A few observations:
1)The four hymn sandwich was a natural progression from low mass with hymns. Low mass, while not the liturgical norm, was more commonplace than sung mass. It is easier, and requires less singers, servers, etc.
2) There were no authorized vernacular versions of the propers. But that wasn't a goal of the council to begin with, and most people now recognize we ended up with more vernacular than the council called for. The stated aims of the council (and before the council) as regards sacred music were to transition choirs toward restoring Gregorian chant, including authentic Gregorian propers.
3) It did not help that it took several years to adjust the gregorian propers to the new lectionary cycle. Then it took more time to publish the Missale Romanum. In the years the MR was being prepared and published, vernacular hymnody, largely of a commercial variety, saturated the market.

So by the time propers were available, parishes had become emotionally and financially invested in hymnody. Again, this transition was made easier in that most parishes had at least one low mass with hymns before the council. This practice (tradition, though an incomplete one) didn't change, though the style did.


Decades later, most parishes are left with the worst of both (pre and post council) worlds. The musical and theological quality of hymns is typically worse than that of previous generations, and most parishes are farther away from the council's call to restore sung liturgy using sacred music than they were before the council.

It seems that the confusion and lack of knowledge surrounding the restoration of the authentic propers illustrates how we have largely moved backwards in terms of the most recent council's stated goals of reclaiming the sung sacred liturgy which properly belongs to all Catholics.

But all is not lost! Groups like CMAA are working toward a more complete realization of sung sacred liturgy, one that values authentic tradition and competent ecclesial authority.

When I think back before the Council - I was 15 when it ended, but still remember quite a bit - my parish had one sung mass on Sunday, and the others were low masses. The "high" mass was the pastor's mass. MaryAnn is correct on the translations of the propers. There weren't any. Our organist at the time made an effort to choose hymns that aligned with proper texts, but it was difficult for him. There were not enough hymns in the hymnal to do it, and they were never good word-for-word substitutions. Keep in mind that the hymns at the time were generally better than what is available today in the best selling hymnals.

Another thought on this subject. I recall that before the Council, the congregation, in practice, sang very little of the liturgy. It was generally a choir/cantor performance. There was a desire for the congregation to participate, and especially to sing. Propers were performance pieces to be heard, not sung. Hymns were favored since everyone could sing them. I remember several priests mentioning the wonderful singing in Protestant churches, and they clearly thought that was a good model to follow.

The biggest flaw in the master's thesis linked above is that the historical narrative presented in chapter 1 tells us only about music written for the proper, not about what people were doing during those places in the liturgy. The evidence of one isn't necessarily evidence of the other.

Building on the shaky pedestal, the author then follows this with a purely rhetorical introduction to chapter 2, section 1: "After centuries of stability, ... [V2 brought about all these liturgical changes]."

While V2 undoubtedly led to significant liturgical changes, we can't assume that the liturgy, especially its music, was "stable" following the Council of Trent. If anything, the history of Catholic music from the eighth century onward illustrates a (sometimes tense) dialectical relationship between centralization and localization. But piecing together that history is difficult.

To the question of whether there were English translations of the propers: the first Roman Missal of 1964, which was the "Tridentine" Mass with partial translation, included all of the sung propers in English translation, all of the sung ordinary in English translation, but the orations, prefaces, canon remained in Latin. This was replaced in 1966 by a Sacramentary; this included more of the Mass in English translation, the prayers at the foot of the altar, the orations and prefaces, though the Canon remained in Latin, but since it was a Sacramentary--a book with the texts for the priest--and since the priest no longer had to recite the propers, they were not included in the Sacramentary. The rubrics for the celebration of the Mass, however, provide that they are sung by the schola or the people or recited, without specifying their texts. This could well have given the impression that the propers were no longer necessary to anyone who did not read the fine print of the rubrics at the front of the Sacramentary (still in Latin). My recollection of the High Mass was that it always included the propers, but the Low Mass included hymns; eventually, with the breakdown of the distinction between low and high Mass, the hymns were the path of least resistance and, in addition, fulfilled the growing sense that the people should sing everything.

There is a similar German Gradual, which did not receive approval of the Bishops conference.

What I read and heard had to do with the mass of Paul VI regarding "low" vs "high." It stated that there is only one mass, and it can be celebrated with varying degrees of solemnity.

In many places, the high Mass was at the end of the morning cycle of Masses before noon. It was considered by some as punishment for those who slept late.

It was considered by some as punishment for those who slept late.

I'm not sure what this comment adds to what was (otherwise) a serious and thoughtful discussion. I'm assuming you're trying to be funny. In any event, regardless what anyone "considers," the High Mass is not a punishment according to true Catholic theology.

With the old fasting rules, a late mass could be punishing. I suspect a reason for the Vatican II reforms might have been that the old mass was beautiful and good theater, but out-of-touch with most of the congregations. The reforms were centuries late, I think. How many actually experienced the glories of European cathedral liturgy, as opposed to the realities of liturgy in the average American parish? It wasn't always so great.

Knowing Liam as we all do, Jenny, I'm sure the remark was lighthearted.

Liam, we have a "Jenny" whom I believe is a pediatrician. Your "good enough for my father, good enough for me" sounds suspiciously like the rationale for....well, nevermind.
One thing I do know, if I as pew warmer am totally involved in a full on Missa Solemnis with no responsibilities other than to fulfill my role as a worshipper, I have no inclination whatsoever to clockwatch. Two, three hours, meh. Heaven, I'm in heaven....

And my mother grew up in a family that went to High Mass every week, where the cantor sang alone while everyone sat in silence (sound familiar?). For her, High Mass was all she ever knew, but she says others did in fact view it as a punishment for sleeping in. Not only the length, but the singing. And she's not the only old Catholic who has reinforced to me that this was the case in many parishes. The anecdotal evidence is there for anyone who will only talk to those who remember the pre-conciliar days.

Fact: Many Catholics who only attend Mass out of obligation prefer a shorter Mass.
Fact: When a parish is trying to squeeze as many Masses as possible into a morning, it makes sense to put the longest Mass last.
Conclusion: Those who did not want to attend a long Mass might feel like they were being punished if they missed all of the shorter ones by sleeping in.

What more evidence is needed?

Liam, that comment was purely in jest. I meant no offense if that was taken.
Seems like a bit of a testy Monday at MSF. Hey, everyone, into the pool, it's Ordinary Time!

oooh, I wish I had a pool right now! Especially an outdoors one! (One of the few- if not the only ;-) downside to living in the midwest... very limited outdoor pools for the 2.5 months that we could use them!)

O' course, I am not looking for Ms. Melanoma to hitch a ride, no no mo!

This is not your research bureau.

Neither I, nor anyone else, claimed it was.

More importantly, however, your assertion that priests got together and planned the high Mass as "punishment" for Catholics who slept late is truly absurd.

JennyH

"It was considered by some as punishment" =/= "priests got together and planned the high Mass as a 'punishment'.

What you right is indeed absurd. We can agree about that at least.

Part of this discussion reminds me of an incident several years ago when, on a different forum, I said that another poster was "dead on here." She took it to mean, "DEAD on the forum," as in a corpse that might as well not exist; she was rightfully offended. But what I meant was, "SPOT ON" with respect to point X she was making, as in I was in full agreement.

Once I explained what I meant, her defensiveness relented. It would be helpful if that could happen here and we could move on.

Sitting through a Mass that was more theatrical in nature, with very little if any participation from a congregation, only to be held hostage for more than an hour, listening to Mass in a language that most don't speak or even understand, with only the elite choirs singing/chanting, it is no wonder the average Catholic back than, would not want to endure a high mass.

Another attempt at humor, Michael?

Theater? What--you expected Hee Haw? Was it too challenging to read the translation in your missal, or are you claiming that your 'understanding' of transubstantiation is now perfect?

Puuhhhhleeeeez.....

Actually, even a later session of Trent envisioned the pastoral need for the vernacular, and gave the pope permission to allow it by indult, which was rather promptly done in parts of central Europe for about a generation.

And it took over 300 years for Rome to implement Trent's notional thrust towards frequent communion - Pius X's action can be seen as a much-delayed implementation decree from Trent....

Actually, good for the prompt to correct: i was confusing this with communion under both species. The position on the vernacular was more restrained: Trent merely said it was advisable to stick to Latin and only anathemized those who questioned the validity of Masses not said in the vernacular.

I agree that the High Mass, then and now, may require some initiation, some following a missal or Mass leaflet. But I would not like to encourage those who look at their watches after 45 minutes. It depends on how important your attendance at Mass is. After all, how many people would leave a football game or a movie after 45 minutes? Such attitudes might need to be tolerated, but not encouraged; rather our task is not only to provide music at an existing level, but also to educate our congregations gradually in something better.

I am enjoying your discussion. You may be interested to know that a work has recently been completed to assist in the training of singers for the Extraordinary form of the Latin liturgy. Propers for the liturgical year, plus some other usual feasts are available (downloadable PDFs) in classical notation, and although it would take a little work to find the appropriate spot in the novus ordo, they could be used by choirs on an occasional or regular basis. Their unique aspect is that they are readable by anyone with a music education, and the barrier of learning to read square notation is removed.
See sottovocemusic.com.

+1, Doug. In my understanding of Pio X's motu, I felt his intent was a "both/and" proposition insofar as the role of the faithful in the nave during the singing of Mass.