Wow, thank you!

I had recently come across this also. It indeed is very comprehensive, and seems especially helpful in its inclusion of verse prescriptions for the antiphons of the Roman Missal.

One of the downfalls of this effort, in my estimation, is that there was a failure to implement the methods of translation used in the 3rd ed. of the Roman Missal so that there would be achieved a "seamless" translation of scriptural texts (so far as is possible) between all of these sources. The use of the old ICEL translation of the Graduale Simplex seems unnecessary, and the antiphons of the Graduale do not seem to harmonize well with the translational style of the antiphons of the Missal. In many cases also the antiphons of the Graduale are in fact found in the Missal, just not where you would expect them to be. But in these cases still fresh translations seem to have been made in this collection. So while this is comprehensive, and even admirable, I feel that a more thorough job could have been done in order to meet the demands of Liturgiam Authenticam.

+1 Maureen!!!

Both PDF documents (the American Version and the British Version) are included in this article (which NLM ran about a month ago):

“Why aren’t the Propers from the Roman Gradual identical to the Mass Propers printed in the Roman Missal?”

The American version is very interesting, and worth a look.

Also, Jeff, I have to say that this is some pretty strong and presumptuous language:

"...it seems rather obvious that the Bishops’ Committee simply did not understand why the Missal chants were created in the first place and the specific (and limited) role they were intended to fulfill. Furthermore, the Bishops’ Committee is certainly not the first group to be ignorant of the purpose of the Missal antiphons."

Having had a detailed conversation with the prelate who drafted this adaptation of the 2003 GIRM, I can assure you that he was quite aware of the intention of the Missal antiphons. Please don't be too quick to cast judgment, friend.

Hi Jeff. I've read both many times, meticulously. I still fail to see any point that you're trying to make, unfortunately. Also, not everything is documented, friend. The Tietze article, which I have relied on for years now, seems to have infuriated many in positions of authority who have no real need to weigh in on anything.

Gentlemen,
From the "consumers' corner" of our gallery: is the thrust of your dialogue suggesting that there is something substantive about the validity of these textual issues that would eventuate in consigning the SEP/SCG/BFW/PBG/AG efforts to a house of cards that may not withstand authoritative scrutiny?
It seems that over a few years' discussions that the intent and purpose of this proper (and the others?) has been vollied back and forth, with the likes of Mahrt refereeing with the proviso, if it's from the GR in Latin, it's all good; if it's vernacular, don't worry, be happy, tie game.
Would you be so kind as to illustrate the crux of this issue for me?

Adam:

OK, I take it from your answer that this is based on a (private) spoken conversation. You had not indicated this fact. I did not think of my question as "hilarious" and "absolute absurdity," but perhaps others see it differently.

Charles:

My article was simply presented as "FYI" information for those interested. The strength of the article comes in the supporting documents I provided.

Charles: While I realize that you asked this question of JMO, I would like to offer my own thoughts here, for what they are worth to you and to others.

While the antiphons of the Roman Missal were undoubtedly intended initially for spoken recitation only (this is easily verifiable), the practice of singing them has ensued to varying degrees in many parts of the world throughout the past 40 years. Compared to most of the texts that were sung in many places, this was the better path to take, especially since there were no vernacular translations of the texts of the Roman Gradual given by the authority of the Church.

In 2003 the USCCB made an adaptation to GIRM 48 and 87 which was within their competency (Cf. GIRM 390). The wording of this adaptation was confusing, and fortunately was rectified in the 2010 translation of the GIRM which is now in effect.

This adaptation, approved by Rome, is PARTICULAR LAW for the diocese of the United States. Our "first option" for the source of the chants of the Entrance, Offertory and Communion is the Roman Missal OR the Graduale Romanum. Particular law trumps universal law in this case, as is confirmed by any canonist.

So while I am personally a strong advocate of the use of the Graduale texts (Cf. Simple English Propers, among other things), one cannot argue that the Missal antiphons should not be sung, because to do so would be to advocate against Church LAW.

This being said, I think that there are plenty of good reasons to favor the Graduale texts: questions of continuity, creating a path to the Gregorian ideal, mutual enrichment between the OF and EF, and on and on.

However, one cannot reasonably argue that the Missal antiphons are not meant to be sung (at least in the US in 2012). To do so would require infidelity to the Church. And no one should feel uncomfortable singing either the texts of the Missal, the Graduale Romanum (in English or Latin) or the Graduale Simplex (in English or Latin). All of these are of higher preference according to the mind of the Church than the other texts and pieces that are often sung and have no substantial connection to the liturgical structure of the Roman Rite.

There are more subtle ways to be persuasive toward the texts of the Graduale Romanum, while still fostering fidelity to Church teaching, and preserving unity and sanity in this period of liturgical transition.

My thoughts anyway.

And let me add:

There should be no fear incited whatsoever in those who want to sing propers, no matter which texts they decide to sing. The important focus right now should be on singing propers in general, and on fostering fidelity to the mind of the Church. Getting our liturgical culture in this modus operandi could be the work of our lifetime. This is why I think that things like this could cause more confusion than good in the lives of average parishes. It is too much for people to digest. They blow a fuse. Information overload. Default to habitual practices.

I would like to repeat my conviction: The important thing to do right now is to sing propers in general, and foster fidelity to the mind of the Church.

Adam:

. . . one cannot argue that the Missal antiphons should not be sung, because to do so would be to advocate against Church LAW.

. . . However, one cannot reasonably argue that the Missal antiphons are not meant to be sung (at least in the US in 2012). To do so would require infidelity to the Church.

What I like about this forum is the opportunity to "get in touch" with folks from different places, traditions, and experiences.

For instance, I have never encountered anyone who has said it is not allowed to sing Missal chants. Nor have I read this in any scholarly journals, websites, blogs, etc.

Is this a position that is being put forth? If so, by whom? I'd be interested to know (as someone who has sung the Graduale chants since 9th grade, I'm interested in this topic).

On the other hand, what I have encountered in my own circumstances (quite frequently over the last decade) are folks unfamiliar with the Graduale Romanum.

Charles:

Would you be so kind as to illustrate the crux of this issue for me?

Charles, I am not aware of any "issue" regarding permissions. However, I have noticed a growing movement. This movement is not looking at things from the point of view of "what is allowed?" Rather, more and more Catholics are now asking the question, "What is the best option?"

Again, I am not aware of anyone claiming that the Missal propers are not allowed to be sung. As many people, including myself, have already explained, these were always allowed to be sung as "alius cantus aptus", and have recently been included as "option no. 1" in the USA, requiring no Bishop's permission (the curious history behind this is treated here).

I remember several years ago, Jeffrey Tucker published an article questioning whether it was wise to always (and without exception) replace the Introit the Church assigned. Jeffrey was promptly ATTACKED (mauled?). Numerous people went "ballistic," and kept repeating that "hymns are allowed to replace the propers." But Jeffrey never said hymns weren't allowed. He was merely questioning the wisdom of always and without exception replacing the Propers. Again, the principle is: "Not everything which is allowed is necessarily the best option."

I had hoped this would be a listing of "Conducti" (Conductus) and GENUINE processional hymns. (ala Gloria, Laus et honor) I must get my head out of being stuck in the 13th century.

This book is simply a list of propers from the graduale romanum that everyone already knows and uses.

It seems to me to be a silly book thats not particularly valuable for singing. They could at least include music?

It's only value seems to be as a translation tool, or an official english texts guide?

I'm no fan of E&W's Liturgy Office and feel that the Society of St. Gregory could do more to encourage use of Gregorian Chant generally and the Graduale Romanum in particular, but both have done us a favour by publishing this resource. As Bishop Hopes says in the introduction, the Conference wants us to sing the Propers rather than substitute hymns for them. In backing this publication it has made that abundantly clear. Whatever one's reservations about the translation style they are secondary to recognition of an encouraging affirmation of principle.

Incidentally, I'm greatly looking forward to publication of the Graduale Parvum, which will provide chant settings of vernacular propers and employ translations of the texts from the books of the Roman Rite.

wow, what a thread! Seems to me like some polite but heated discussion on issues about which most everyone seems to (more or less) agree, as best I can tell. I recall a few years ago asking a Church official about this whole question and he just waved his hand and said, look, we'll deal with all this at a later stage, maybe after we are all dead; for now, we need to sing Mass propers, whether GS, GR, or RM, doesn't matter.

Yes, and the Parvum is coming up.

One thing that seems to be rather clear is that if we do eventually get an official translation of the Graduale, it will not preclude the use of others. This is an extremely important point. And I'm pretty sure that everyone agrees on this matter. There will not be one prescribed text.

In my view, we can absolutely teach the people what the Sung Propers are, where they came from, and why we pray them at Mass.

All I can tell you, Jeff, is that I have been singing (introducing) propers at my parish for 3 1/2 years and my pastor still cannot comprehend that there is a difference between sung and spoken propers, despite my efforts to educate him. Neither can many of the most faithful and learned servants of the liturgy who I am friends with and discuss issues like this all of the time. I'm just saying that I've tried until I've been blue in the face to catechize on this issue, and it usually doesn't do much good. It tends to be irrelevant to most.

I tend to agree with JT: "for now, we need to sing Mass propers, whether GS, GR, or RM, doesn't matter." We can give prominence to the GR texts (as I do, and as we ought to do), but explaining this to people, and expecting them to understand the difference between sung propers and spoken propers, or any consequence flowing from this, I fear, is a bit of a hopeless cause in our day.

This is my current conclusion, anyway.