Propers vs ordinary?
  • pulchritudo_musicae
    Posts: 30
    I've heard several people in music positions refer to parts of the Mass (such as the Our Father or the Holy) as the "Propers"--is that ever correct?

    I understood that "Propers" refers exclusively to the Antiphons that are "proper" to that specific day and the "ordinary" is the parts of the Mass that don't change. Yes?
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    Propers are changing parts. Ordinary is the unchanging parts. To call the sanctus and Our Father proper is clearly incorrect.

    Strictly speaking, the introit, offertory, communion, the collects, readings, responsorial psalm, prayer over the gifts, and prayer after communion are all propers, but usually when someone says "the propers," they are referring to the changing (proper) chants done by the choir or schola, at least in my experience.
  • pulchritudo_musicae
    Posts: 30
    I was certain of that, but wanted to confirm after hearing the ordinary referred to as the Propers a few times. There is much educating to be done--but at least people are starting to discuss these things around my diocese. :)
  • francis
    Posts: 10,876
    I have a small booklet online that you can download for free which will answer all of your basic questions about the Mass. You may want to pass the link on to educate others so they also understand the nature of sacred music at the liturgy. Puttling everyone on the same page (literally) is not easy, but hopefully this publication can be of help.

    http://romancatholicsacredmusic.com/wswbsnB2.pdf

    If you want, I can also have them printed if you want a bulk order... send me a private email.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    I highly doubt that this is the source of the confusion, but- just a note:

    For a small nexus of reasons, the Alleluia (or Tract) before the Gospel, which is actually a Proper, with its own weekly text AND weekly music in the Graduale, has become, in contemporary practice, a part of the Ordinary, with writers of new Mass settings almost always including it.

    I have wondered if there are any other parts of the Ordinary or Proper which have had "switched sides" (in practice or in law) in the long and complicated history of the Rite.

    (This, of course, has nothing to do with the fact that whoever the OP is talking about is simply mistaken.)
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,700
    The Mysterium Fidei and Amen at the end of the Eucharistic Prayer have, in practice and in many publications, become a part of the Ordinary - in that publishers/composers include them with their settings of the Ordinary... But in reality, they're just a dialogue chant of the Mass. Using a whacky elaborate setting of these texts (be it Mass of Creation or some melismatic chant version) seems odd to me. Just as a "et cum spiritu tuo" with organ intro and four parts or unnecessary melismas would.
    Thanked by 7CHGiffen Andrew_Malton Ben M. Jackson Osborn ZacPB189 Daniel Bennett Page hilluminar
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Matthew:

    I wholeheartedly agree with you. The Mysterium Fidei dialogue is exactly that. Amen is simply the end of the prayer.

    Cheers,

    Chris
    Thanked by 1hilluminar
  • Jani
    Posts: 441
    Hey Francis- that is a great booklet! Everyone should take s look at it and definitely keep it in mind as a resource :)
  • francis
    Posts: 10,876
    Jani

    tnx. could be a good thing to acquire in bulk to put into the hands of a parish staff, choir, parish council, or even an entire parish, and then have a workshop or two.
  • hartleymartin
    Posts: 1,447
    I tend to favour the missal chant tones for the Mysteroum Fidei and the Amen precisely because they are not part of the ordinary.
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    Matthew,

    I'm just picturing a brass intro to "And with your spirit." Cracking up here....
  • ZacPB189ZacPB189
    Posts: 70
    All it needs now is an overzealous timpani part with ad lib. cymbal crashes....
    Thanked by 1Ben
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    Anglicans do this sort of thing sometimes. I find it ridiculous.
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,396
    Propers are changing parts. Ordinary is the unchanging parts.

    Ben Yanke's statement expresses the correct (and broad) understanding of the term "ordinarium Missae." Perhaps a number of folks still understand "ordinary of the Mass" in a more restrictive sense as referring to the 5- or 6-movement arrangement of published Masses from the past few centuries: Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, (Benedictus), Agnus Dei?

    Even Musica Sacra's online file for the 1961 Graduale uses "ordinarium" in the broader sense: http://media.musicasacra.com/pdf/ordinarium_Missae1961.pdf

    Yes, the Asperges Me and Vidi Aquam, the various unchanging dialogues, the Suscipiat, the Roman Canon, the Pater Noster, the Domine Non Sum Dignus are all part of the Ordinary of the Mass.

    Re: the 3 memorial acclamations, these have been part of the ordinary since the time of the revision of the Ordo Missae. Nothing says they cannot be included along with an Amen, and perhaps an Our Father, an Asperges/Vidi Aquam, a Gospel Acclamation, etc., when a composer creates a new setting of the "ordinary." In fact, for settings published in the USA, the BCDW has required since 2010 that the three memorial acclamations and Amen must be included.
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • Andrew Motyka
    Posts: 946
    In fact, for settings published in the USA, the BCDW has required since 2010 that the three memorial acclamations and Amen must be included.


    Could you point out exactly where this is? I remember reading it, too, but I thought it had more to do with making sure all three options for the Mystery of Faith were included so as to not confuse people with the composer's own preference. I could be mistaken.

    Also, re: Proper vs. Ordinary, it should be clear that these refer to the texts, not the music.
  • fcbfcb
    Posts: 339
    The Kyrie was once simply the chanted response to an opening litany, but over time evolved into a more elaborate musical piece. I don't see why the same couldn't happen to the memorial acclamation and the amen that concludes the Eucharistic prayer. Isn't everyone in favor of organic development?
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Just off the top of my head, can I propose a reason why the Mysterium Fidei dialogue should be sung without accompaniment?

    The Consecration has just occurred. Elaborate settings of the Mysterium Fidei usually detract from that fact. Yes, I'm aware that polyphonic settings of the Benedictus would be sung at the same place, but a great many modern settings are self-consciously anthropocentric, making them, for this very reason, unsuitable a time when we are most intensely turning toward the Lord. For the same reason, an "introduction", i.e., instrumental interlude serves no purpose but to draw attention to itself, at this point in the Mass.

    Thanked by 1hilluminar
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    Isn't everyone in favor of organic development?

    Define "organic."
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    For the same reason, an "introduction", i.e., instrumental interlude serves no purpose but to draw attention to itself, at this point in the Mass.


    dundun...DunDun...DUNDUN...
    LA
    LA
    LA


    oh sorry, wrong section...

    BLORG BLORG BLORG BLORG A-A-MEN! A-A-MEN! A-A-A-A-MEN! (dun dun dun)
    Thanked by 1ZacPB189
  • fcbfcb
    Posts: 339
    Define "organic."


    Ah, there's the rub. From what I can tell from how people use the term it usually involves no decision made by a centralized authority as well as something that develops over the passage of time. I suppose the rapidity with which the practice of setting the memorial acclamation and amen developed might lead some to say that it wasn't "organic," but as far as I can tell no one every specified how long it would take for a development to qualify as organic.

    I suspect the practice of setting the memorial acclamation is something of a carry over of the practice of having a polyphonic Benedictus after the consecration, and so would have an even better chance of qualifying as "organic."

    I find it interesting that many who argue for polyphonic settings of the Ordinary suddenly turn into musical puritans when it comes to the memorial acclamation and amen.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • ZacPB189ZacPB189
    Posts: 70
    BLORG BLORG BLORG BLORG A-A-MEN! A-A-MEN! A-A-A-A-MEN! (dun dun dun)


    Don't miss Marty Haugen's latest masterpiece: Mass of Digestion! Coming to GIA this Winter! Comes with free 16' Blorg rank for your Parish Organ!
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,996
    I play one introductory note, then we all sing Memorial Acclamation A from the ICEL chants. Same intro for the amen. It works. Advent and Lent, we use the Latin versions.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    Advent and Lent, we use the Latin versions.

    For the "Amen," I use Latin all year round.

    ('cuz I do what I want.)
    Thanked by 2Ben hilluminar
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,996
    We use the Hebrew text for amen.
    Thanked by 6ZacPB189 Andrew Motyka M. Jackson Osborn Ben hilluminar pulchritudo_musicae
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    Very multi-cultural.
    Thanked by 1Ben
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,996
    Diversity at its finest.
  • Jani
    Posts: 441
    Gosh you guys are smart! We just use the plain old English "amen" ;-)
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,996
    Well, there will always be "those" people. ;-)
    Thanked by 1Andrew Motyka
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,396
    Could you point out exactly where this is? I remember reading it, too, but I thought it had more to do with making sure all three options for the Mystery of Faith were included so as to not confuse people with the composer's own preference. I could be mistaken.

    Also, re: Proper vs. Ordinary, it should be clear that these refer to the texts, not the music.

    @Andrew: The norm calling for the publication of all options for a particular liturgical element in participation aids when one is chosen has been in the BCDW's guidelines for publishers of participation aids for more than 20 years. But applying that principle to Mass settings published apart from participation aids seems to be a recent (2010) development. Mass settings originally published before 2010 but republished in a revised setting in 2010 had to drop the "Christ Has Died" memorial acclamation (of course) but only had to include one of the other three. You raise an interesting point: does the BCDW allow a new Mass setting to be published without any memorial acclamations at all? I don't know the answer to that.

    Re: Proper vs. Ordinary, it seems to me that these can refer both to texts and to musical settings of those texts.
  • JaredOstermann
    Posts: 488
    It's also worth noting that the terms "Ordinary" and "Proper" have, like so much else, become somewhat political in liturgical discussions. Liturgists of a certain bent dislike having Mass texts grouped into any kind of grouping or category, preferring instead to evaluate each text separately. This is probably partly due to the debate over orchestral or polyphonic Mass settings from the past, and a legitimate concern that the standard five movements of a Mozart Mass are a musical rather than liturgical convention. There is also, I suppose, a concern that if we group the texts this way we will give one set to the congregation and one to the choir rather than splitting them in a more flexible way.

    HOWEVER, in the broad sense it is quite helpful to sort texts into those that change every week and those that stay the same.
Add a Comment