ESTERDAY, I discovered something I never knew. I immediately telephoned a priest to verify this. I am going to tell you what it is, but first I must make something crystal clear: sober analysis, even criticism, does not necessarily indicate malice. Honest discussion of 1970 liturgical reform, for example, does not necessarily indicate malice on my part (or “hatred” of Vatican II). We must recognize what we’re dealing with if we hope to find solutions. The discovery I made concerns the MISSAL PROPERS, which Jeffrey Tucker correctly dubbed the “Spoken Propers.” Go into any Ordinary Form church and grab the current Altar Missal—the one printed in 2011—and turn to the front of the book. Printed there is a statement by the pope which explicitly says the Missal Propers were created for “Masses without music.” That’s what this article deals with.
First I’ll describe my discovery; then I’ll explain why it matters.
My Discovery Last Night
Readers are probably familiar with a book from IGNATIUS PRESS called “The Proper of the Mass for Sundays and Solemnities” produced by Bishop Cordileone’s Institute and composed by Father Samuel F. Weber, OSB. The website of the Church Music Association of America announced the book with great fanfare. Our blog here at Corpus Christi Watershed has praised this book constantly—and rightly so!—and we even did a 7-Part Series on this production. We took beautiful images of this book and posted them online. The subtitle of Father Weber’s book is slightly confusing, because it claims to contain “Chants for the Roman Missal in English”—but many of these chants (e.g. the Offertory antiphons) do not appear in the Roman Missal; they come from the Graduale Romanum. Indeed, the book was originally called a Gradual: The Saint Louis Gradual.
Some publications—such as the Jogues Pew Lectionary (JP2 Institute, 2014), the Simple English Propers (CMAA, 2011), the Lalemant Propers (CCW, 2013), and the Gregorian Missal (Solesmes, 1990)—use the Gradual Propers (“Sung Propers”) whereas other publications use the Missal Propers (“Spoken Propers”). I knew Father Weber’s publication incorporated the “Spoken Propers,” but I failed to examine his book carefully enough.
The best way to explain my “discovery” is by giving examples. Consider the 2nd Sunday in Ordinary Time, which has five (5) different options for the Communion Antiphon:
The IGNATIUS PRESS Proper of the Mass for Sundays and Solemnities only provides the first option from the Missal, ignoring all the other options:
You have prepared a table before me,
and how precious is the chalice that quenches my thirst.
—“Proper of the Mass” page 432
Just to make sure I’m correct, a British publication confirms what I am telling you.
Consider the 20th Sunday in Ordinary Time, which has five (5) different options for the Communion Antiphon:
The IGNATIUS PRESS Proper of the Mass for Sundays and Solemnities only provides the first option from the Missal, ignoring all the other options:
With the Lord there is mercy;
in him is plentiful redemption.
—“Proper of the Mass” page 600
Just to make sure I’m correct, a British publication confirms what I am telling you.
Consider the 24th Sunday in Ordinary Time, which has five (5) different options for the Communion Antiphon:
The IGNATIUS PRESS Proper of the Mass for Sundays and Solemnities only provides the first option from the Missal, ignoring all the other options:
How precious is your mercy, O God!
The children of men seek shelter
in the shadow of your wings.
—“Proper of the Mass” page 637
As you can see, almost without exception this publication only provides the first option (Old Testament) and deletes the second option (New Testament). Some would argue they should have provided the options from the Roman Gradual—since this collection is for singing—but even so, it’s difficult to understand why this book eliminates virtually all of the New Testament antiphons. Why not set the New Testament antiphons and provide the Old Testament verses as part of the additional psalms for each?
Why This Matters
For thirteen years, I have suggested to readers that great difficulties arise from the colossal amount of options in the Ordinary Form. The pre-conciliar Missal (“Extraordinary Form”) had very few options, but the reformers after Vatican II insisted that variety was incredibly important (SEE BELOW). With the 1970s Lectionary, we have seen how the various options were soon eliminated precisely because priests were always selecting the first option and never exploring the rest…
Now we see the same thing happening with the propers!
We must have the courage to admit what’s going on here. This publication by IGNATIUS PRESS—which historically defended the reformed liturgy—strongly repudiates the notion that “variety is the absolute good.” Indeed, IGNATIUS PRESS has unwittingly returned to the pre-conciliar practice, but with severely impoverished antiphons concocted in the late 1960s. I would very much appreciate someone explaining to me the rationale behind omitting not only the Graduale propers (which frequently come from the New Testament) but also 50% of the Missale propers. Indeed, I am surprised—in a certain sense—that the USCCB approved Father Weber’s book. Read the current GIRM and see whether you understand what I’m getting at:
The Current GIRM • Re: “Spoken” Propers:
Two antiphons are provided for Communion, the first from the Psalms, and the second for the most part from the Gospel. One or the other may be selected, as circumstances suggest, but preference should be given to an antiphon that is in harmony with the Gospel of the Mass.
Furthermore, although the USCCB has been notoriously inconsistent and inequitable in enforcement, here’s what they have said for decades:
23 April 2009:
The reformed liturgy offers a variety of options, encourages ministerial creativity, and at times admits a diversity of forms.The participation aid should be so designed as not to establish, once and for all, a single or rigid pattern of liturgical celebration. The arrangement or selection of liturgical texts must not result in the suppression of alternatives and options for the congregation (or for the celebrant and other ministers, as applicable). […] The publisher does not have the authority to make unilateral selection of liturgical texts among the options available. […] If the aid is to be used over an extended period or by various groups, the music should be arranged in such a way as not to limit other suitable musical selections.
Certain people don’t like those words. I know a “progressive” liturgical blog that has publicly denied they exist! But these words were taken from the current website of the USCCB, and have been there for decades. I’m sorry if it offends people, but simply pretending something doesn’t exist doesn’t make it stop existing!
Why did IGNATIUS PRESS choose the “Spoken Propers” for a book that is to be sung and was originally called The Saint Louis Gradual? Indeed, Father Weber’s melodies imitate the shape of the melodies found in the Roman Gradual. Why did IGNATIUS PRESS omit all the New Testament antiphons during Ordinary Time? Is it because sometimes the “Spoken Propers” are shorter than the Graduale propers? If the whole idea was to shorten and delete the ancient liturgy, why has no person—not one person—admitted this over the last 50 years? I can accept an answer, but I cannot accept no answer. The Second Vatican Council was supposed to help us sing the Mass instead of singing during Mass—that was what we were told. Since when was Vatican II supposed to truncate, eliminate, and replace the ancient texts of the Mass? Why after fifty years has IGNATIUS PRESS inadvertently returned to the pre-conciliar practice (viz. the same Communion antiphon which repeats each year like Autumn, Winter, Spring, and Summer) but with mangled antiphons from the 1970s which were concocted for a reason nobody can explain? Who precisely invented the “Spoken Propers” and for what reason(s) were they concocted? Corpus Christi Watershed is currently in the process of translating a document into English; it was written by the person primarily responsible for the creation of the “Spoken Propers.” As part of his explanation, this author says of the OFFERTORY ANTIPHONS: “In effect, the offertory antiphons…rarely offer a text of pastoral worth.” How can such a statement be made? The Second Vatican Council called the liturgy “the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows.” I repeat: the Second Vatican Council wanted Catholics to pray the Mass, not pray at Mass. How can someone then—in the name of Vatican II—say the ancient Offertory antiphons “rarely offer a text of pastoral worth”—is that not crazy? Father Fortescue disagrees, saying: “any part of Scripture may be read with profit on any day.” We will discuss this topic more in the coming weeks.
I don’t understand why Catholics cannot have in their pews a book which shows them the ancient Communion Antiphon in Latin and English. I am glad publications such as the Jogues Missal make that possible, but there is still tremendous work to be done! I will end with a 2006 quote by Dr. Christoph Tietze:
I am encouraged by the thought that the new antiphon texts [“Spoken Propers”] are a product of their time, and that sooner or later, our people will yearn for texts which present a deeper theology and which have provided spiritual nourishment for 1,500 years, and they will find them in the texts of the Graduale Romanum.
I would be very interested to know what Dr. Tietze thinks of the Jogues Missal.
