We all know this, but it's one thing on paper and an entirely different thing making this happen in real circumstances. How can we better make this shift without overturning the parish liturgy (and/or our positions?)

I agree, this is an AMAZING statement!

Tucker: "targets motets that replace propers"

Umm, no, I think it is against text-swapping: "motets that are reverent and devout, yet out of keeping with the Mass of the day ... texts must be those of the Mass" has nothing against motets that use the proper text.

The desire for appropriate texts shows up in various ways in
GIRM 1975
GIRM 2000
Liturgiam Authenticam 2001
Redemptionis Sacramentum 2004

and then the USCCB lobbies for modifications to get recognitio (and succeeds!).

The current GIA Quarterly arrived yesterday.

Bob Batastini writes:
"STL reminds us that church legislation today permits the use of vernacular hymns, and then adds "because these popular hymns are fulfilling a properly liturgical role, it is especially important that they be appropriate to the liturgical action" (115d). Hymns as propers, not merely a substitute for them."

There's also a great article featured on the cover on Gregorian Chant called: "SQUARE NOTES, LOOSED TONGUES" by Melissa Musick Nussbaum. Very interesting exposition on Gregorian Chant, very, very timely. It says...oh. It's not about Gregorian Chant at all. Never mind.

Then Anthony Ruff, OSB, writes about the 1955 Musicae Sacrae Disciplina and how Pius XII "also encourages music in a wide variety of styles, stringed instruments (which had been forbidden by Pius X) are now permitted in the liturgy.

[sounds like a justification for guitars to me.]

So then I had to look it up. In Latin:

59. Oltre l'organo vi sono altri strumenti che possono efficacemente venire in aiuto a raggiungere l'alto fine della musica sacra, purché non abbiano nulla di profano, di chiassoso, di rumoroso, cose disdicevoli al sacro rito e alla gravità del luogo. Tra essi vengono in primo luogo il violino e altri strumenti ad arco, i quali, o soli, o insieme con altri strumenti e con l'organo, esprimono con indicibile efficacia i sensi di mestizia o di gioia dell'animo. Del resto, circa le melodie musicali non ammissibili nel culto cattolico, già abbiamo parlato chiaramente nell'enciclica Mediator Dei.

[this, you will find interesting as it is not in the English translation below] "Quando essi nulla abbiano di profano o disdicevole alla santità del luogo e dell'azione liturgica e non vadano in cerca dello stravagante e dello straordinario, abbiano pure accesso nelle nostre chiese, potendo contribuire non poco allo splendore dei sacri riti, a elevare l'animo verso l'alto e a infervorare la vera pietà dell'animo".(20) [end of cut section]

È appena il caso di ammonire che, quando manchino la capacità e i mezzi per tanto impegno, è meglio astenersi da simili tentativi, piuttosto che fare cosa meno degna del culto divino e delle adunanze sacre.

Then, with a start I realized IWASREADINGLATIN! Then I realized it was the Italian...and it is much more beautiful than the English translation.

And it's talking about arco....meaning they were not talking strumming. Not even pizzicato.

59. Besides the organ, other instruments can be called upon to give great help in attaining the lofty purpose of sacred music, so long as they play nothing profane nothing clamorous or strident and nothing at variance with the sacred services or the dignity of the place. Among these the violin and other musical instruments that use the bow are outstanding because, when they are played by themselves or with other stringed instruments or with the organ, they express the joyous and sad sentiments of the soul with an indescribable power. Moreover, in the encyclical Mediator Dei, We Ourselves gave detailed and clear regulations concerning the musical modes that are to be admitted into the worship of the Catholic religion.

The English fails to include a translation for: "Quando essi nulla abbiano di profano o disdicevole alla santità del luogo e dell'azione liturgica e non vadano in cerca dello stravagante e dello straordinario, abbiano pure accesso nelle nostre chiese, potendo contribuire non poco allo splendore dei sacri riti, a elevare l'animo verso l'alto e a infervorare la vera pietà dell'animo".(20

Which reads something like:

"When they have nothing profane or unbecoming to the holiness of the place and of the liturgical action and do not go in search of the bizarre and the extraordinary, and have access in our churches, can contribute greatly to the splendor of the sacred rites, to raise the soul upward enthusiastically and the true piety of mind."(20)

JT: I think you're right; you said nothing of motets!...

Tucker: "not correct that hymns can replace propers ... targets motets that replace propers"

Hymns are SATB, motets are SATB, propers are unison, therefore hymns and motets are not propers.
Sigh. Sorry.

Kathy: "What is the legislative force of the GIRM?"

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

22. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html

CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS
Decree of Confirmation
Prot. N. 2235/02/L

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

At the request of His Excellency, the Most Reverend Wilton D. Gregory, Bishop of Belleville, President of the Conference of Bishops of the United States of America, in a letter of November 13, 2002, and in virtue of the faculties granted to this Congregation by the Supreme Pontiff JOHN PAUL II, we gladly confirm and approve the English translation of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, excerpted from the third typical edition of the same Missal, as in the attached copy.

Two copies of the printed text should be forwarded to this Congregation.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

From the offices of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, March 17, 2003.

Francis Cardinal Arinze
Prefect

Franciscus Pius Tamburrino
Archbishop-Secretary

Ed (eft94530) wrote: "Hymns are SATB, motets are SATB, propers are unison, therefore hymns and motets are not propers."

With respect, the musical setting--number of voices--has nothing to do with it. If it's a setting of the proper text, it's a proper. Byrd's Gradualia is a lovely collection of polyphonic propers. Many other composers have used proper texts in polyphonic settings.

The propers are all about the text. Yes, the Gregorian chant propers are ideal--but I can see no earthly reason why capable ensembles shouldn't sing polyphonic propers.

Mary

Noel Jones asks for an explanation of the two phrases: "all things to the contrary notwithstanding." and "all things being equal."

The Latin for the first is "contrariis quibuslibet rebus non obstantibus," a phrase in canon law, and means that all preceding provisions about the matter are abolished.

The Latin for the second is "ceteris paribus," a "disclaimer frequently needed to qualify otherwise overstated claims, which are thereby qualified to apply only across a normal range of cases. By extension, ceteris paribus laws or generalizations are ones applying only when other things are equal." (see http://www.answers.com/topic/ceteris-paribus)

The latter phrase is often confused with another Latin phrase, "mutatis mutandis," "things having been changed that have to be changed’; that is, with the necessary alterations."

Any clearer?

Ok, just now getting back to this. My remark about motets was off the cuff. I was not suggesting that the Concilium prefers plainsong to polyphony but rather that the proper texts have priority over hymns. MaryMezzo is of course completely correct. I didn't intend to introduce confusion as regards this clear point.

And Kathy, I think everyone has memorized the GIRM by now. That it allows hymns and songs is not unknown. But the revelation (to me anyway) that Bugnini's Consilium itself says that hymns should not displace propers is striking, and provides further evidence in my own mind that there was a strain within the Council and post-Council that had the goal of reducing rather than increasing the status of vernacular hymnody in Mass. To me, this is remarkable, and it provides guidance for future development.

In other words, I'm not arguing that "the liturgical law forbids hymns." That would be a stupid argument. I am arguing that a there was a consistent strain of thought alive during and after the Council that was attempting to do something about the problem of vernacular hymnody replacing the Mass texts themselves. And here we have a clear statement from the architects of the new Mass that hymns over propers is really a way of cheating the people out of their Mass. It is ripping out parts of the Mass and replacing them with something extraneous to the Mass.

Do you see how this turns conventional wisdom on its head?

Well, @Kathy, I assure you that I intended no personal insult. You are not a bad guy. Also, the PBC is filled with hymns, so it is not the case that anyone views hymns are the root of evil. It is simply a matter of the priority and place of proper texts. Should hymns displace propers? That is the issue here, and I think the above suggests that there is a continuing postconciliar strain of thought that suggest that the answer is no. That does not mean that there is no place for hymns.

I can also assure you that the bad vs. good hymns fight is something we all deal with, but this is a fight that is assisted by an emphasis on proper texts. This emphasis gets us away from the decades-old struggle over what many people view as a fight over taste, and I have little hope that the casting of the debate in terms of "my favorites vs. your favorites" is going to get us where we need to be. Good hymnody has a more suitable home in the framework of a liturgy attentive to the liturgical text itself. The further we move away from propers the more we get into a struggle over which radio station we should be listening to or what we should download to our MP3 players. We've been down this road for many long years.

By the way, this bad vs. good hymns issue is something that predates the Council by many long years, and there is strong evidence that the Council itself hoped to get beyond this debate by a new emphasis on proper texts and the priority of singing the Mass. This was the point of my post, however predictably reckless my language may have been.

I completely agree, Kathy and Jeffrey, that you the question is never "hymns or propers?" but "how can we have both the propers and better hymns?"

What I like about advocating the propers strongly is that it changes the terms of discussion. If the propers are put in their rightful place, then the whole issue of hymnody becomes much more manageable. Right now the common practice is hymns hymns hymns (and not really 'hymns', technically) everywhere you turn, which makes weeding that field a very big job. Worse, there are few actionable standards from the Church to act as guides. Result: flummoxed people, and a stably chaotic status quo.

Strong advocacy of the propers right now might help reduce the size of the problem. If we can do that in a way that also promotes excellent hymnody, great. The question is how to do that in a way that doesn't suggest that "all hymnody, all the time" is the best organizing principle?

And let me say this yet again: the issuing concerns the replacement and displacement of propers with hymns. The cheating line is from the Consilium; it is not mine. I don't know how I can make this more clear, save recording it on an MP3.

marymezzo: "musical setting--number of voices--has nothing to do with it"

Exactly.

Jeff T posted his discovery.
Jeff T posted a comment.
I misread his comment and replied about text-swapping.
Jeff T thought he was misunderstood.
I considered the possibility of misunderstanding, re-read his comment,
realized that I had not given the strength deserved to "charming" and "the problem today",
posted my goofy logic which I had read into his comment,
voiced exasperation at myself (Sigh), and apologized (Sorry).
Jeff T further defended himself (which became necessary because I had put words in his mouth).

So here again: Sigh. Sorry.

my take:

Hymnns should NEVER replace Propers. Hymns are good used in THEIR proper place. Hymns are good for other devotions too. This is not about hymns being 'bad' this is about hymns replacing the text of the Mass. That is just plain bad liturgy.

MY THOUGHTS & QUESTIONS

Now back to my question of practical reality. We can talk like this all day long, but Kathy's point is where the rubber meets the road. LEGISLATIVELY has to happen in the Missal. I know the theory inside and out, but getting that to HAPPEN in our parishes is where the machine breaks down. Who has suggestions, ideas and strategy for IMPLEMENTATION?

In my post here, we have moved one of the hymns out of the sandwich by presenting the choir, the schola, a solo, etc. I have not introduced the Offertory Proper as of yet, but now the congregation is used to having the choir sing something at Offertory. Do they REALLY CARE if the text is the proper or not?! NO! They don't have a clue. So the next step is to introduce the Proper. One Proper at a time, slowly and surely. The American Graduale should have been composed BEFORE we took the Mass in the vernacular. Now we have to backpedal. BFW, a wonderful bridge as a solution to the problem. With everything, its the all or nothing mentality that kills any chance of local reform.

What are your thoughts and solutions?

I don't believe the question is, "Can hymns replace propers?" but rather the fact is that hymns have replaced propers. I am slowly beginning the process of reintroducing propers next month, beginning with communion. But the hymns are not going anywhere anytime soon.

Propers booster though I be, if I may interject a point of semantics: I don't think it's fair to say hymns have "replaced" propers; more correctly, hymns are sung "in the place of" propers. Hardly a modern innovation. One hears reports of hymn-like things being sung in the place of the Ordinary chants centuries back here and there. The multivalent approach to liturgy, so striking in Eastern Rite liturgies, is not foreign to the Roman Rite, and so long as the priest does his job at the altar, there is no question of the propers being "replaced". The focus, then, should be on the priest doing his job, rather than unduly fussing about what people sing when.

'The focus, then, should be on the priest doing his job, rather than unduly fussing about what people sing when.''
Richard, I'm sorry but I don't understand what you meant by that. Did you mean we should focus on the priests' job, or he should focus on his job, which is beyond our control.
Also, I thought all the prayers in the mass, albeit different degrees, are important including Propers, how they are sung and when. If we start doing what individuals want to do, including one's prayers instead of the Church's, the liturgy will eventually collapse (i believe our Holy Father metioned about this somewhere in his book.)

Thanks, chonak. I understand now. I'm so glad we can still celebtate EF, although not in my parish ...yet.

Well, the obvious solution is to have Kathy write hymn versions of all the propers, and then have Solesmes fit all the famous hymns to chants of the propers.

You can start by singing Amazing Grace to the tune of the Exultet.

Everybody happy. :)

Proper "hymns" can be easily achieved, especially if we can possibly get away from NAB, RSV-RC, ICET texts for the Psalms. There have been translations of the Psalms set to strict poetic meter for at least 2 centuries. Some border on paraphrases, but others are quite accurate, even if the work order includes certain "poetic license" that our ears are not accustomed to today! I have a number of Psalm-Hymnals. I also have Doxology verses in almost every hymn meter. Many of the NT Canticles are included in the collections. So, if we can get over the translation issue, we don't even need to reinvent the wheel here.

I would rather not sing Amazing Grace. The tune OR the text.

So this is a good place to mention Christoph Tietze's Hymn Introits for the Liturgical Year. I don't have it, so I can't comment on the settings. He has published all the prefatory material at googlebooks.

For the Offertories, I'm not sure. There's the Offertoriale Triplex, but no analog to Tietze's work. Where I live, the offertory is approached as "time for some sort of choral number, preferably long enough to cover a sometimes time-consuming offertory collection." Not exactly optimal.

The Communion propers are short, masterful, and really should be sung in Latin with psalm verses at the earliest opportunity.

You know, I'm rather tired of the non-stop whining over the propers. We all know what's wrong. So, gang: what have you done to FIX it? Not theories, not "I think this is the only way to go", not criticisms of other people's solutions, but what exactly have you done to follow the dictate in law and spirit that propers must have precedence? Let's encourage eachother to put the propers in the proper place (pun intended) rather than pile on about how terrible it is to not use all of them.

I'll go first:
Last parish, we always used the proper psalm and alleluia verse. At Communion we sang a responsorial psalm, with the goal being to increase the frequency of changing it until the congregation could sing the proper text. At daily Mass, the pastor and congregation would chant the proper introit to a simple tone. At the early Mass, the cantor chanted also the introit and communion in English. I also, when picking hymns, always select them in light of the propers.

Another thing I tried was getting the congregation to chant the introit at the early Mass. This was an experimental thing and didn't last. We used a very simple tone with only four notes, but no one would sing it unless the pastor rehearsed it (as in that day's text, with the same tone every week) with them. I would say don't try it, but our colleague Marajoy has had a smashing success doing the same thing (with much more difficult tones, might I add) at her church.

Let's stop whining and start fixing this!

Also, changed the first Comminion hymn to a Psalm at most Masses, and added the Communio at the Spanish Mass.