Thanks for the great explanation, MJO. A friend used to insist that the "minor propers" were the Gradual and Offertory.

M. Jackson Osborn wrote:

Sorry, the propers in question are 'minor' or 'lesser', the habit of referring to them simply as 'the propers' notwithstanding. There are two classes of propers for a mass. One, the 'major', or 'greater' propers, being the day's collect, lesson, epistle, and gospel. The other, the 'minor', or 'lesser' propers, being the introit, gradual or psalm, alleluya with its verse (or the tract), offertory antiphon, and communion antiphon. As is obvious, calling the lesser propers 'minor' or 'lesser' does not imply that they are of little or no importance, just that they are inferior to the greater or major propers.

No need to say sorry.

If what you say is accurate, it should be very easy for you to cite a source backing up the argument you're trying to make. (cf. what I wrote above)

Are you able to do this?

Thanks, Dixit, for asking this question. I've heard the term from other friends involved in AU worship and, like you, I haven't seen this term in any official Catholic documents: at least not yet.

So I look forward to finding out more about it.

I agree with chonak.

The designation "Minor Propers" is not correctly used with reference to the Roman Catholic Mass, although Anglicans and others remain free to do as they please.

So far, nobody has been able to produce any documentation such as I describe above.

Never saw the " red plastic-spiraled book," although it sounds like something it would have been good to have. That was another issue at the time. Many of the old books were tossed, or at least shelved, and new ones were not widely known or available.

I was accompanist for a choir which possessed those red spiral-bound books back around '65-'67 or so. Memory is hazy, but GIA sounds right to me, too.

They collected dust; the Archdiocese (under the control of Rembert Weakland) and the music establishment of the time (led by Sr. Theophane Hytrek OSF) were dead-set on using the four-hymn sandwich.

Maybe where you were, but here in the provinces they were not made available to us. We were told to buy hymnals which supposedly contained everything we needed. They didn't of course, but that was then - The worst of times and the worst of times.

Yes!!! "the various dioceses and parishes were basically set adrift by Rome, with no direction." Completely adrift. The only directive was to be "relevant."

"The internet, as we now know it, did not exist. Computers were these humongous machines that took up entire city blocks." They were, since I later worked with those machines. Anyone else remember punch cards, JCL, and slooooooow?

"They were doing the best they could with the meager tools that they had." They were indeed meager. I always suspected the larger places fared better, but have learned since that they, for the most part, didn't.

Sometimes true.

English Propers for the High Mass
Paul Arbogast
1964
World Library of Sacred Music
A truly wonderful book. It was widely used...for a while.

@CharlesW - We had to be able to read Hollerith code when I took FORTRAN. A friend of mine worked for the university computer center. He had a 300 baud modem at home that he could dial up the universities computer.

Mr Cordova's plea for leniency towards the folk of the post-conciliar times sounds fair enough... except when we recall that the lack of computers and 21st century technology didn't prevent nearly everyone everywhere from doing the same deplorable things to the mass and its music. Somehow, the same anti-paradigm seems to have been shared and communicated quite well. No tears for them. He is correct, though, in that The Vatican provided no leadership at all. It opened a Pandora's box and turned its back or looked the other way. Even when it spoke it was toothless and ignored.

Perhaps a first step toward restoring the Propers would be to use the correct terminology?

The term 'minor propers' is simply incorrect for the Catholic Mass—that is why nobody has been able to cite sources that use it.

The book by Rev. Paul Arbogast does not use the (erroneous) label of 'minor propers.'

M. Jackson Osborn wrote:

There are two classes of propers for a mass. One, the 'major', or 'greater' propers, being the day's collect, lesson, epistle, and gospel. The other, the 'minor', or 'lesser' propers, being the introit, gradual or psalm, alleluya with its verse (or the tract), offertory antiphon, and communion antiphon.

This may be true for Anglican services, but not the Extraordinary Form. Indeed, the EF does not have a “lesson and epistle.” It has only the Epistle. And why would the Collect be a 'greater proper' but not the Secret and not the Post-Communion?

Let us resolve to assiduously avoid the specious and incorrect term Lesser Propers when we speak of the authentic Catholic Mass.

The accentus includes the parts of the Mass chanted to a formula. The concentus chants have their own music or are at least borrowed by centonization. It should be obvious that, musically speaking, the Alleluia is more important than the Gospel. The concentus parts of the Mass along with the antiphons and responsories of the Divine Office were the first things to be written down when systems of musical notation were devised in the tenth century.

It should be obvious that, musically speaking, the Alleluia is more important than the Gospel.

And also musically speaking, a voluntary is perhaps more important than a homily. But why this assumption that "minor" is a put down? Some of us have a very high regard for the Aeolian mode.

Since both Alleluya and the Gospel are (supposed to be) sung music, perhaps this line should read..

...musically speaking, the Alleluia is more important elaborate than the Gospel.

...no problem in importing...

While I thank Salieri for his comment, I must add that...

I'm yet to be convinced that this is an importation. I know that I have seen this designation before in Catholic books and heard Catholic priests here and there speak of the lesser or minor propers. Imported or not, one would not have to tax himself greatly to find a usage more threatening to Catholic identity and scholarship. Nor would this, if it were an importation, be the only such importation. We have some forum members, and likely others, who have varying cases of Anglophilia and happily 'import' Anglican chant, envy Anglican liturgical aesthetics, import 'Protestant' hymnody which expresses Catholic truth and is therefore Catholic, and even look to the Orthodox for exemplary liturgics. I am aghast, astonished, at the incredible ostrichian myopia from which this entire discussion arises. Even if the proper nomenclature in question were an import it would be one of the most harmless-yet-informative of the many importations of which the Catholic Church has availed itself. Indeed, it isn't anythng but aedifying. Still, if one is averse to it one doesn't have to use it. And, I'm sure that all of us will continue referring to the lesser propers simply as 'the propers'.

In closing I shall note that we in the Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter now and then speak of the 'lesser propers' - and we ARE quite Catholic.

Interesting observations and food for thought, Mad.
Rich is the lore of liturgy and ritual.

As for the last gospel, which you mention, it is alive and well in the Ordinariate Use, being said throughout Christmas and Epiphanytide.
I assume that it lives, as well, in the EF?

The Propers are the Propers. These labels of major and minor don't seem to serve any purpose. Personally, I find them a bit distasteful. The Propers come as a complete set for each Mass expressing what the Church believes. Why is there a need to rank the Propers within the Mass like this?

@ a_f_hawkins
Today is of course the second Sunday After Pentecost, all the Propers (E.F.) can be found in the Missal. Of course today was in the older calendar (pre 55) Sunday within the Octave of Corpus Christi, the same Mass as listed above was used with addition of a commemoration of the Octave of Corpus Christi, so you would have additional collects. N.B. Not different Collects (Collect, Secret and Post Communion)

At our Parish our dedication is to St. Bede, so instead of the II Sunday of Pentecost / Sunday within in the Octave of Corpus Christi we had an external Solemnity of St. Bede, with Commemorations of the Sunday including Last Gospel and commemoration of the Octave of Corpus Christi, so 3 sets of collects!

Some places would have an External Solemnity of Corpus Christi instead of the Sunday Propers. They should have had some commemoration of the Sunday even using 62!

So the Propers are fixed to the Mass of the day, with additional collects depending on the Rubrics / Calendar.

I have only two words to add to this discussion, do with them what you will:

Mountains

Molehills

Unless the language police come back with a properly made out warrant I'll not bite anyone who calls Readings and Formularies proper to the day "Propers".

While Propers are not "minor," it may also be true that miners are often not proper.

Wait.... little hills --- young sheep?