(VIDEO) "But, Dad . . . everyone else is replacing the Propers at Mass!"
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    VIDEO with reflections on whether the Mass Propers should be sung.

    image

    click here to view video
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 4,383
    The target page seems not to have the video.
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 4,383
    Hmmm... It's working now. Must have been a page loading glitch.
  • So, is there any actual evidence for the central contention of this video, to wit, that "[t]he fourth option is supposed to be for when the choir is not able to prepare the entrance chant" (and that "[t]he fourth option was never meant to replace the Mass propers on a regular basis")? For instance, is there a clear statement by the Church, or by the people responsible for writing and interpreting the GIRM, to this effect? Since this interpretation, if true, would create a fairly major rupture with pre-Conciliar practice, I should think substantial evidence ought to be in place if it is to be taken seriously in the debate.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    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.
  • Considering the way Roman documents are laid out, the interpretation JMO lays out is in keeping with that form, as well as the tradition of the Church.
    Documents of Vatican II (and earlier ones) clearly move toward realizing the Church's sung liturgy.

    What we have now is a culture of options, where all options are considered equally desirable. But not all options are treated equally, though some may be, and all may be allowed. We see this in lots of areas of the sacred liturgy.

    As far as skipping propers during sung masses, who doubts that lazy habits existed before the Council. No surprise. They are still with us, probably always were and always will be, as we are imperfect humans. Why would we enshrine such negligent practices with authenticity? Is the rejection of disobedient practice a rupture with authentic tradition? No. What a strangely convoluted idea. :)
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    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.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    I understand Christoph Tietze (ENGLISH) and Laszlo Dobszay (HUNGARIAN) have created "metrical versions" of the Propers.

    Would anyone be willing (PLEASE) to post samples of these?

    If necessary, write COPYRIGHTED over it in grey.
  • The Tietze collection is only $6 or $7 from World Library Publications. It's an excellant resource to have on your bookshelf.
  • mwa
    Posts: 22
    JMO
    you could take a look here
    http://books.google.com/books?id=0823IdjOc9EC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
    btw, Dr. Tietze's work only includes the introits
  • 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.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    SAMPLE PAGES from the Tietze are here. Courtesy of WLP.

    Pretty good deal:

    Cristoph Tietze