Why does the church allow the 4 options during the propers
  • jstanford1026
    Posts: 1
    I have recently been made aware of the propers of the mass and their importance. Since doing my research I have also read the GIRM which expresses 4 options to be sung during the entrance chant, the offertory chant and the communion chant. In all of the churches documents on music it seems that the church prefers that the propers be chanted, if not in their original form in Latin, then at least in another form (highlighted in options 2 and 3), yet option 4 is overwhelmingly used in the United States as you frequently hear random hymns in place of the propers.

    My question is why does the church allow these 4 options and specifically why does it allow the fourth option if it prefers that the propers be chanted?

    With all due respect, I am not looking for peoples' personal take and opinions on the issue but I am wondering if there is any church document that explains why the 4 options are given. Or at the very least if there is some writing from the church that shows why these options are given. I believe that understanding why the church gives these options will give us a better understanding of their importance and will help us to make the most appropriate decision between these 4 options.
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,142
    Just by way of background, in more directly relevant part - most people just ignore caption organization, but they provide a hierarchy of context:

    CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY
    SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM
    (4 DECEMBER 1963)

    Ch. I: General Principle for The Restoration and Promotion of The Sacred Liturgy
    III. The Reform of The Sacred Liturgy
    B. Norms drawn from the hierarchic *and communal* nature of the Liturgy [emphasis added]

    30. To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence.

    Ch. VI: Sacred Music

    116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.
    But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.
    117. The typical edition of the books of Gregorian chant is to be completed; and a more critical edition is to be prepared of those books already published since the restoration by St. Pius X. It is desirable also that an edition be prepared containing simpler melodies, for use in small churches.
    118. Religious singing by the people is to be intelligently fostered so that in devotions and sacred exercises, as also during liturgical services, the voices of the faithful may ring out according to the norms and requirements of the rubrics.
    <>
    121. Composers, filled with the Christian spirit, should feel that their vocation is to cultivate sacred music and increase its store of treasures. Let them produce compositions which have the qualities proper to genuine sacred music, not confining themselves to works which can be sung only by large choirs, but providing also for the needs of small choirs and for the active participation of the entire assembly of the faithful. The texts intended to be sung must always be in conformity with Catholic doctrine; indeed they should be drawn chiefly from holy scripture and from liturgical sources.

  • Chaswjd
    Posts: 276
    Here are the four options:

    48. The singing at this time is done either alternately by the choir and the people or in a similar way by the cantor and the people, or entirely by the people, or by the choir alone. In the dioceses of the United States of America there are four options for the Entrance Chant: (1) the antiphon from The Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting; (2) the seasonal antiphon and Psalm of the Simple Gradual; (3) a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the diocesan Bishop, including psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) a suitable liturgical song similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the diocesan Bishop.

    Personally, I think that listing makes good sense considering the wish of the Council to 1. preserve Gregorian Chant, 2. Preserve Latin, 3. preserve or even make the use of scripture even greater in the Mass, and 4 have greater participation by the laity.

    Option 1, the singing of the antiphon from the Roman Gradual is preferred. The antiphons are scripture or paraphrases of scripture. But singing from the Gradual is difficult for choirs not accustomed to chant. It would be very difficult for the laity to sing the Gradual proper every week.

    Option 2, the antiphon from the Gradual Simplex: It is Latin. It is chant or chant based.
    It is generally scripture. It is easier to sing than option 1. It could be done by congregations. But having a seasonal antiphon reduces the quantity of scripture used.

    Option 3, a song from a collection of psalms and antiphons. Not necessarily chant. Not necessarily in Latin. It would be scripture. But it could be easy for the congregation to sing.

    Option 4, would be basically option 3, minus being scripture.

    Just my thoughts.
  • lmassery
    Posts: 425
    I wrote a think piece about this question, which I think is correct.

    https://www.antiphonrenewal.com/post/the-ladder-toward-propers
    Thanked by 4hilluminar Jacques Perrière ServiamScores MarkB
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 1,051
    These passages from the Instruction Musicam sacram (1967), while not giving the four options in the GIRM explicitly, certainly expresses the "spirit" behind them.

    16 (c) . . . the usage of entrusting to the choir alone the entire singing of the whole Proper and of the whole Ordinary, to the complete exclusion of the people's participation in the singing, is to be deprecated.

    33. It is desirable that the assembly of the faithful should participate in the songs of the Proper as much as possible, especially through simple responses and other suitable settings.

    36. There is no reason why some of the Proper or Ordinary should not be sung in said Masses. Moreover, some other song can also, on occasions, be sung at the beginning, at the Offertory, at the Communion and at the end of Mass.
  • Bobby Bolin
    Posts: 423
    I remember reading a discussion of whether these options were all equal or if it was a hierarchy. I forget if there was ever a consensus.
  • smt
    Posts: 71
    At least there are some initiatives and established options for propers in the vernacular in America. In Germany I don't know whether there is any endeavour for new compositions for the propers. I just bought a copy of Arnaud Peruta's "Chanter la messe" to see whether I could borrow some inspirations from there.
  • Jacques PerrièreJacques Perrière
    Posts: 140
    Thank you @lmassery for your article.

    A friend of mine told me recently, we were talking about gardening, he said:
    there are 2 best moments to plant a tree,
    - 5 years ago,
    - or now.

    You get the point? Start learning the Gregorian propers now, if you haven't already. It might take a bit of time to be fruitful but it will one day. But you have to start at some point.

    Jeffrey Tucker in his book 'Sing like a Catholic' (2009) wrote:
    « The typical Catholic gathering now includes an archetype known as the “chant jock,” the young twenty-something guy who carries a Graduale Romanum with him in hopes of finding someone else to join him in burning through some propers just for practice. »
    https://media.churchmusicassociation.org/books/Sing_Like_a_Catholic.pdf
    Thanked by 3MatthewRoth CHGiffen lmassery
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,925
    Luke, I find your article REALLY helpful. I’ve never heard it framed this way, but I think you’re spot on. This was a bit of a revelatory read for me, actually.
    Thanked by 1lmassery
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,440
    You get the point? Start learning the Gregorian propers now, if you haven't already. It might take a bit of time to be fruitful but it will one day. But you have to start at some point.


    Not to be naive, because I realize that there are politics involved beyond our control, but there are too many musicians who want to move away from things which really ought to be excluded along the lines of what was excluded in the 1903 motu proprio but who are not that interested in the propers, as music as much as prayer. This distresses me, and this is not just an Anglo phenomenon such as what one finds at the basilica in D.C. There are many young (and not so young) Catholics in France for example who are very talented and who are very kind, pious people, but the music proposed and thoughtfully chosen for weddings, funerals, and even Sundays excludes the propers.
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 2,103
    "Chant jock" sounds like it should be the name of a meme character.

    The 4 options were the result of Sacrosanctum Concilium's unfunded mandate for a Missa Cantata. Since funding and musicians weren't there, what developed was a porting of Option 4 from the low mass with hymns, with 2 and 3 being ported from high masses with inadequate musical forces. This got further altered by FCAP culture, to privilege congregational singing over congregational listening.

    Bless all y'all who get paid to apply baculum labialis super sus. But the problem here is the notion that there should be any option of text at all, something foreign and unheard-of in the history of the Roman Rite. And optionitis is endemic to the Missal of Paul VI, and nothing is going to change until that missal changes. A particularly courageous pastor could (and should?) say: "From now on, you will sing the proper texts of the Roman Gradual. The language and the style are up to you." Let a hundred flowers bloom, and some will be lilacs and some carrion flowers. But regardless of musical effect, the singing of the Mass would be salutary.
    Thanked by 6CHGiffen Chant_Supremacist ServiamScores smt kevinf LauraKaz
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,997
    Why does the church allow the 4 options during the propers

    Because they didn't have many more they could choose from.
    Thanked by 2Chant_Supremacist ServiamScores
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,204
    The 4 options were the result of Sacrosanctum Concilium's unfunded mandate for a Missa Cantata. Since funding and musicians weren't there, what developed was a porting of Option 4 from the low mass with hymns, with 2 and 3 being ported from high masses with inadequate musical forces. This got further altered by FCAP culture, to privilege congregational singing over congregational listening.


    The short form of the history of music in the church since 1967. Concise and to the point. And as I am want to say " Why are you not singing the Latin propers and if not, why are you not working toward that goal?" All this vernacular propers is lovely and a blessing, but as Mr. Quick points out, the Latin propers are the summit musically. Anything else is just pablum...lovely but still pablum.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,142
    (Cross-post from another thread)

    Focus first on driving out banal (or worse) settings of the Ordinary and Responsorial Psalm and replacing them with worthier material, particularly material that is chant, chant-like, or complements chant. (Bonus feature if you have willing and able celebrants: presidential chants and dialogs.) Then one can selectively introduce Propers in rotation (Offertory or Communion or Entrance) so that their idiom can be familiarized.

    It's a much much tougher thing to do it the other way around.
Add a Comment