• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

Pope Saint Paul VI (3 April 1969): “Although the text of the Roman Gradual—at least that which concerns the singing—has not been changed, the Entrance antiphons and Communions antiphons have been revised for Masses without singing.”

  • Donate
  • Our Team
    • Our Editorial Policy
    • Who We Are
    • How To Contact Us
    • Sainte Marie Bulletin Articles
    • Jeff’s Mom Joins Fundraiser
  • Pew Resources
    • Brébeuf Catholic Hymnal
    • Jogues Illuminated Missal
    • KYRIALE • Saint Antoine Daniel
    • Campion Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Repository • “Spanish Music”
    • Ordinary Form Feasts (Sainte-Marie)
  • MUSICAL WEBSITES
    • René Goupil Gregorian Chant
    • Noël Chabanel Psalms
    • Nova Organi Harmonia (2,279 pages)
    • Roman Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Catechism of Gregorian Rhythm
    • Father Enemond Massé Manuscripts
    • Lalemant Polyphonic
  • Miscellaneous
    • Site Map
    • Secrets of the Conscientious Choirmaster
    • “Wedding March” for lazy organists
    • Emporium Kevin Allen
    • Saint Jean de Lalande Library
    • Sacred Music Symposium 2023
    • The Eight Gregorian Modes
    • Gradual by Pothier’s Protégé
    • Seven (7) Considerations
Views from the Choir Loft

Stunning New Collection Of English Propers

Jeff Ostrowski · November 11, 2015

123 John Ainslie COVER AM PLEASED TO ALERT YOU to a brilliant new collection by John Ainslie. The official title is ENGLISH PROPER CHANTS, and this collection distinguishes itself in three main ways. First, it was composed by someone who’s pondered Propers in English since the 1960s, thereby avoiding many of the traps fallen into by modern composers with the best of intentions trying to compose vernacular Propers. Second, it is a complete collection, including all the Ordinary Time Sundays and major feasts. Third, every single chant in this book contains a keyboard accompaniment.

Let me say at the outset that every Catholic musician should own this book by John Ainslie.

One quick housekeeping note. In reviews such as this, it’s difficult to avoid getting “in the weeds” regarding translation issues. The texts in Ainslie’s book come from a wide variety of sources, including MR3, the New Revised Standard Bible, and the 1963 Grail Psalter. While it is technically true that our GIRM requires a bishop’s approval for such collections, it is also true that the USCCB overruled this requirement long ago.

There is no official translation of the 1974 Graduale Romanum. Indeed, ever since the 1960s, the Church has—whether for good or ill—allowed multifarious translations at Mass. I used to believe Responsorial Psalm translations by composers like Marty Haugen were in violation of the GIRM, but I was wrong. 1 If you examine the psalm texts printed in certain pew books, e.g. GIA’s Worship IV Hymnal, you’ll notice they don’t match the official version in the Lectionary:

    * *  iPhone Photo • WORSHIP IV HYMNAL

Believe it or not, that translation is administered by GIA, and the USCCB recently announced that this “Revised” Grail Psalter (©2010) will never be used at Mass—but it is allowed. Throughout this review, you’ll notice slight differences in the wording used by Ainslie. Many will yearn for one single “unified” translation, but such a thing will probably never happen. Indeed, in the summer of 2014, the USCCB began creating a new version of the Lectionary!

LET’S GET DOWN to the review of John Ainslie’s book. He only sets the Entrance & Communion antiphons; no Offertories, Graduals, Alleluias, Sequences, or Tracts. Rather than merely describing Ainslie’s settings, I will provide examples. In general, I believe Ainslie’s settings to be some of the best available.

Before listening to the first example, quickly familiarize yourself with the Entrance chant for the 26th Sunday in Ordinary Time. Here’s how it appears in the JOGUES MISSAL:

    * *  PDF Download • 26th Sunday in Ordinary Time

Here is what Ainslie has done with this Entrance chant:


Did you see how he shortened the antiphon and used its second half as the first verse? He does that on occasion; probably to make it easier for the singers.

Now, let’s see what he does with the Communion for the 31st Sunday in Ordinary Time. First, examine the text as found in the JOGUES MISSAL:

    * *  PDF Download • 31st Sunday in Ordinary Time

Now, listen to what Ainslie has done with this Communion:


Did you see how he added optional psalm verses? This is fully allowed, and a very good practice.

Now, let’s consider the feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. First, look at the Entrance chant as it appears in the JOGUES MISSAL:

129 Jogues Missal ASSUMPTION


Next, listen to the authentic Latin version of the Gaudeamus. (Ignore where it says “All Saints” because that same chant is also used in the 1974 Gradual for the Assumption.) Finally, listen to Ainslie’s version:


Do you see how Ainslie imitates the authentic chant? Speaking of that, Ainslie has set the “Spoken Propers,” which were intended for Masses without music. His choice will not affect any Entrance chants, but does affect some Communion antiphons. When we consider how Ainslie tried to imitate the authentic version (SEE ABOVE) it’s puzzling that he avoided the authentic Communion antiphons. This is especially confusing for parishes which occasionally sing from the 1974 Gradual or Gregorian Missal.

Those desiring only the authentic Communion antiphons can “mix and match” the beautiful settings by Andrew Motyka. These are quite similar to Ainslie’s, except they use the “Revised” Grail for the psalm verses:

    * *  LAUDATE COMMUNION ANTIPHONS • Free scores & recordings

There are tons more options, of course, but one exceptional option—which exclusively sets the authentic Communion antiphons—is the 229-page SATB collection by Richard Rice. (Click here and scroll down for a sample.)

I HATE TO SAY ANYTHING NEGATIVE about Ainslie’s organ accompaniments, because they are more inspired than 90% of what is usually given for a chant accompaniment. Moreover, anyone who has studied the Nova Organi Harmonia realizes that surprising freedom is allowed for modal accompaniments (if there be a musical reason). However, Ainslie’s accompaniments are filled with parallel octaves, parallel fifths, dominant sevenths, incorrect doublings, awkward voicing, unprepared dissonances, forbidden 6/4 chords, and sevenths resolving upward. Some of these errors could perhaps be explained away, but I found the parallel octaves—especially when they occur in succession—particularly unfortunate.

Here are some photos of the book:

128 John Ainslie English Propers Organ Accompaniment 127 John Ainslie English Propers Organ Accompaniment 126 John Ainslie English Propers Organ Accompaniment

I would like to end with a 2012 quote by Msgr. Andrew Wadsworth, Executive Director of ICEL:

The singing of the proper texts of the Mass, while intimately linked in our tradition to Gregorian Chant, does not exclude other musical forms. The truth is that these texts are widely ignored and not generally sung in ANY musical form, which would seem to be contrary to the priorities as expressed in the GIRM 41 & 48. Perhaps another way of approaching this discussion would be to ask whether these texts—which are given for each Mass in the Missale/Graduale—should have a wider life and place in our liturgical celebrations?



NOTES FROM THIS ARTICLE:

1   The freedom we have is staggering. For example, many do not realize that any Responsorial Psalm can be replaced at any time for any reason, and the USCCB recently reaffirmed this.


A discussion about this post is underway.

Opinions by blog authors do not necessarily represent the views of Corpus Christi Watershed.

Filed Under: Articles Last Updated: January 1, 2020

Subscribe

It greatly helps us if you subscribe to our mailing list!

* indicates required

About Jeff Ostrowski

Jeff Ostrowski holds his B.M. in Music Theory from the University of Kansas (2004). He resides with his wife and children in Michigan. —(Read full biography).

Primary Sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

President’s Corner

    PDF Comparison Chart • “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”
    EARS BEFORE truly revolutionary changes were introduced by the post-conciliar reformers, Evelyn Waugh wrote (on 16 August 1964) to John Cardinal Heenan: “I think that a vociferous minority has imposed itself on the hierarchy and made them believe that a popular demand existed where there was in fact not even a preference.” We ask the kind reader— indeed, we beg you—to realize that those of us born in the 1940s and 1950s had no cognizance of Roman activities during the 1960s and 1970s. We were concerned with making sure we had the day’s bus fare, graduating from high school, taking care of our siblings, learning a trade, getting a job, courting a spouse. We questioned neither the nuns nor the Church.1 Do not believe for one instant any of us were following the liturgical machinations of Cardinal Lercaro or Father Bugnini in real time. Setting The Stage • To never question or resist Church authorities is praiseworthy. On the other hand, when a scandalous situation persists for decades, it must be brought into focus. Our series will do precisely that as we discuss the Lectionary Scandal from a variety of angles. We don’t do this to attack the Catholic Church. Our goal is bringing to light what’s been going on, so it can be fixed once and for all. Our subject is extremely knotty and difficult to navigate. Its complexity helps explain why the situation has persisted for such a long time.2 But if we immediately get “into the weeds” we’ll lose our audience. Therefore, it seems better to jump right in. So today, we’ll explore the legality of selling these texts. A Word On Copyright • Suppose Susie modifies a paragraph by Edgar Allan Poe. That doesn’t mean ipso facto she can assert copyright on it. If Susie takes a picture of a Corvette and uses Photoshop to color the tires blue, that doesn’t mean she henceforth “owns” all Corvettes in America. But when it comes to Responsorial Psalm translations, certain parties have been asserting copyright over them, selling them for a profit, and bullying publishers vis-à-vis hymnals and missals. Increasingly, Catholics are asking whether these translations are truly under copyright—because they are identical (or substantially identical) to other translations.3 Example After Example • Our series will provide copious examples supporting our claims. Sometimes we’ll rely on the readership for assistance, because—as we’ve stressed—our subject’s history couldn’t be more convoluted. There are countless manuscripts (in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin) we don’t have access to, so it would be foolish for us to claim that our observations are somehow the ‘final word’ on anything. Nevertheless, we demand accountability. Catholics in the pews are the ones who paid for all this. We demand to know who specifically made these decisions (which impact every English-speaking Catholic) and why specifically certain decisions were made. The Responsorial Psalms used in America are—broadly speaking—stolen from the hard work of others. In particular, they borrowed heavily from Father Cuthbert Lattey’s 1939 PSALTER TRANSLATION:
    *  PDF Download • COMPARISON CHART —We thank the CCW staff for technical assistance with this graph.
    Analysis • Although certain parties have been selling (!!!) that translation for decades, the chart demonstrates it’s not a candidate for copyright since it “borrows” or “steals” or “rearranges” so much material from other translations, especially the 1939 translation by Father Cuthbert Lattey. What this means in layman’s terms is that individuals have been selling a translation under false pretenses, a translation they don’t own (although they claim to). To make RESTITUTION, all that money will have to be returned. A few years ago, the head of ICEL gave a public speech in which he said they give some of “their” profits to the poor. While almsgiving is a good thing, it cannot justify theft. Our Constant Theme • Our series will be held together by one thread, which will be repeated constantly: “Who was responsible?” Since 1970, the conduct of those who made a profit by selling these sacred texts has been repugnant. Favoritism was shown toward certain entities—and we will document that with written proof. It is absolutely essential going forward that the faithful be told who is making these decisions. Moreover, vague justifications can no longer be accepted. If we’re told they are “making the translations better,” we must demand to know what specifically they’re doing and what specific criteria they’re following. Stay Tuned • If you’re wondering whether we’ll address the forthcoming (allegedly) Lectionary and the so-called ABBEY PSALMS AND CANTICLES, have no fear. We’ll have much to say about both. Please stay tuned. We believe this will end up being the longest series of articles ever submitted to Corpus Christi Watershed. To be continued. ROBERT O’NEILL Former associate of Monsignor Francis “Frank” P. Schmitt at Boys Town in Nebraska JAMES ARNOLD Formerly associated w/ King’s College, Cambridge A convert to the Catholic Church, and distant relative of J. H. Arnold MARIA B. Currently serves as a musician in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte. Those aware of the situation in her diocese won’t be surprised she chose to withhold her last name.
    1 Even if we’d been able to obtain Roman journals such as NOTITIAE, none of them contained English translations. But such an idea would never have occurred to a high school student or a college student growing up in the 1960s. 2 A number of shell corporations claim to own the various biblical translations mandated for Roman Catholics. They’ve made millions of dollars selling (!) these indulgenced texts. If time permits, we hope to enumerate these various shell corporations and explain: which texts they claim to own; how much they bring in each year; who runs them; and so forth. It would also be good to explore the morality of selling these indulgenced texts for a profit. Furthermore, for the last fifty years these organizations have employed several tactics to manipulate and bully others. If time permits, we will expose those tactics (including written examples). Some of us—who have been working on this problem for three decades—have amassed written documentation we’ll be sharing that demonstrates behavior at best “shady” and at worst criminal. 3 Again, we are not yet examining the morality of selling (!) indulgenced texts to Catholics mandated to use those same translations.
    —Guest Author
    “Music List” • 17th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
    Some have expressed interest in perusing the ORDER OF MUSIC I prepared for the 17th Sunday in Ordinary Time (27 July 2025). If such a thing interests you, feel free to download it as a PDF file. As always, the Responsorial Psalm, Gospel Acclamation, and Mass Propers for this Sunday are conveniently stored at the the feasts website.
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    Communion • “Ask & You Shall Receive”
    All of the chants for 27 July 2025 have been added to the feasts website, as usual under a convenient “drop down” menu. The COMMUNION ANTIPHON (both text and melody) are exceedingly beautiful and ancient.
    —Jeff Ostrowski

Quick Thoughts

    Pope Pius XII Hymnal?
    Have you ever heard of the Pope Pius XII Hymnal? It’s a real book, published in the United States in 1959. Here’s a sample page so you can verify with your own eyes it existed.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    “Hybrid” Chant Notation?
    Over the years, many have tried to ‘simplify’ plainsong notation. The O’Fallon Propers attempted to simplify the notation—but ended up making matters worse. Dr. Karl Weinmann tried to do the same in the time of Pope Saint Pius X by replacing each porrectus. You can examine a specimen from his edition and see whether you agree he complicated matters. In particular, look at what he did with éxsules fílii Hévae.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    Antiphons Don’t Match?
    A reader wants to know why the Entrance and Communion antiphons in certain publications deviate from what’s prescribed by the GRADUALE ROMANUM published after Vatican II. Click here to read our answer. The short answer is: the Adalbert Propers were never intended to be sung. They were intended for private Masses only (or Masses without music). The “Graduale Parvum,” published by the John Henry Newman Institute of Liturgical Music in 2023, mostly uses the Adalbert Propers—but sometimes uses the GRADUALE text: e.g. Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul (29 June).
    —Corpus Christi Watershed

Random Quote

The Sacrifice is celebrated with many solemn rites, none of which should be deemed useless or superfluous. On the contrary, all of them tend to display the majesty of this august sacrifice, and to excite the faithful, when beholding these saving mysteries, to contemplate the divine things which lie concealed in the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

— Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566)

Recent Posts

  • PDF Comparison Chart • “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”
  • “Music List” • 17th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
  • Flor Peeters In A Weird Mood?
  • Communion • “Ask & You Shall Receive”
  • Jeff’s Mother Joins Our Fundraiser

Subscribe

Subscribe

* indicates required

Copyright © 2025 Corpus Christi Watershed · Isaac Jogues on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Corpus Christi Watershed is a 501(c)3 public charity dedicated to exploring and embodying as our calling the relationship of religion, culture, and the arts. This non-profit organization employs the creative media in service of theology, the Church, and Christian culture for the enrichment and enjoyment of the public.

The election of Pope Leo XIV has been exciting, and we’re filled with hope for our apostolate’s future!

But we’re under pressure to transfer our website to a “subscription model.”

We don’t want to do that. We believe our website should remain free to all.

Our president has written the following letter:

President’s Message (dated 30 May 2025)

Are you able to support us?

clock.png

Time's up