Hmmm... It's working now. Must have been a page loading glitch.

Mark,

(MY TWO CENTS)

This is the opinion told to me by several priests who were ordained ten years before Vatican II (one of whom was a Peritus to a Cardinal). I would argue that this interpretation is absolutely in line with the traditions of the Church. I would argue that the documents of the Church are to be understood with reference to tradition, as opposed to (for instance) in a vacuum, without reference to tradition. Back when I was an umpire, we used to say, "The rules of baseball were written by gentlemen for gentlemen, not by lawyers for lawyers." It does not seem bizarre to me that we interpret the documents with respect to the traditions of the Church. It would stand to reason that the Church assigning special prayers to each Mass (over a period of many centuries) is highly significant. This is my two cents.

This 1969 statement would seem to agree with this philosophy.

We need to create a culture wherein, when it comes to routinely and rigidly replacing those ancient prayers carefully wed by the Church to each Mass, we would gently ask, "What is your reason for replacing these texts?"

Since this interpretation, if true, would create a fairly major rupture with pre-Conciliar practice

I am not sure what you mean by this. The Propers were required to be sung in their entirety for all High Masses before the Second Vatican Council.

It is true that sometimes certain parishes in America simply "skipped" the Propers for High Mass (according to what I've been told by priests who know). But this was NEVER allowed. They ought not to have done that. However, most would (at a minimum) psalm tone the Propers.

The "options" of late have been frequently blasted by those on the more traditional side of the spectrum. I had a thought as to what the REAL problem with all these options really is... There's never been ANY indication (as far as I'm aware) as to why one should pick one option over the other! To me it's kind of common-sense... for our musical options, we aim for the Gregorian proper. If we can't do that, we try the Simple proper. If we can't do that, perhaps a psalm. Other factors (willingness of congregation to participate, cultural setting, length of Mass) may make one or the other more desirable. But the canon? Why would one pick II over I or over IV? At least the newly-composed canons (Reconciliation, Children, etc) have specified REASONS they might be used. Why not say something like "Use I for all feasts, II for daily Mass, IV for Advent"? And then there's all those forms of the Penitential Rite...

The real scandal of the options, I submit, is that they have no readily discernible purpose and neither Rome nor the episcopacy will lead on them.

The Tietze collection is only $6 or $7 from World Library Publications. It's an excellant resource to have on your bookshelf.

Mr. O: My family stumbled onto this video on their own. They find it hilarious- not in its message but in its similarity to the average Sunday morning conversations at our house. My daughter in Germany, surrounded by teen-life liturgies is circulating this video too.
I would have reversed the rolls, with the child promoting the propers and the adult objecting. I am finding that its the older people who object to the propers. They and paint them with the broad brush of nostalgia and obsolescence, and the mantra "Full and active participation" is a permanent engram.