From what I can gather, having sung some of these chants, which have been available as a trial on Fr. Weber's website, they (i.e. the Ps. verses) appear to be identical to those in the Lumen Christi books, which, IIRC, use the Revised Grail Psalter.

I don't get this. The antiphons he has set to music are from the missal, which are given to be said when there is no singing, in which case it is the antiphons from the Gradual which are to be used.
Am I missing something here?

Thanks. Neither the Irish or UK GIRM allows this option, so advertising them as 'for the English speaking world' is a but misleading, though I suppose they could be used as 'another song' as the text is approved by the Bishops, albeit approved, not as a song text but as the Missal text....hmmm.

I need the Latin text of the propers for the NO... anyone know where THEY might be found?

CCWatershed has a free download of that (the '74 GR) and CMAA has a free download of Gregorian Missal, 1st edition, which contains the propers for Sundays and solemnities.

Doesn't exist published, as far as I know.

For what it's worth, I believe this project started before it was clear that the GR propers still had precedence. So, perhaps it was a pragmatic decision.

Yes, crazy that they don't have samples up at Ignatius . . . anyway, David, I think it will look like this:

http://media.musicasacra.com/weber/new_gradual/Fourth SUN Advent. 2012.pdf

All his stuff is still up here, as of today: http://media.musicasacra.com/weber/new_gradual/

Earl_Gray & Heath,

Thanks for the page views I think I will give it a try, hope as JO mention the shipping was fast, though I think he is in CA, which is where Ignatius is located.

Getting some people to set The Proper Propers instead of the two missal 'antiphons' is like shouting in the wilderness (or praying for snow in Houston). There seems to be some sort of notion, an idee fixe, that what we are going to get are those missal 'propers' just because they are in the missal - and the missalette - and that we are not going to get a complete set of five real propers.

What will it take for us to be provided with an actual English Graduale, consisting of chant versions of the introit, responsorial psalm (for years a, b, c), Alleluya and verse, offertory and communion, all except the resp ps using translations of the GR texts? Until we have this, all claims to be providing the Church with chant propers are vain half-measures. Until we have such we must use Palmer-Burgess or Bruce Ford or the AUG, or ask Fr Columba to compose them for specific feasts (a feat which he accomplishes with admirable grace and great beauty).

Give us a complete English Graduale!

Is it available in Kindle? Is there a PDF of the book? I hope that someone will have tutorials for this. There are not a few of us who want to use what the Church gives us, but don't read music, let alone Gregorian notation.

RE the Missal antiphons, two points:

First, as some here have said, the Missal antiphons are officially option 1, and listed even before the Graduale, at least in the United States GIRM. So enough hand-wringing about them being the red-headed stepchild of the Proper family!

Second point: I am currently composing a complete set of congregational communion antiphons. Many Sundays I am confronted by a choice between the Graduale and Missal antiphon (although often they are the same). I tend to choose the text that is most straightforward, since I have in mind a short congregational refrain. Sometimes even the Missal antiphon is so long that I abridge it somewhat. For the record, I do not believe that the congregation MUST sing the communion antiphon. However, I think a set of antiphons composed with congregational singing in mind is a useful resource. With that particular limitation in mind, the Missal antiphons often are shorter and more direct (and in a few cases are even closer to the Gospel reading of the day). Whenever the congregation comes into play in the propers question, these are the kind of pragmatic decisions that have to be kept in mind. If the Graduale antiphon is so long and complex that shortening it for congregational use seems to destroy it entirely, I think it is better to go with the Missal option.

Now, if Fr. Weber's book is meant for a trained schola, then the decision not to use the Graduale proper seems odd. In general, though, I find that a lack of clear distinction between choral and congregational resources is very damaging to the lasting value of a lot of what comes out these days. A lot of things seems to strive for a "gray area" that is overly simple for a choir, yet is only wishfully congregational (and realistically will only be navigated by certain very special and dedicated congregations). I have not had a chance to study Fr. Weber's work here - I'm just speculating, based on the choice to include Missal antiphons.

I appreciate it, Heath, but, my case is more along the lines of urgency. We are trying to expose the Propers to the faithful in my parish and the best way (for right now) is to memorize them using any form of tutorial that I can get.

The tutorials that the CC Watershed has for the Simple English Propers are a God send; however, it would be great if someone could do the same thing for Fr. Weber's.

Salieri - good points. From my own experience, it is very tempting to choose an official translation (Missal antiphon) over an unofficial one. Especially when the Graduale antiphon is not simply a direct quotation from scripture (in which case at least you can go to a good official scripture translation), but some kind of paraphrase or mixture of sources. The Missal is always official and clean "as is", which certainly makes it attractive.

Of course, the concern (and probably the reason many here don't like the Missal antiphons) is that, between the Missal and the congregational missalettes, there is a real danger that the Graduale will simply disappear, even in those places that want to do Propers.

I confer with many of the points taken on this issue, and I (like many of us) just want to throw up our hands in disgust. How can such confusion reign, and continue to be so in the very primordial aspects of the liturgy? No one can get a bearing, so we continue to spin our wheels trying to move 'something or someone' in a particular direction without any consensus.

...musicians can have recourse to an official, universal, English translation of the GR Propers to draw from.

haha... until they revise the translation in 10 years or more, or less.

ANOTHER reason I don't bother with composing in English... it is all awash amid confusion, which is well documented right here in this thread.

You all know my usual diatribe. If you MUST compose, compose in Latin for either the propers or the ordinary. If your music is good, it just might make it out of this century... and it might even be sung globally... not just in English speaking countries.

I say this because now we have division within the church supported by an attitude that what must be celebrated exists in the foundation of a "cultural milieu", with no regard for the Unity that should be expressed, not diversity.

Today someone told me, 'well, the Spanish speaking people get to have THEIR mass, so I want MINE... in English!'

What are we doing, people?

ProfKwasniewski, I agree that Fr. Weber's work is a HUGE step in the right direction. All I was hoping for was that tutorials would be available for those of us who do not yet know how to read music. Your post gives me a lot of hope.

What many of you don't realize is that there are quite a few of us who have strong liturgical knowledge, but, do not know how to read music. We want to do what the Church asks us to do, but, we NEED tutorials to help us.

I have been able to memorize some of the SEPs, but, with long working hours, music lessons aren't possible right now. Please don't look down on us. Sometimes understanding what the liturgy entails is more important than knowing how to read music. Quite a few folks down here know how to read music but they can't seem to be bothered with what the Church asks us to do. They would rather rely to their dying breath on OCP.

Oh, yes, I wasn't meaning to say that we shouldn't have tutorials. I think the best way to learn is to go to a chant workshop (if at all possible!), since these workshops seem to be springing up with a great deal of regularity nowadays. But if that's not possible, there are already some tutorials online about reading chant, if I remember correctly from the last time I googled it. Also, Fr. Weber's book has a very nice and simple intro about reading chant -- it's perfect. Last but not least, the indefatigable Jeff Ostrowski has already started posting videos of the Weber propers where he sings while the chant runs across the screen. In my review which went up today at NLM, I give photos/videos of all this stuff.

"You all know my usual diatribe. If you MUST compose, compose in Latin for either the propers or the ordinary. If your music is good, it just might make it out of this century... and it might even be sung globally... not just in English speaking countries."


With respect and sympathy, I nevertheless take great exception to this statement. I have done most of my liturgical choral composing for my own church choir. Because most of this has been in the context of the Extraordinary Form, that music has tended to be in Latin. I have also been fortunate enough to have more advanced works, in both Latin and English, performed by a nationally recognized professional ensemble, though I did not write specifically for them.

Indeed, what I write, I write mostly because it gives me pleasure to do so, and answers a need in me. That is the only MUST involved. The minute... the MINUTE... I start writing for some global reality in order to be remembered beyond this century, well, that's when I will fail completely. This is the Lenny Bernstein syndrome (what Sondheim termed "importantism"), and it is a totally dishonest way to approach composition, or any other creative endeavor.

Latin is a wonderful language, and the Latin liturgy is my home. But English is my native language, and a beautiful one. It will be used in churches well into the next century and beyond, despite the fond wishes of Latin liturgy enthusiasts. I have no need to abet some sort of Latin-centric cabal, eager to expunge all English from Catholic worship, in order to promote the traditional Latin liturgy I love. I have no desire to finagle some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy by depriving the English-speak Church of new, interesting, hopefully beautiful, and hopefully Christ-centered music. That would be an offensive waste of a spiritual gift.

@benedictgal: I think it would benefit you a great deal to plan ahead to attend a Chant Intensive course. Typically the winter events are in the southern half of the U.S., so would be less travel for you from south TX. If you already have some understanding of the notation from having done memorization of SEP chants, you might be surprised at how much you have become accustomed to it without being aware.

My husband is not a note-reader (no musical training at all), yet he finds it pretty easy to follow along and sing along when the music is in chant notation (ordinary of the Mass). I really do think the learning curve is not as steep for chant notation as for modern... jmho.

I appreciate your clarification, Francis. I still think it takes a honkin' lot of arrogance to characterize English in the Catholic liturgy as a passing fad or novelty, which is the only way I manage to read your comments.

Latin should be preserved because it is our heritage, not because it has some magical quality that allows it to express theological concepts better than any other language.

WAS IT LATIN IN 19th CENTURY RUSSIA?

Adam is, as he is, um, most of the time, spot on.
Many of us love (hieratic) Latin because of its beauty, its rhythm and cadence, its theological precision, and its association with Christian worship which goes back, not to the earliest times, but to the somewhat early fourth century. The first recorded use of Latin in liturgy is in North Africa in the early IVth century. Rome was a few generations later in adopting this vulgar (nasty vernacular) tongue, much to the chagrin of the traditionalists of the time. If, then, one wanted realistically to speak of a 'cradle language' of the Church, west as well as east, it would be Greek. Still, Latin has a place of honour in the western world that no western vernacular can challenge. Cranmerian English could certainly compete seriously.

In other realms, the use of vernaculars in the east has not occasioned any lack of liturgical beauty and theological lucidity or subtlety. The point being that, while appreciating the place of Latin in our culture, we should not be so daft as to believe that there is some magic in it, or that it is ipso facto more theologically adept than other languages have the potential to be. After all, if there are philosophical niceties to be expressed, most languages will evolve the vocabulary and syntax to express them. English's history in this regard is remarkable. So, while Latin may be hallowed, it isn't haloed. Ditto the language of the BCP. None of us here, I'm sure, but too many people go ga-ga over Latin precisely because they haven't a clue what it means and they are dazzled by it and think, therefore, that it just must be more effectual spiritually than another language may be. Protestants often feel the same way about the Authorised Version of the Bible. It's the same phenomenon. I will be in the front rank of those defending Latin and championing its preservation in our liturgy. But, one will not find me insisting, foolishly, that English is not capable of the same liturgical and theological expressiveness, the same poetic artistry. Those who do know not about what they are talking.

And, a word needs to be said about Francis' quote from Holy Father Paul VI. The good pope's sentiments are touching, they reveal to us the tremendous gravity with which the fathers of the council allowed (not dictated, but permitted) the use of vernaculars. With the stroke of the proverbial pen, centuries of music, liturgical custom, and soulful identity were made on a par (not lesser or greater, but on a par) with untried and as yet uncomposed vernacular expressions of the western rites. The sad, really really sad, aspect of this is that, while Paul and many other churchmen lamented the loss of Latin and chant, they did so little, so very very little, to ensure that the vernacular versions and their musics were on a par with that which they were replacing. This isn't the fault of vernacular liturgy! It is the fault of the council fathers for not seeing to it with all their power and authority that we got something on a par with, say, high church Anglicans. No, they sat back and wept while they permitted chaos to reign and did nothing about it. They did not provide us with an official translation of the GR, with suitable music for the propers and ordinary, for singing the lectionary, and so on. They, pope, cardinals, bishops, priests, religious, and most faithful, abdicated any leadership in the havoc to which they had opened the door. And the Paris mob entered in, cheered on, in fact, by quite a few prelates, priests, and religious.

It is, then, Francis, the obligation of all of us to 'enter in' with something better. It's up to us to do something which 'the Church' apparently has no stomach for. So you, Francis, and all of us should not hold on to vain allegiances only to Latin, but do all that we can to make of vernacular liturgy all that we of the Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter know very well that it can be. You have an obligation to write your very finest work for the Novus Ordo in English as well as in Latin. Until you do this you have no standing to speak ill of it.

(Where, oh where, would we be if Tallis and Byrd had refused to write for English liturgy!)

Thank you all for your frank comments.

So that you are sure, I never thought there was ever anything magical about Latin. It is simply our heritage as Andrew expressed above. It is simply the mother tongue of the liturgy, of our rites, and the wind of the song which has swept down through the centuries and which saint and sinner has breathed, and we have abandoned it.

Pope Paul VI knew the devastation that was going to befall us, and Pope B16 saw the error and tried to correct it. Now there is weeping and gnashing of teeth... literally... our liturgies are strewn with obscenities, not because of English, or Spanish, or any language, but because we have abandoned our heritage. We threw out the bath water and the baby that went with it was the very liturgy itself, including the chant. "What shall we put in the place of this angelic language?" One does not burn his house and put his family out in the elements in dreams of finding a better one.

Nothing anyone here has written changes any of my convictions. I grew up and lived most of my life and career composing and playing music in the service of the 'new rite'. I have thought long and hard about the office of sacred music, prayed, labored, struggled, discussed, rethought and re-rethought this dilemma... and I, and you, are still IN the dilemma. The church is suffering a sort of schizophrenia, and it appears to me that it is going mad trying to maintain... or find, its balance.

Thank you, MJO, for your encouraging and eloquent words. I wish that all of what everyone has said here could make a difference to me. Accusations of arrogance and superstition toward my thinking I feel, may only be an attempt to appease one's conscience or justify the present state of things, or just make the best of it. Deep down we must take a good hard look at where we are heading. This I believe I have truly done, and I cannot ignore my conscience.

I do not intend to slight anyone or look down upon those that think differently than myself. I am simply expressing my thoughts and convictions from the depth of my being. But deep in my heart of hearts I am feeling a sickness, a kind of betrayal of our Christ.

May I offer a thought.
Being native Irish, living in Ireland, I have a smattering of Irish (the language often referred to elsewhere - erroneously- as Gaelic). We all learn Irish in school, but for many it is not a language we speak to each other. So I can read Irish, could make myself understood (just about), can cope with place names, we sing the Mass in Irish every now and then, and have a repertory of Irish hymns. But I could not be considered a fluent speaker, unless I put a bit more effort into recovering what I had in school (distant memory) and practised a bit more.
Of course, being a compulsory subject in school, everyone hates it, but now I am glad to have it, even the bit I have, and would vehemently oppose the abolition of Irish in our schools.
Why? Because a language carries with it a culture, and the thinking of the culture. Take for example a famous Irish work which we all used to have to study Peig. it is a classic of literature, written by an old Irish women who lived on the remote Islands, about her life, and the lives of those around her. Historically, it is a fascinating account of a way of life now long gone, I found it interesting for the sort of rugged fatalism which colours her outlook. (Her husband and sons were fishermen, and I think most of them drowned.)
However, having read the book in English as well as in Irish, I wish I had enough Irish to really appreciate her turns of phrase etc.
What is even more beyond me is another book called 'An Beal Bocht' or 'The Poor Mouth' which is a modern satire based on 'Peig'. An Beal bocht is an irish expression for someone who continually tells you how bad things are and what a hard time they are having, and in some ways it fits Peig to a tee. Written in the style of Peig, An Beal bocht is riotously funny, sending up the sort of wailing story telling that Peig is a prime example of.
It is funny in English. It breaks my heart that my Irish is too poor to really catch it all in Irish. There are certain things which are inevitably lost in translation - things which pertain to the living culture which is the matrix out of which the literature flows.
Sorry this got very rambling. (The Irish storyteller in me).
anyway my point in all this is...
You simply cannot fully convey a culture without doing it in the language of the culture. The Culture which is formed by the Roman Liturgy requires Latin as its vehicle. Good Vernacular chant will certainly help to convey aspects of that culture, but without the language something is going to be different. Different does not necessarily mean bad, but it will be different.
My hope for the future would be the development of a bilingual church culture.
The children in my schola, are, some of them, being schooled through Irish. So they have English at home and Irish in School, and now latin in schola. They take it in their stride, no problem. What will emerge from such a fusion will be something new, something I cannot glimpse, but it will be fun to see,
Incidentally, many Irish words come directly to us from Latin or Greek, often where the English word is not obvious from the Latin, the Irish will be, which they have pleasure in noting.

True to one's conscience one must be.
Each must be true to himself.
Nor would we wish it otherwise.

True to his conscience must be he
Who true to his own self shall be,
Nor otherwise wish it so do we.

FIXED