Actually, I would say that by ignoring the propers in our liturgies we are not giving scripture the importance that that we should, because a vast majority of the propers (there are a few exceptions) are taken directly from the scriptures. By insisting that the music must somehow relate to the readings of the day alone, we are actually narrowing ourselves to at most three or four passages (if you count the responsorial psalm), instead of exposing ourselves more broadly to biblical texts by using the propers.

I don't think that we should attribute any amount of concern for scripture as a 'Protestant' preserve. It is meet and right that we Catholics should know scripture and revere it even more than Protestants. Our faith is built on what scripture reveals and preserves for us, in addition to Tradition and the magisterium. It was the apostles, after all, who wrote the scriptures, and the Church which decided on the canon. This is not a Protestant preserve. Scripture is God's gift to the world, and one of the Church's crown jewels. It is not to the Church's credit that at times in history a study of the scriptures by non-clerics was mightily discouraged and that men were burnt at the stake (the savage acts of extraordinarily twisted and paranoid minds) for translating them into the languages that people spoke. The mass consists of two parts, word and sacrament, and neither part is complete without the other. Never treat scripture as though it were a merely incidental component of our Faith.

As for the propers, I do not see any necessary conflict. It is deeply lamentable that the post-Vatican II praxis has resulted in the almost total ignor-ance of the propers. It is imperative that we restore them to their appropriate place. It is appropriate that they be re-arranged as necessary to the end that they compliment the lectionary. No hymns should be sung in place of them, perhaps in addition to them, but not in place of them, because they are intrinsic to the Roman rite, which is incomplete, emmaciated!, when shorn of them. It might be appropriate for the propers to be the subject of homilies at times, in addition to the lectionary at others. I can see this as an added choice for those who preach.

But as for 'protestantising', this is a sad and lamentable attitude towards any attempt at a more profound knowledge of scripture on the part of every Catholic. There is nothing, nothing at all 'Protestant' about knowing and treasuring scripture. There is everything Catholic about it. Jesus, our Lord and Saviour, knew and quoted scripture backward and forward. It seems to me that we, in The Imitation of Christ, should do the same, should follow his example.

And, I think that Kevin has just above made a praiseworthy observation: namely, that the propers themselves are scripture, and may amplify the scriptural sources for homilies, as well as, at times, amplify the lectionary itself. Further, preaching on the propers could only enrich our knowledge of scripture and have the added advantage of revealing the riches of the intact Roman rite.

The unidentified subject in passive voice just seemed very strange.

If the propers are being used, they are indeed suitable for consideration for the homily.

I think Charles is right insofar as the lectionary HAS become the driving force in the liturgy. I used the polemic"sola scriptura" intentionally as to drive home my point that the readings have become the centerpiece of the liturgy and everything else functions off of the readings. I believe we have demagogued the scriptures. Granted, I agree, "Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ." But somewhere along the line, we have made them carry the weight of the liturgy, insofar as homiletic and planning is concerned.

And so I continue to ask the question: in the NO are the readings are the deciding factors in choosing music? Based on the many place of guidance that are offered by publishing houses, planning sites and books, the readings ARE the no. 1 factor for choosing music and the propers are negligible. And the propers are an afterthought.

My clergy certainly think this way.

With all due respect (plus some extra) to Kevin, it doesn't seem to me that the lectionary has evolved into a disproportionate aspect of the liturgy. As Catholics, we cannot possibly have sola scriptura or sola sacramentum - we must, in order to be verily Catholic, have both. The profound power and import of the Blessed Sacrament which follows the proclamation and assimilation of scripture cannot possibly, to me, be overshadowed. Quite the contrary, it puts the lectionary in context and perspective. The Sacrament (being Jesus) is, after all, the fulfillment of the word. The word defines our covenant relationship with God. The sacrifice and sacred banquet consummate it. This is a balance that is essential to a proper understanding and 'full' participation in the ineffable drama that unfolds right from the very moment and act of invocation that begins each mass. One who doesn't 'get' this doesn't really 'get' the mass.

Whether one chooses music in relation to the propers or the lectionary (whichever) it only serves to cast a facet of light on how we receive the sacrament on any particular day, and how we go out, depart, with informed spirits to be the salt of the earth. It seems to me that the one inevitably informs the other. We receive Jesus in the sacrament, and the lectionary is how that that Jesus speaks to us that day. Well chosen music, it seems to me, will manage to tie these aspects together. This, I believe, is the particularly important and deep role of wise choices regarding offertory anthems or hymns. Offertory anthems, in particular, should always have theologically 'meaty' texts and musical weight, gravitas.

Neglect, or demeaning of the word is not Catholic; but has led to the still not uncommon practice of coming late, 'eating', and running. We are, after all, supposed to attend and 'consciously' (and conscientiously!?) participate in the entire mass, not just the elevation, or the communion, or the anaphora. Such really is not at all truly fulfilling one's obligation. (And, oh, how I loathe that word 'obligation' and all its baggage. I go to mass because I love it.)

It is appropriate that they be re-arranged as necessary to the end that they compliment the lectionary.

Dobszay disagrees with that, and claims that there is no historical foundation in the Roman rite for such 'concordance.'

Which is NOT to say that there is no such in the EF; there is. See, e.g., the Propers and readings for 14/15/16 after Pentecost for which all the assigned Scripture is thematically related, at least in a broad sense.

That 3-year cycle has created an interesting problem, eh?

I truly believe that to many today each element of the Mass should communicate a central 'theme' drawn from the readings of the day, especially the Gospel. This is encouraged by the principle of harmony by which the Old Testament readings have been chosen for any particular Mass (especially on Sundays).

In the Netherlands, this idea of harmonizing all elements of the Mass was even applied in the 1979 translation of the Roman Missal, to which dozens of orations (collect, prayer over the offering, prayer after communion) were added that were based on the Gospel reading of the day. In many parishes the second reading from the Epistles or Acts is even omitted, just because its 'theme' doesn't accord with that of the Gospel and the orations. Within this context it isn't surprising that the propers are regarded by many as absolutely irrelevant to the Mass.

However, this is not how the Roman Rite works. In Ordinary Time, the Mass has no distinctive character. The texts of the propers are more closely related to the liturgical action they accompany (with the Communion as an exception). They are less didactic and more ritual. They add to the rich biblical palette which highlights all kinds of different aspects of the same mystery of Christ within the same Mass. To me, choosing only hymns that are closely connected to the readings is therefore in a way a spiritual impoverishment.

Surely the principle of the choice of music should be no more (or less) restrictive than for the homily. And that is supposed to be (GIRM #65)

an explanation of some aspect of the readings from Sacred Scripture or of another text from the Ordinary or the Proper of the Mass of the day

In the Novus Ordo the choice of hymn or alternate song as a proper (eg at the Entrance or at Offertory) is supposed to be according to the "sacred action or the day or the season", as smvanroode says above. This is quite clear from the rubrics, eg #48. The choice has nothing to do with the theme of a reading.

Because the Communion really is a reception of Christ, the words of the Communion antiphon often (although not always) reflect Christ's words of the Holy Gospel. That's not an exception, it's the rule being followed.

if one reads the text for a Mass in the usus antiquior (sometimes two or three times over) for the majority of Sundays one will see that the propers, orations, and lections do indeed fit together

I know. I've read them.

Also, using the words of Scripture which form 99% of the propers (only the Salve Sancta Parens comes to mind as an exception) is a vast improvement ocer using a hymn that is at best a paraphrase of a Scriptural text.

"Why would these propers even matter to me?"

Because they are the liturgical action.

Jackson's words above about the balance between word and sacrament are a marvelous construction to the question.

But those of us here are for a reason: because we take seriously Holy Mother Church's call to sing her texts that she asks us to sing and do so in a way as to encourage prayer and discipleship. We find in chant the great vehicle to do this.While I appreciate Adam's response in terms of better "planning" by using the lectionary, it only partially addresses the problem.

Those of us "living" in the NO have this problem for a variety of reasons. Expectations on the part of clergy who have not a clue about the ritual nature versus the didactic nature of the liturgy. Perhaps our catechesis has been so bad as to warrant turning the liturgy into a catechetical session because its the only chance we(as in clergy and others)get.

Perhaps what is really at the heart is the "function" of the music in those places we stick hymns as a substitute for the propers. I know for my place its to "augment" the lections and amplify them. But we miss the rich palette that is the propers when we do so. We remain in the 1970-80s and the era of the "hymn" sandwich.

From the bourbon lands.....

I have many, many times heard a sermon which building on the day's lectionary readings. I have never that I can recall had one based on the day's propers.

Chris makes an important point -

Greater (or Major) Propers = the lectionary and the proper collects.
Lesser (or Minor) Propers = Introit, Gradual Responsory (or Resp. Ps.), Alleluya and Verse, Offertory Antiphon, Communion Antiphon.

At the Cathedral of Phoenix we've heard homilies based on Introits before. I would never try to suggest to a priest what to preach on though, unless I were an expert in homiletics. Likewise, I would hope he would not try to suggest what I play for a prelude, unless he were an expert in organ music.

Matthew,

You wouldn't tell him what to do. I understand. Could you, on the other hand, ask him to preach a series on, for example, the rubrics of the Mass or the various parts or something, with an eye to increasing actual participation? The opportune time to do this would be in the weeks before Advent, or as a series of Lenten sermons, or even not as a sermon, but as a study-group replacement for CCD?

I asked my pastor recently to speak on the exact nature of Papal Infallibility. He didn't preach on it, but he sent me a very good article by Msgr Clifford Fenton.


Cheers,

Chris

The RM Communion for Week 27:

Though many, we are one bread, one body...

gives you a chance to sing a particular song you might have heard about every year, not just when it comes along in the readings on Corpus Christi Year A every three years.

This is going to sound awful...but...

Last Sunday's introit was Respice, Domine, "Remember, O Lord, Your covenant, and do not abandon the souls of Your poor..."

The Bread of Life was all over the readings. The Responsorial Psalm was Psalm 34.

So, obviously, the Processional Hymn-thing (sung immediately after the Introit) was "The Cry of the Poor." Introit idea in the antiphon, Lectionary/Eucharistic psalm in the verses.