I would like to associate myself with Jeffrey's comments at NLM, The Problem with Options. I don't totally agree that non-proper music should be stricken from the Mass (and Jeff doesn't make that point) but I agree that people treat the music of the Mass as something to be reinvented and not something handed down, and the fourth option, as well as the Low Mass, is to blame.

But I read this and I question the practicality of Jeff's call for this option to be rescinded. Not only that, but I question the likelihood of it. Further than that, I would bet anything that the change Jeff calls for will not happen in my lifetime, but for now I wish to address the practicality. How would this work? What would the legislation look like? What would be the common experience at parishes after the "repeal of four"?

Here is my proposed alteration to the GIRM in keeping with Jeffrey's call for the propers and preservation of the honored tradition of extra-liturgical music at Mass:
47. After the people have gathered, the Entrance chant begins as the priest enters with the deacon and ministers. The purpose of this chant is to open the celebration, foster the unity of those who have been gathered, introduce their thoughts to the mystery of the liturgical season or festivity, and accompany the procession of the priest and ministers.

48. The singing at this time is done either alternately by the choir and the people or in a similar way by the cantor and the people, or entirely by the people, or by the choir alone. If the text of the Entrance chant may not be sung, it shall be recited by the cantor or congregation. [I am assuming some hierarchy of who should recite the introit, this is just thrown out there] This chant may be prolonged through the singing of multiple verses of the appointed psalm in the Graduale Romanum. If good liturgical order allows, the chant may be followed by another psalm or another suitable psalm appropriate to the nature and day of the liturgical celebration. Any following chants may be sung either alternately by the choir and the people or in a similar way by the cantor and the people, or entirely by the people, or by the choir alone.

I trust that, although the specifics may vary, this is what many of us would prefer in the legislation, no? But how would this work? Note that I put in the option to have it read; I think this is only fair. Would it not be unfair to force congregations to sing the antiphons? Not every congregation has a priest who can sing, a cantor who can do recto tono well, or even a congregation that can sing. Or could every single congregation afford the necessary training. It's only fair to allow the minor propers to be read, as we do with the lessons. Ah, but as with the lessons, I suspect this would be abused. Reciting the propers in a hurried manner so as to get to "Gather Us In" would likely be the norm, would it not? It would seem strange and inorganic to many to begin Mass with a text and then follow with a hymn.

And if we mandated these texts sung? I suspect we would find that shrine to convenience, the Folk Mass, replaced by recto tono rambling of propers along with a guitar or organ accompaniment. At best, I wouldn't anticipate this leading to anything much better than a return to the days of Rossini High Masses.

Lest I be totally defeatist, I think this shows we have to lead by example. It means we have to err on the side of too much propers. We need people to visit my former church, Mara's church, Jeff's church, hear these propers AS PART OF THE MASS, go back to their parishes, and demand to hear the Mass. This can't be fixed by legislation, but only by facilitating a culture of excellence in the Church so strong that the hideous musical abuses prevalent today become intolerable to Joe Pewsitter.