PDF Synopsis of the Sung Propers and the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (history)
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    For your consideration:  PDF Synopsis of the Sung Propers

    I am grateful to members of the Conference of Roman Catholic Cathedral Musicians for their recent input. Obviously, the paper is also indebted to Tietze in a big way.

    Incidentally, Susan Benofy also wrote an article in ADOREMUS on this theme.

    I was interested in this quote from her:

    Today’s Liturgy, a quarterly planning guide published by Oregon Catholic Press (OCP), for example, lists the Entrance and Communion antiphon from the Missal. It would make more sense to give the texts from the Graduale Romanum intended for singing. The texts for the Propers at a spoken Mass often do not correspond to the Graduale texts. Even when the Introit antiphon corresponds, the Missal text lacks the Psalm verse always included in the sung Introit. And there is no text for the Offertory in the Missal. Since there is no directive that the Offertory be spoken, there are no Offertory texts provided for spoken Masses — but there are texts for singing the Offertory in the Graduale.


    . . . because that is precisely what we created with the Vatican II Hymnal four years later.
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,150
    Warning: It is tempting to become cynical here and put forth suspected ulterior motives for this practice, as represented in Today's Liturgy and other OCP materials.

    But it is worth repeating that it is, apparently, OCP practice to include only those Propers text from the Missal which are prescribed to be spoken at Mass in the absence of them being sung, while at the same time including none of the Propers texts (and Psalm verses) from the Graduale Romanum which are (of course) intended for singing at Mass.

    The focus is therefore, not on providing texts for sung Propers (in any form), but only providing, minimally, texts for Propers that are (supposed to be) spoken in the absence of singing. The sad fact, however, is that in many parishes, one doesn't even hear the spoken Entrance and Communion antiphon, let alone experience the singing of these marvellous Propers. The norm seems to be for priests simply to ignore the prescription that the Entrance and Communion antiphons are to be spoken (by the priest) when the corresponding Proper is not sung.

    I could go on, but I won't.
    Thanked by 2Gavin hilluminar
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    As a follow-up to my post here, where exactly would OCP get a translation for Graduale propers that do not correspond to those in the Missal -- since ICEL has never translated them?

    Yes, we have the SEP/Vatican II Hymnal, and the translations in the Gregorian Missal, but should we have tons of translations of them sitting out there? If so, why do we use only one Lectionary and one Missal?
  • SanAntonioCath
    Posts: 77
    SkipR, the propers come almost exclusively from the Bible, and we already have numerous translations of the Bible approved for Liturgical use: e.g. NAB, Revised Grail, and so on. More importantly, though: nothing is easier than getting your local Bishop to approve translations of the propers. I've noticed Fr. Samuel Weber doesn't even bother to do so any more for his works. I, myself, have gotten such adaptations approved by an Abbot (our school is run by a religious order).
    Thanked by 1SkirpR
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    I'm not trying to be legalistic here, and I'm not so much concerned about the translations being approved as much as pointing out that it would be helpful for there to exist one unified translation -- particularly in the case of taking OCP to task for not printing the Graduale propers in their planning guide.

    While there are many legitimate and acceptable sources to draw upon, there's really no official source for them to turn to on a national level.
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • Andrew Motyka
    Posts: 944
    Having an official source would be a detriment to the music, however. As we just saw last year, large amounts of texts become unusable any time a new translation is promulgated. By having no "official" translation, new compositions have the ability to transcend a translation's timeframe.
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    Having an official source would be a detriment to the music, however. As we just saw last year, large amounts of texts become unusable any time a new translation is promulgated. By having no "official" translation, new compositions have the ability to transcend a translation's timeframe.


    Somewhat playing devil's advocate here, but what if this same reasoning were applied to musical settings of the Ordinary of the Mass?

    Then people could still be doing a ton of Mass settings that many here were thankful got expired.
  • Andrew Motyka
    Posts: 944
    Somewhat playing devil's advocate here, but what if this same reasoning were applied to musical settings of the Ordinary of the Mass?

    Sure, of course. The problem with (most) of those settings, though, was one of style and appropriateness for the liturgy, not manipulation of text, although there was the occasional one of those, too. Composers who are going to change the text so as to alter the meaning or impose an agenda aren't going to be hindered much by silly things as liturgical rules anyway.

    It's not an airtight argument, just an observation. Just like the observation that I doubt the market will be flooded with mainstream publishers pumping out terrible settings of all the propers. Maybe I shouldn't give them any ideas.
Add a Comment