Collects & Propers
  • Palestrina
    Posts: 422
    It's just occurred to me (and I would rather like a more learned person to verify) that our Gregorian propers are probably at least as ancient as most of the collects of the Mass.

    If this is the case, surely it makes the argument for the continued use of the propers (in any form - original, translated etc) far stronger.

    Thoughts?
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 1,063
    While I agree and many of us here probably do as well, such an argument would only make the case against them stronger for many people. "They're old, so they have to go" - etc.

    How much of the NO actually brought back legitimate customs of the ancient Church's liturgy?
  • Musicguy57
    Posts: 13
    What is "ancient?" Origen?
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,510
    https://www.amazon.com/Advent-Project-Seventh-Century-Creation-Proper/dp/0520221982
    Thanked by 1Paul F. Ford
  • madorganist
    Posts: 906
    You might refer to Hesbert's Antiphonale missarum sextuplex to verify how long the texts of the sung Proper have been included in the liturgical books:
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/c47y8uu6pc730ye/Antiphonale%20missarum%20sextuplex%20HESBERT.pdf?dl=0

    In my opinion, their antiquity is an argument in favor of preservation in their integrity - i.e., the chant itself with the Latin text - but not necessarily for their preservation in any form. Our chants were already notated in the tenth century (for perspective, 130 years or so before the Eastern schism) and are at least another century and a half older than that. Not only the texts but the chants themselves are ancient, venerable, and worth retaining in the liturgy, which is why I never got aboard the "English propers" bandwagon when I was doing novus ordo music.
Add a Comment