as such. They form a distinct set of five liturgical pieces that change with the day, just as the ordinary forms a distinct set of pieces that do not change. The current fashion for composing 'introits' and 'communions' that have a semi-elaborate 'antiphon' for choir, followed by an easy one for the people, followed by psalm verses, etc., is a bizarre invention made of whole cloth which turns all the propers into hybrid antiphonal-responsories which correspond to nothing historically or formally identifiable with any of the propers.

I was reading earlier today about Thos. Merton, who said to some of his Anglican friends something on the order of 'I hope that you can preserve our heritage because we are throwing so much of it away'. And this, of course, was several years before The Council. Which brings us to nowadays - some of us are striving to restore the propers, except that some of us are not restoring the propers but refashioning them beyond recognition.
________________________

Also, I will join my voice with Felipe's in commending Bruce Ford's American Gradual. As Felipe points out, there as yet exists no 'official' translation of the GR propers, though it is official (see GIRM) that they may be sung in Latin or an English translation. This should not, then, prevent any who desire from using any of several English adaptations that are available - and, as per Thos. Merton's concern just above, it falls to an Anglican to do this. The American Gradual is a superbly adapted work in a very good modern English. There is nothing to prevent any of us from using it - at least nothing that issues from genuine authority ('genuine authority' being that which is in conformity to popes and councils). For those who take their chant really seriously, the five line staff and note heads are a serious disappointment. Still I would recommend the American Gradual without reservation.

The other English adaptation of the GR propers is Palmer-Burgess' The Plainchant Gradual (available as a reprint from the CMAA thanks to the Anglican sisters of St Mary's, Wantage). The English is traditional Anglican liturgical English, so this may be jarring juxtaposed to modern Roman liturgical English. For some, this may not be a discouragement.

At Walsingham we sing the Palmer-Burgess propers at high mass every Sunday and solemnity. Our people are attentive, deeply appreciative, and almost spellbound - and liberal with their compliments. Those who chortle that such fare is not for the people are deeply flawed, objectively disordered, in their judgment. As always, it isn't what the people are capable of or will appreciate, but what cultural sensitivity their leadership (clergy and musicians) wish to and will cultivate.

Many thanks, Adam, for putting this up here.
I would note that the generous prefatorial offerings will prove exciting to some who have liturgical Anglophilia. Amongst other things, it is noted who, how many, and from where the propers should be intoned. For some of them this means boys vested in copes. The Gradual is referred to, in accordance with Sarum and historical English usage, as the 'Grail'. It is good to have this in the electronic mode so that it can be readily copied. However, one should also be the proud possessor of The Plainchant Gradual in normal book form. It is available for not too much treasure from the CMAA. Thanks again, Adam, for putting this up!

The 'problem' of the whole congregation singing the proper is a rather new-fangled one. It is exemplified in several forms. Some are now writing and publishing introits and communions (I alluded to this above) which follow this formal scheme: a) moderately elaborate 'antiphon' by schola, b) simple version of 'antiphon' sung by people, c) psalm verse(s) by schola or cantor, d) people's simple version of antiphon, e) schola's version of 'antiphon'. (It should be noted that these 'antiphons' are really responsories in a basically responsorial structure.) Such a formal scheme for introits and communions can only have been the result of a night mare. It arises from the pernicious notion that the people absolutely must participate vocally in everything. It obviously savages the historic formal pattern of both the introit and the communion antiphons - effectively turning what has historically been a processional antiphonal chant into a responsorial chant with two responsories (not antiphons) for two different groups of people. Quite an interesting invention. Further, historically, the responsorial propers (Gradual/psalm, and alleluya) have been essentially meditative, while the antiphonal ones (introit, offertory, communion) are essentially processional. Another cavalier application of unfortunate surgery which produces a curiously deformed species vastly different from the original subject which had such a venerable pedigree. All in a trendy rush to involve the people in a chant which is, properly, the domain of the schola or choir.

Another version of what we might call 'congregational propers' is the so called hymn-tune propers. Maybe they should be called 'hymn propers', for that is what they are. In this format the proper antiphon and the psalm verses are put into metrical form and sung by all to a hymn tune. I think the idea was that this would sneak in the propers at those churches at which the priest would not allow them to be sung but, rather, insisted on hymns. This is an interesting approach which satisfies the desire of some for 'hymns' and introduces at least a literary-thematic vestige of the propers into the mass. Indeed, I have long held that where hymns are firmly ensconced they should be chosen to mirror the propers or the theme of the lectionary. This serves that end quite nicely. I believe that some of our forumites have composed a number of these. Perhaps they could tell us what the reception has been.

The same has been done, I think, with the offertory antiphon: putting the antiphon and verses into metrical verse for to be sung with hymn tunes. Some of the results are beautiful. And, far more honest than mussing up historic chant forms. AND! It is SO refreshing that SOMEONE hasn't forgotten the orphaned offertory and tossed it overboard, which some of our chant people seem to have done.

Hmmm. Maybe, Viola, there is a mustard seed of an idea here. Since you are required to have the congregation participate vocally in these antiphons, try this (and it ought to be easily done since you are singing everything to psalm tones): Namely, you have an opportunity to actually sing these propers antiphonally as they properly should be. Have everyone sing the antiphon, then have the choir sing one verse, then the congregation sing one verse, repeat verses similarly as long as needed, and end up with all singing the antiphon. This is true antiphonal (as opposed to responsorial) singing. Too (and this if you really want to go the full mile) instead of alternating choir and congregation, alternate gospel side of nave with epistle side of nave. This could be quite engaging and a pleasing accomplishment for your people. This would be far, far, better than the invented responsory with two responsories, one for choir and one for people, that I railed against above. It would, in fact, restore these antiphonal chants to their ancient mode of performance, a highly desirable goal, rather than making two-headed responsories out of them.

Does congregational singing of the propers mean all of every proper? That reminds me of the CCD teacher (years ago) who insisted that all the music at the First Holy Communion Mass had to be sung by everyone. (No cantor, unless a child, for the Psalm; spoken Alleluia; soloist was told she couldn't sing Schubert's Ave Maria unless all the children sang, too..... pastor and common sense prevailed)

Actually, with a smaller congregation, more Psalm singing (chanting) can work. When I took over at OLW, we were already using Anglican chant for the Gradual, with it printed in the worship aid. The whole congregation sang along. This extended, at least while I was there, as Fr. Moore preferred, to the Alleluia and an occasional Introit. I added Antiphons to the Gradual verses, but only sung at the beginning and end, as at the Office, rather than interrupt the Psalm verses. The Alleluia was always Gregorian chant with Anglican chant verses. The occasional Introit involved alternation of Anglican and Gregorian chant tones for added variety. This worked quite well before the much larger church was built and the choir migrated up into the loft. The alternation of Gregorian and Anglican chant in the Introit is something that I have carried on to our High Masses here at Stella Maris.

all the music... had to be sung by everyone... spoken Alleluia

That doesn't follow.

I should.