David's right. The link is not working. :(

Sorry … minus sign != equals sign.

I would also add that not all of the Propers are constructed with "Voice of God" texts.

In my presentation on "Full, Active and Conscious Participation" I use the entrance antiphon from the Requiem as an example of how the replacing of the Proper text with a contemporary hymn or song (that may or may not include "Voice of God" lyrics) actually derails the participation of the people by drawing their prayer (and participation) away from the action of praying for the repose of the soul of the person who died and toward the people themselves. Compare "Eternal rest grant unto him/her, O Lord . . . " with the refrain, "Be not afraid, I go before you always . . . " The problems are obvious; one is made to ask who the "I" and "you" are in this text, and where is the prayer for the soul of the deceased.

It has long baffled me that not one music resource in the pew (save for "By Flowing Waters" which is sadly not commonly found in the pew) for use at funerals includes an English language translation of the beautiful and profoundly prayerful texts of the Requiem, and that the purpose of the antiphons in the post conciliar funeral Mass have been so grossly ignored. Of all the opportunities for the whole congregation to sing the Propers, the Requiem is certainly one of the more important, and yet has never been employed.

The choir has become part of the congregation in many minds, but the choir has always been raised above the congregation and given a special voice in the liturgy and this has been the tradition since earliest times. That's why we hear the phrase, choir of angels.

It might help to think of it like the cantors who sing the psalm. They are entrusted to study the psalms and to proclaim them singing. There is no rule against the people saying them or singing them, but it isn't done because they have been set aside for the psalmist to proclaim.

Most cantors don't have a clue about the psalms, but that's really not their fault.

Great synopsis of the dynamic tension between approaching the Paradigm of a fully reformed liturgical praxis as envisioned by Pius X, and the political realities, couched often in seemingly apparent legislative ambiguity, of recovering just the basics of a truly Catholic culture, Rob.
But there is a point of departure in our respective understandings. You rightly wonder if it lies solely in the texts, and say "Why not?" Others say that you can't divorce the text, either in Latin or the vernacular from its DNA integrity wedded to the musical form dubbed "chant," and therefore it's untenable to place that burden upon the congregation, who would more benefit by an engaged, active participation of observance. And still others are forging passed these polarities by advancing new and culturally consistent strains that, as Mark Searle coined the term, remember into the future.
These are not philosophical, esoteric problems. If one parish in Kenya can worship in a fully realized "Roman" EF while another down the highway manifests every authentic attribute of a fully realized OF, proper and ordinary texts, to the letter, but in the vernacular and indigenous musical forms, is there really a question to be called as to whether one or the other was a truer, superior worship expression?
I fully understand and appreciate the human inclination towards uniformity through conformity. I'm personally comfortable with the desire that I could conduct my business with others of like mind. But, for the umpteenth time, all politics are local. To believe that, short of blasts of the trumpets of the parousia and the vision of the Pantocrator filling the skies around the blue marble (speaking of "voice of God" stuff, fo' real), the Paradigm can simply be mandated even from the Petrine cathedra and everything will turn on a dime and be just fine, is wishful thinking at best....

Sorry, that was a "whisper" for Noel.