Reasons for the Propers
  • Claire H
    Posts: 368
    I promised my pastor -- who doesn't seem too familiar with the concept of propers, but who is generally receptive when I can defend my recommended implementations from Church documents -- that I would provide him with references and reasons for why the Church prefers propers (not necessarily the full Greogorian melodies, but at least simple versions) to hymns/other songs. Specifically, I need to explain why the entrance antiphon is preferable to an opening hymn. Right now I'm just working toward Communion and Entrance antiphons.

    Document references and/or other resources (links to articles, etc) would be helpful as I compile information for him.

    Thanks in advance!
  • Aristotle EsguerraAristotle Esguerra
    Posts: 1,185
    Sing to the Lord (USCCB 2007), emphasis added:

    117. Proper antiphons from the liturgical books are to be esteemed and used especially because they are the very voice of God speaking to us in the Scriptures. Here, "the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them. And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life." (Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation) (1965), no. 21.) The Christian faithful are to be led to an ever deeper appreciation of the psalms as the voice of Christ and the voice of his Church at prayer. ("The praying of the psalms . . . must be grasped with new warmth by the people of God. This will be achieved more readily if a deeper understanding of the psalms, in the meaning in which they are used in the liturgy, is more diligently promoted among the clergy and communicated to all the faithful by means of appropriate catechesis" (Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution Laudis canticum [1970], no. 8).)
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    wow! I guess I had forgotten that amazing passage.
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    Of course these aren't stand alone arguments, but these three points will certainly help, although you might have already known about some of them.

    1) Sacrosanctum Concilium:

    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.


    No explanation needed. :) There's also very similar wording in the GIRM, no. 41.

    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.


    Don't forget, this document is coming out of the council. As you know, one of the two largest reasons "books of Gregorian chant" (ie, the graduale romanum) are used are for the propers. Would they be asking for this if they didn't intended the propers to be used?

    2) The GIRM:
    48. This chant is sung alternately by the choir and the people or similarly by a 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 Missal or the antiphon with its Psalm from the Graduale Romanum, as set to music there or in another setting; (2) the antiphon and Psalm of the Graduale Simplex for the liturgical time; (3) a chant 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) another liturgical chant that is suited to the sacred action, the day, or the time of year, similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.
    (From the new translation of the GIRM)


    Notice it gives the propers the first priority. Second is another form of the propers, and third is a psalm. Only through the last and final option is anything else allowed. Also, throughout the rest of the GIRM, it doesn't reference the "opening song" or "offertory hymn." It says "The communion chant" (no. 139, and other places) or "the entrance chant." (no. 43, and other places). Hymns are simply replacements of the propers, and they aren't the norm.

    3) Continuity:
    Also, look at it from a standpoint of continuity. Before the council, everyone knew that the propers were the normative music for the beginning, offertory, and during communion. VII did not change that (please show me if it did :) ). If you read the documents with honesty, you will find that the propers are still the norm. It may not be screaming it in your face, but it is undeniably there.

    Well there's my 2 cents. I hope this helps!
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,151
    Worthwhile 2 cents, I'd say!
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    Oh yes, one more thing. If he is still not sure about it, you could bring up that our Holy Father is also having the propers sung at many of his Masses, as you can see on TV, and is referenced here.
  • jpal
    Posts: 365
    Here's another good reference: http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2009/04/can-hymns-licitly-replace-propers.html
    Jon
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    I know you asked for Church documents, but I wonder if it would be permitted to add my two cents.

    The question really shouldn't be, "Why should we sing the Propers?"

    The question should be: "Why should we continue to replace the special prayers that the Church has assigned to each Mass over a period of many centuries?"

    This is the reason why the Vatican II Hymnal includes the COMPLETE sung Propers.
Add a Comment