The Death of the Novus Ordo in Latin?
  • Chrism
    Posts: 663
    The blog Rorate Caeli yesterday posted a deliberately inflammatory and triumphalist article written by the irrepressible P.K.T.P., the core of which article is a statistic about the number of regular Latin Novus Ordo Masses offered in the United States:

    Since 2005, the number of every-Sunday New Masses in Latin in the U.S.A. has fallen from 58 to 39. The number of dioceses in the U.S.A. offering this Mass every Sunday has fallen from 36 to 28.



    At present, the ratio of T.L.M.s to N.O.M.s in Latin is 9:1. The ratio of dioceses offering the two Masses is 5:1. My conclusion is that the N.O.M. in Latin is a dead duck. It is dying fast (but quietly).


    If his statistics are correct, it is very difficult to dispute his conclusion.
  • Well, this only makes sense. I would think that most people who would prefer the Mass in Latin also prefer the EF. The time and effort by priests to schedule an EF Mass likely precludes them from also scheduling an OF in Latin. How I wish, though, that there was a rule that Holy Thursday had to be in Latin to stop the bi-lingual nonsense.
  • This was predictable! And is unfortunate and sad! If conservative Catholics had insisted irrepressibly on the sacral celebration of the NO in Both languages the Church would be far better off and better served. But, no: nothing would do save a return to the ancien regime in paranoid little bastions of the True Church where people can mumble private prayers at low masses and passively observe the pageantry at high ones. (As an Anglican Use person, it goes without saying that I have nothing against pageantry - but I also like playing an active part in it.) This is rather like those little pockets and sects of 'continuing Anglicanism' which are self-serving ecclesial dead ends.
  • Hugh
    Posts: 178
    I agree with the prediction.

    The taxonomy I sketched in jest in the heady nights after Summorum Pontificum was promulgated, might have some use after all …

    1. Vernacular Novus Ordo = Ordinary Form of the Ordinary Form (OFOF)
    2. Latin Novus Ordo = Extraordinary Form of the Ordinary Form (EFOF)
    (Soon to be “Extinct Form of the Ordinary Form”)

    3. 1962 Mass = Ordinary Form of the Extraordinary Form (OFEF)
    4. Pre-1955 Mass = Extraordinary Form of the Extraordinary Form (EFEF)
  • An interesting taxonomy, Hugh. Let all of us pray earnestly that these predictions do not come to pass.
  • Chrism
    Posts: 663
    Hugh you forgot the AFOF, the Anglican Form of the Ordinary Form, which will be available in more and more parishes over the next few years if TAC's petition is handled with due haste.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,866
    I have thought for some years that the scarcity of Gregorian chant in many parishes is not because of the music, but because much of it has never been translated into English. I also suspect that average Catholics don't have the love for Latin that many on this forum possess. I agree with keeping Latin alive and that congregations should at least know the Ordinary. But as a practical matter, I don't think my views are shared by most in the pews. When I say something like this, I tend to hear the argument that Latin chants can not be translated into English. I think the Anglicans disproved that centuries ago. In essence, I don't think there was a death of the NO in Latin. It was never alive in the U.S. to begin with.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    This has been in the cards for a while but I'm glad to see the statistics. Another factor is that a schola can't revive the Latin OF on its own.The attempt taken too far only drives a wedge between music and the rest of the Mass.

    I worried after Summorum that the OF would end up as the vernacular Mass and the EF would be the Latin Mass. I'm unhappy about this result.
    Thanked by 1a1437053
  • On the other hand, at least in my neck of the woods, the only Latin inroads - specifically chant and polyphony - have been in OF parishes. As much as I may find comfort in EF rites, it would be delusional to exult in a perceived regional impact that doesn't exist. Faced with that reality, I'm not quite sure what the point of the article is.
  • don roy
    Posts: 306
    im with randolph
    i think this stastistic is misleading. a better indicator is how many no parishes now have some latin and to what degree.
    as a wise poster hear is fond of saying...brick by brick.
    the motu proprio is a tool not the solution. its how well we utilize the tools that matters...
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    Yes, Statics is temporary and can fluctuate a lot. Vernacular is a tool for inculturation, bringing Church's culture. (With so much anti- Christian modern culture and indifferent Catholics, we actually live in some sort of a 'missionary land,' maybe worse than some 'remote places'. Mother Teresa once said to Americans, you don't have to come to the streests of India to help people, there are more spiritually starving people in New York streets. )
    If OF is done well with respect to the rubrics of the Church, more people would want to hear and learn the prayers of the Church's own language in Holy Mass, which is given through the Church. I know priests here have good knowlege of Latin but don't know how to do EF. It would be nice to see them do OF with more Latin, but maybe people in this area is not ready for that yet. I have firends who would like to attend EF, but get lost when they do so. I think it would be a good step for them too. One of the priest I know celebrated OF in Latin 5th Sunday of the month whenenver there is one. He told me that's all he was allowed to do from the pastor.
    But then there's our Cathedral, which have Latin OF every Sunday. And I'll never go there again! With two smiling (smiling realy big for the entire time) lady cantors on the mic. up in the front waving hands and all. And no Propers. It is really a shame, and it was an insult for the sacred language. Just because it's done in Latin, it doens't mean it's done well. The whole Mass has to be done more reverantly.
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 749
    I have thought for some years that the scarcity of Gregorian chant in many parishes is not because of the music, but because much of it has never been translated into English. I also suspect that average Catholics don't have the love for Latin that many on this forum possess.

    I think there's something in that, Charles. I'd extend it, too, with the observation that their lack of love for Latin is rooted in the perception that a "Latin Mass" is one according to the old form, which they have been taught to believe is something the Church has put behind Her, even something wrong. One possible way to mitigate this is to ensure the dialogues are chanted in English, and to sing the respnsorial psalm and Missal propers to a psalm-tone, also in English. This will give them experience of hearing and singing simple chant, and makes more of a connection with their experience than the more complex alternatives. If it takes, then in time Latin can be introduced gradually.
  • Jackson, you should know that your comment likely offended a few us who love the EF but do not hate the OF. We should ask ourselves seriously if there really was a strong movement to have Latin OF Masses. I should say that my wedding was one, but finding a Latin responsorial psalm was difficult in my pre-CMAA years. I'm afraid that the vernacular OF Mass is now and shall be the norm unless the EF is finally abolished; this would of course be tragic for the Church, though. My hunch is that this the next pope will convene a liturgical council to harmonize the two forms into one. I suspect that there will still be the remnants of a 2-form structure (high and low if you will) with the solemn Mass being principally in Latin with vernacular readings. This would be similar to the original Lutheran concept of a Latin and German Mass. We'll see. I have to say, though, from a historical standpoint, I don't understand the fetish for a universal Mass. We've done quite well with many different uses over the centuries. It was only at Trent that that idea of everyone on the Roman page felt necessary.
  • JamJam
    Posts: 636
    My only experience of a Latin NO Mass was here at Franciscan. They had the same sappy sacro-pop music in English at it, no propers, and in fact everything was the exact same as their English Masses, save for the priest speaking the prayers in Latin, and the congregation responding with "et cum spiritu tuo" and "Deo gratias" (and flubbing other lines such as "habemus ad Dominum" and "dignum et iustum est"). The readings were totally in English (not both, as I see at the EF sometimes) and of course the homily as well.

    Why should anyone care for the Latin Novus Ordo if it's exactly the same as the vernacular, except they can't understand the priest's prayers? I mean, at this Mass even certain parts of the ordinary were sung in English. No translations were provided for the priest's prayers that were proper to the day.

    I think the problem with the Latin Novus Ordo is the exact same problem with the vernacular Novus Ordo, compounded with a layer of unintelligibility.
  • Michael -
    Mea culpa. And sincere apologies for any offense given. I should not have spoken in negative generalities that may not apply to all. I have often said that a wise man will always respect what is holy to others. Actually, I would prefer a well done EF to the OF as done in most parishes if I could participate actively in it; this means, among other things, singing the dialogue, responses, and ordinary - which I don't think the congregation do at EF masses: the notion that my participation is merely symbolised by the actions of the acolytes while I silently observe is repugnant to me. Correct me if I have aquired mistaken impressions. AND, the choice between a properly performed and an ill-performed liturgy should not equal EF vs. OF - there should be no distinction whatever in ecclesial ethos and sacrality. If I did not have Walsingham AU here I would likely attend one of several Eastern rite parishes because the NO is nowhere properly done here in Houston - except at TSU's St Basil's Chapel when we do our chant school masses there, some in English with Bruce Ford's and Fr Columba's chant, and some in Latin. Again, my apologies for rash remarks and causing offense.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,673
    I tend to hear the argument that Latin chants can not be translated into English. I think the Anglicans disproved that centuries ago

    Had lunch the other day with a Graybeard RC liturgist. (No more identifying will be done...)

    He relates that in the early 1960's, RC liturgists/musicians in the USA knew that the most viable English for a 'vernacular' Mass was the Anglicans' translation.

    And they really wanted to bring it to RC Masses (with a few changes here and there for orthodoxy if necessary.) That proposal didn't get too far.
  • Jackson, no harm, just a "heads up". I think you will find that many contemporary EF Masses feature the congregation singing the responses, while there are those "Low Mass-Only Communities" that probably reject the idea of congregation participation as much as you embrace it. I think the future of the EF is the dialogue Mass, to be sure. Modern Catholics, while not wanted to be browbeaten into singing, do generally respond when it's their turn and are used to it. I believe that someday the 2 Masses will merge into one, but personally I like the diversity within the Roman Rite as long as the principal elements are there as we see in the Sarum, Maronite, and Ambrosian uses. I would love to see the Sarum Use reinstated in England and maybe even a rebirth of the Celtic Rite as a "Use".
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,665
    It should be remembered that, in the 1960s, Anglicanism was still very much associated as The Oppressor's Denomination in the eyes of the dominant subgroups of English-speaking Catholics, so the idea that Rome's English-speaking bishops would suddenly embrace Cranmer was a long shot in that era. History has consequences.
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 749
    Up to a point, Liam. That was also a time when there high hopes of ecumenism, and the walls between Catholic and Anglican clergy were beginning to break down. This extended to cooperation on liturgical reform. Nor was sacral English solely the property of the Church of England. Catholics had long employed it outside of the Liturgy, and there were significant non-English Anglican liturgical traditions. The Episcopalian Prayer Books, for example, had a Scottish ancestry. While anti-English prejudice doubtless played a part in some circles, I suspect there were wider and deper cultural undercurrents.
  • Gregorian chant in English? Of course. But remember, the texts came from the King James bible, the Book of Common Prayer, and, I believe, the Coverdale psalter. Not just any translation will do. A silly translation clashes with a sober chant.
  • I don't think mine is an original thesis, but here are my 2 cents for what they're worth.

    "Active Participation", so called, requires that everyone 'understand' everything and 'do' it, so Latin and things other than a 4-hymn sandwich are utterly circumscribed in most circumstances. The problem isn't Latin itself or chant, but what these represent to those who refuse them. Mass isn't, at least in the common straight-jacket understanding, the supreme act of worshipping God. I have found some progress by suggesting that since our goal (regardless of rite, for the moment) should be to worship God, to talk to God, we can't do that if we won't stop long enough to focus on something other than ourselves. Those who know what the Mass really is are willing to accept the traditional forms. Those who can't accept Mass if that means giving up their comfortable blankets will continue to reflexively reject any "reform of the reform".

    Let me go a step farther. If the new translation is not accompanied by fitting decorum and appropriate music, the enemies of the Church will prevail in rendering any real internal reform meaningless. The Council will have failed.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,649
    I appreciated Hugh's taxonomy, and would add:

    Average suburban parish Sunday Mass with awkwardly played music and goofy talk from the priest:
    the ordinary Ordinary Form, or "OOF".

    :-)
  • Was that Missal of Paul VI ever intended to be completely in Latin, except for maybe synods and international gatherings? Do these statistics account for masses that have the ordinary and propers in Latin but the variable parts in the vernacular?

    I'm also wondering about how many of these N.O. masses take place in religious houses, which may be immune either to bishops' preferences or lay demands. I know at least one monastery in CT uses the N.O. in Latin, but perhaps that shouldn't even count in the statistics.

    In other words, the statistics could be more dire...or not.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,102
    saw this coming the day i heard about a latin NO
  • There is indeed substance to cgz's '2 cents'. I must, though, object (again) to categorising the use of hymns at mass as the 'four hymn sandwich'. This is no more smart than refering to a 'five proper sandwich'. We all here know how wisely to choose fitting hymns, and presumably do so. They are not inherently bad (though numerous things that are called 'hymns' Are). The proper place of chant and propers in the Roman rite is beyond question. Still, hymns are licit and legitimate; nor are they by any means proscribed (indeed, they may even be interpreted as valid and anticipated options) by the council's documents. I think refering to the use of any hymns at all, regardless of their quality and appropriateness, with this rather tired, contemptuous and silly phrase does not at all enhance the speaker or his or her views. It is time to lay this cliche aside. It is neither cute nor sober; and its use has in my eyes something like a boomerang effect on he who throws it about.
  • Jackson, as long as parishes replace the Propers of the Mass with hymns, there will be antipathy towards them. I have no great problem with hymns at Mass. There are very good places for them so long as the Propers are sung first. How I would have loved to be able to rely on the Offertory proper during Ordinary time and not dig for a hymn that would work. Anyway, people in a movement need catch phrases, and this is on that has emerged. Perhaps once we reclaim the Propers, there will be fewer jabs at hymns.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,866
    I think we need to be realistic about propers. I have reinstated communion propers, in English. Introits, it seems to me, do not work as well with the structure of the NO. A stately, appropriate entrance hymn works better for my parish and the way we do processionals. I have, from time to time, used introits as preludes, and the congregation was fine with that. I am looking for a way to put the offertory propers back in, but am not there yet.

    However, I think one point should be kept in mind. The OF is not the EF, nor was it ever really intended to be, in practice. The way the OF is structured does, I would agree, sometimes defy any logic. It has so many options, it's difficult for me to see any connection with the traditional Roman Rite. It can be similar if one uses the Roman Canon, but how many places do that? It's usually the shortest of the God knows how many canons available that we hear. Certainly we can all work toward improving the quality of the OF. But it seems to me that those who desire the structure of the EF and its language, need to attend and participate in EF masses.
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    I am curious as to what resistance you who are music directors have run into when introducing propers, English or otherwise, into the OF. Doing a 4-part (SATB) communion antiphon set to the proper of the day doesn't seem too different from a congregation's standpoint compared to using, say, "Taste and See," which has an easy refrain but difficult verses.

    Is introducing propers difficult because there isn't enough good or palatable music for the congregation?

    PS. Sorry for the aside in topic, but this seems at least loosely related to where this conversation has traveled.
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 749
    I'd disagree, CharlesW, both with your view of what can work and your belief that there's a clear-cut difference between the language and music required for the two forms. Our once-a-month schola sings the English Missal Introit to a psalm tone during the procession. Admittedly, it's a small church, but if it were larger there would be nothing stopping us doing a processional hymn as well.

    As for the relationship of the two forms of the Rite, I agree that the new can be done in a way that distances it from the old, but would also say it's possible to do it in ways that encourage a sense of continuity. More that than that: I would argue that this approach is assumed and encouraged by Conciliar and Papal documents, and that it's desirable for the tradition if we are not to be cast adrift into a pattern of constant, neurotic re-invention of the liturgy in our own image.
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 749
    Doug,

    None yet, though we do simple chant propers and Latin Ordinary, not 4-part. Mind you, the alternative at that particular mass would be no music at all, so it's not as if we have competition.

    At another place where I occasionaly sing, there's a settled NO tradition at one Sunday morning Mass of polyphonic and gregorian Latin ordinary, and Latin Roman Canon. The church is usually packed. Whenever I sing there I have lingering doubts about moving away from the city!
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    Sounds like a good place to be! My thinking about 4-part vs. chant is that if chant is out of the question for the time being at a particular parish, this shouldn't necessarily preclude the use of propers. I recently downloaded Richard Rice's Simple Choral Gradual and, to be coy about it, found that some of the settings are quite different from what I would have written myself using the same general style.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,866
    Doug, I haven't had any problems with propers. My congregation(s) sing the opening and closing hymns and the mass ordinary. They won't sing anything else, so the communion proper and the hymn that follows ends up being a choir or cantor piece.

    IanW, I am not sure there's a clear-cut difference between the language and music required. There is a clear-cut difference between the language and music as practiced in most of the U.S. My goal is to improve the OF, and I think that's a work in progress. I suspect most here are doing the same. Keep in mind, however, that I have no desire to slavishly imitate the EF mass. That is offered every Sunday at my parish for those who want it.

    However, I have sensed for some time a current here of those who really have never forgiven the Church for Vatican II or the NO. For those, maybe the EF is where they need to be and the rite that would make them most happy. I disagree, as I have stated before, that the EF and the OF are two sides of the same coin. Ideally, they could be. Practically, they are not at this time. It has seemed to me - and I am old enough to remember the Council - that the NO is not what the Council ever had in mind. The NO is something promulated by Paul VI several years after the Council ended. I don't think you can blame the Council for it. I thought the 1965 English/Latin missal was pretty good, and was much closer to what the Council actually had in mind.
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 749
    I see your point, Doug. It's quite possible to set them to Anglican chant, though one would need a good sense of how that works before doing so (it's a matter of having a good feel for the sound-world - once you have that, singing, directing or even writing your own isn't all that difficult).
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 749
    Sorry I misunderstood what you were saying, Charles.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,102
    I find that using the Offertory and Communion work quite well even when also including a hymn. We use the AUG and I often get comments about how the text is apropo to the readings and people seem to like that.
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,665
    I should clarify what the four-hymn-sandwich properly refers to, as it's a term I've been using since the advent of Catholic liturgical discussion boards back in the 1990s; I can't claim ownership per se, but it's a term I did help to popularize in that context.

    It refers to the situation where the hymns are simply inserted into what is otherwise pretty much a recited Mass (maybe with a sung responsorial psalm and Alleluia); that is where the bulk of the ordinary is recited, and where there little or no presidential singing. In other words, where the hymns ARE the music for all intents and purposes. So they become the juicy insertions in an otherwise "dry" Mass.

    It's a different situation where the hymns are part of a much larger tapestry of music.

    Again, this issue (hymns vs propers) would have less salience if much more of the Mass were in practice sung much more of the time. That was the real purpose of the invention of the phrase. I wish people would devote far less time to the hymns vs propers issue and spend much more time on the psalter and service music where much more work remains to be done. The fact that the hymns vs propers issue remains such a hot button is a vivid sign that, for musicians and congregations, those choices remain the juiciest bits to think about, and the psalter and service music remains a boring afterthought. Until that dynamic is subordinated, all talk of reform of the reform in the musical dimension of liturgy is a big old waste of time.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    It's not easy to fix the problems of OF. 'Brick by brick', takes long time and patience and sacrifices from musicians and congregations. It might not look like it's working at the beginning. I think modern people got used to quick fix and immediate results, tend to give up easily. The Chuch gives lots of options as stepping stones, sucha as religious songs, or hymns apporoved by bishops etc. But the Proper chants are indicated as the goal for those options. Some people can say those are random orders in the document. I dont' see that orders are random. Because 1, the documents have already stated and reiterated that Gregorian chant has the first place in the liturgy. 2. The order of options for Entrance, Offertory and Communio are consisitent. (Proper chants being 1 and other songs being at the bottom. If you want them to be truly random, why they are so persisitant in this order for all three?) 3. The Pope and the documents have instucted to interpret the instructions on the basis of the tradition that have handed down to us. (more so especially when there's a doubt.) Therefore, hymns REPLACING Propers cannot be a permanent option in the liturgy but a transitional one. (Such document like GIRM cannot be read just in part and applied. It seems obvious for the Church that its readers understood her traditions and other documents on Liturgy.)
    The Church gave lots of options, not just music but in many areas for the modern Catholics. (Like girl altar servers, they are permitted. But you can choose not to have them because of the deeper meaning of the altar servers that the Church have in her tradition. But having altar girls is an obviously easy and convenient option and also make those 'nice' people happy for certain locals.)
    Maybe it was a necessary step for the Church to make life easier for Catholics and hopeully bring more people to Church and keep them in Church. I believe it will work out eventually because of the conscientious Catholics and musicians who choose the better but harder way to do their roles.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,102
    However, I do rewrite the text on the AUG... the language gets a bit... ridiculous at times.

    Thee, Thi, Tho, Thum; I smell the talk of the English mun!
  • Jackson Osborne,

    I'm sorry if I slipped into the use of a cliche. Such was not my intent, so I hope you will let me clarify.

    Among the four available options at the beginning of the Mass and at the places where the pther propers traditionally fit, the very last of the four options is the use of a hymn. This doesn't make hymns bad, since, after all, there are a great many hymns (Deus tuorum militum, for example, or Jesu Dulcis Memoria) which have either proper places at Mass or appropriate uses. Even among hymns composed in super-modern-Albion Latin (i.e., English) the use of such hymns is not intrinsically evil. I didn't mean to suggest that it was. I meant that in the modern environment, hymns, especially modern songs, are considered "participation", while propers are not. As long as this situation persists, no progress can be made.

    His Holiness Pope Pius X reminded us that Gregorian chant is proper to the Roman Rite, and that therefore music which (paraphrase warning) closely approximates chant is to be preferred to the extent that it does so. "On Eagle's Wings" can't be made appropriate for Mass, and neither can Schubert's "Ave Maria".

    Many years ago I had the chance to work on the music for the First Holy Communion Mass. The catechist used the Baltimore Catechism, but insisted that all the music be appropriate for 7-yr olds. Noting Schubert's Ave Maria (before I came to my senses) on the proposed list, she insisted that the children should be able to sing this, or otherwise it shouldn't be sung at all. This is the quintessence of the problem.

    St. Cecilia, pray for us.
  • cgz - again, your observations have substance. I certainly did not by my comments intend to nail you personally. I just do, though, find this tag a rather silly and really thoughtless expression on the part of people who should have a considerably above average intellectual grasp of what genuine hymnody is and its potentially beneficent use at mass. It doesn't seem to me that hymns are going to go away any time soon. Their use Is licit. It therefore behooves us to make them 'proper' through a wise choice of hymns appropriate to a given day. Speaking of them in such cheap language by intelligent church musicians is neither helpful nor wisdomly. I use the propers (both Bruce Ford's English, and Latin at Latin masses) at St Basil's, but not at all the masses we do. They are appreciated and well received when we do them, but would not be accepted every week. The people there sing the ordinary (sometimes one of Fr Columba's adaptions and sometimes other settings), but love to sing properly chosen hymnody and sing it very well. (It goes without saying that we here mean by a hymn, say, Lauda Anima or St Denio, and Not the song about eagle's wings.) At Walsingham we do hymns And propers every week at the entrance and dismissal - at the offertory and communion we do the propers and an anthem. This is, I'm sure, universal in the Anglican Use. Ideally, though, for the Roman rite, I agree fully that the propers alone are truly the most fitting and appropriate first choice. But if hymnody is needful or desired, fine hymns well played and sung are certainly a good thing. And, a mass with propers and a mass with properly chosen hymns each has its own respectable aesthesis; having both is, I think, a boon from the council. I invite sober commentary on this observation.

    And, Francis - I protest! the language of the AUG isn't at times ridiculous. It is, though, archaic or not, sometimes fun. We love it! You just have to know when to put tongue in cheek. (But, there is no harm in modernising pronouns here and there so that it will blend in with the language of the NO.)
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 749
    Thee, Thi, Tho, Thum; I smell the talk of the English mun!

    ???????????????????????????????????????
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    The order of congregation participation in singing is first Reponses, then Ordinaries and mabye some Propers, if possible (or just by choir or schola). Hymns are optional. I hear people from congregaions often complain that while they try to praticipate in singing so much, they cannot truly participate in praying. True, 'singing well is praying twice.' But how many hymns can you schedule for congregaition singing after the main structure of the Mass is sung, Responses, Ordinaries and Propers for the sung Mass that the Church desires. Most of parishes focus on 4 hymns, and whether they are beautiful and theologically sound or not, they are personal devotional hymns. Propers are Liturgical prayers assigned by the Church for that specific day of the Mass and specific parts of the Mass. I don't see why people's devotional prayers replace the Church's Propers in many local churches. Liturgy is different from prayer services for Catholics. If local parishes want to sing more hymns, they can start Vespers and other Offices, instead of stuffing so much into the Mass.
  • don roy
    Posts: 306
    miacoyne
    beautifully said! How in blue blazes can you read my mind!? I couldnt agree more!
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,866
    I remember propers as choir pieces and I don't recall the congregation ever singing them. My choir sings some of them at the one Sunday mass when they are present. They are cantor solos at the other three masses. I have the communion proper sung at all masses, and sometimes I do the other propers. Before Vatican II, I recall propers being sung only at the one high mass on Sunday. They were never sung at the low masses. I really suspect one thing that did the introits in was the fact that the congregation couldn't sing them. As for the offertory, it seems to me the rubrics are now a bit different from what I recall pre-Council.

    I have managed to reduce the number of hymns to three - entrance, post-communion, and recessional. The recessional is irrelevant because the mass is over by then, anyway. However, lest you think the music was glorious in the parishes before Vatican II, it wasn't in most places. Mid 20th century, I recall late Romantic music, neo-romantic 20th century music, and chant sung well or badly, depending on what parish I was visiting.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    Don Roy, thank you for reading my post inspite of my poor English.
    I also want to make sure that I know many musicinas are still in places where hymns have to be used instead of Propers. I myself still use entrance hymn instead of Intorit Proper. (Although I dind't have a problem with communio and Offertory Propers, and people are very happy with them, I have to wait for the right moment for the Introit. I'm not sure whether I should introduce it as a prelude. It is a part of the Mass.)

    Charles, I'm sure your congregation participate in singing a Proper, Responsorial psalm?
  • Hugh
    Posts: 178
    Thanks to insights of Chrism and Chonak, we can expand our taxonomy of the Roman Rite:

    1. Vernacular Novus Ordo = Ordinary Form of the Ordinary Form (OFOF)
    2. Latin Novus Ordo = Extraordinary/Extinct Form of the Ordinary Form (EFOF)
    3. 1962 Mass = Ordinary Form of the Extraordinary Form (OFEF)
    4. Pre-1955 Mass = Extraordinary Form of the Extraordinary Form (EFEF)
    5. Anglican form of the Ordinary Form (AFOF)
    6. (Guitars, goofy sermons, and/or clowns, puppets, vestments in colors of national soccer team, glass chalices, love-ins at Sign of Peace, etc) = The Ordinary Ordinary Form (OOF). (Or, perhaps, the Very Ordinary Form (VOF)?)

    :-)
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,102
    Well

    these from the last few weeks are a bit obtuse for our cowboys out here:

    God in his holy habitation: it is he that maketh bretheren to be of one mind in an house.

    Or

    O hold thou up my goings in the paths, that my footsteps slip not;incline thine ear to me, and hearken unto my words: Show thy marvellous lovingkindness, O Lord, thou that artthe Savior of them that put their trust in thee.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,102
    Ian... You don't care for my humor I suspect.
  • Well -
    I see nothing obtuse here! Only a poetic heart. I think these are wonderful --- (and their meaning crystal clear).
    Besides: what's wrong with obtuse?

    By the way: God in his holy habitation (Deus in loco) is also the NO introit for matrimony.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,102
    They are wonderful... But it goes over most of the pips heads. I want to KEEP doing the propers but if I did them all as they are, eventually they would suffer protest from many and the I would lose them altogether.

    Same goes for too much Latin. Got to be careful to go slow.
  • I'm of the impression that you do not jest here.
    But: it is incomprehensible to me that anyone could not understand this language, and I would assume that someone who said that he or she couldn't was being facetious.