OST MUSICIANS who have looked over the documents on sacred music realize the Ordinary Form has two sets of propers: (a) SUNG PROPERS and (b) SPOKEN PROPERS. The Sung Propers, found in the revised GRADUALE ROMANUM are among the most ancient prayers we have. The Spoken Propers were a project undertaken by Dom Adalbert Franquesa Garrós in the late 1960s, designed for private Masses or “celebrations without music.” They are found in the priest’s SACRAMENTARY. So far, nobody’s been able to explain why Dom Franquesa’s project was undertaken. For example, Dom Franquesa said the ancient propria for HOLY TRINITY SUNDAY were “inappropriate” but gave no explanation whatsoever.
Zeitgeist Of The 1960s • The Spoken Propers often minimize (or annihilate) certain ideas found in Sacred Scripture. For instance, references to God “conquering” or “destroying” enemies are often bowdlerized: cf. the Entrance Chant for the 16th Sunday in Ordinary Time. They sometimes display an impoverished (or faulty) theology: e.g. the 16th Sunday in Ordinary Time assigns Acceptábis Sacrifícium for the COMMUNION ANTIPHON—but since it reinforces how the Mass is primarily a sacrifice, it was deleted.
Specific Example:
One of my professors used to say: “An example is worth a thousand words.” Therefore, let’s examine a concrete example. Consider the COMMUNION ANTIPHON for the feast of the Immaculate Conception on 8 December:
The “Gregorian Missal” (1990, Solesmes Abbey) is quite helpful because it provides the pericope citation:
In the “spoken” version, however, we see something very sneaky and quite peculiar:
Also, consider the 1970s ICEL version of text, as shown in the (now defunct, pre-2011) SACRAMENTARY. They have a funny way of rendering “Gloriósa dicta sunt de te” into English:
Conclusion • What is there to be said about all this? What possible reason did Dom Adalbert Franquesa Garrós have when he got rid of the section from Saint Luke’s Gospel? Did he have an aversion for the New Testament? Did he consider the Gospel of Saint Luke to be somehow “deficient” or in need of bowdlerization? What specifically was deficient or unacceptable about that verse from the Gospel of Saint Luke? The zeitgeist of the 1960s seemed to be: change for the sake of change!
The Second Vatican Council solemnly declared: “There must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them.” Did the good of the Church “genuinely and certainly require” the annihilation of that passage from Saint Luke’s Gospel? Who specifically was being harmed by that passage?
