Latin Novus Ordo Assumption Mass (1/6)

[8marioch]

For important truths on the traditional Catholic faith, its necessity for salvation, what really happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II, and many other topics, please visit channel: MHFM1.

[Reazzurro90]

I'm inquiring in the Roman Catholic Church, and I've had the great fortune to attend Sunday Latin masses with a friend before her ailing priest could not do it anymore. This Christmas I attended a midnight mass with a friend, and I was disturbed. It was bland, there was no singing, it just seemed empty and lifeless. Is the above what the Novus Ordo is really supposed to be? Because that's actually beautiful compared to the show I just saw....

[TheAtonementAcademy]

SanLewy angrily asserts "Novus ordo and especially 'n.o.' are nasty slurs by ignorant and often angry people."

Not true. Google "Nous Ordo Missae" (in English or in Latin) and you will see that for more than 40 years this has been used as a dispassionate term of art to describe what is indeed, quite literally, the new Mass.

Since Summorum (often abbreviated SP), the term Ordinary Form, or O.F. is seen increasingly in place of N.O. Is the abbreviation O.F. also considered an insult?

[monkeyman3895]

This is beautiful. I believe that this is what the Vatican II Counsel truly invisioned in the Catholic Church. I wish that this form of the Mass of Paul VI was availiable as an option for those Catholics wishing to stick to the traditions and solemnity of the Church. I also think that we have the ability to bring this same kind of solemnity to Masses in the Vernacular.

[SanLewy]

The Catholic Church has never officially referred to the Mass of Pope Paul VI as the "novus ordo mass." Pope Benedict XVI has asked that we use the terms "Ordinary Form of the Mass" and "Extraordinary Form of the Mass." "Novus ordo and especially "n.o." are nasty slurs by ignorant and often angry people.

[umaara100]

I love this mass but i also love the one i see every week when i go.Both are very beautiful

[henrikhankhagnell]

this was really beautiful. even though I like the extraordinary form better this is still awesome. Deo gratias!

[TheAtonementAcademy]

"Sucks" is a rather indelicate, some may say sacreligious, way of describing the Word of God.

The translation for this Mass, and for all Masses at Our Lady of the Atonement, as authorized by the Holy See for the Anglican Use, is the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition.

[WoundedIcon]

@TheAtonementAcademy Yes, but I'm not speaking of well-done translations or the original language texts. Those I cherish, which is precisely why I cannot stand such an infelicitous, simplified text infected with modernist criticism in the notes, and novel renderings wedged in the text where the less knowledgeable may be mislead unwittingly. If it can't be trusted for orthodoxy, literary value, or study purposes then it's bad.

[WoundedIcon]

@TheAtonementAcademy And really, attacking a translation that does dishonor to the Hebrew and Greek is not sacrilegious. It's a defense of the true Word of God.

[WoundedIcon]

Oh, and the NAB sucks. That is all.

[WoundedIcon]

New convert to Rome here, but I must say I came for the tradition and culture... and got pop music and softness. The current translation, thank God they're changing it, is AWFUL. Squishy, like a liturgical New Living Translation. And bloody hell do I love Latin, so LATINIZE IT BACK UP XDDDD. If not the language, then in feel. Although, it's actually more-so Gallican than Roman technically. Shoot me, but I do actually prefer the Novus Ordo. It's just... currently so horizontal... :(

[TheBibleAddict]

@WoundedIcon :)

[protrudingears]

Is this novus ordo?????? aah

[catholicpeter]

The ICEL translation of the novus ordo is partly blasphemous and false. Would that all Roman rite churches held fast to the Latin vernacular, with its eloquence and piety

[enzoselva888]

This is interesting, because it proves the long-standing argument that the Novus Ordo is only catholic insofar as it RESEMBLES the Catholic Mass.

Considering that when Paul 6 designed the "Novus Ordo", it didn't even start with a sign of the Cross -- a fact that has been documented...

So to say that this is what the Novus Ordo was "intended" to be is myopic at best, since the Novus Ordo was explicitly designed to destroy the Received comprehension of Catholic theological structure...

[GasconyKid]

Certainly a vast improvement over most Novus Ordo MESSES conducted in the vulgar tongues, and incomparably more reverent than many of the messes conducted by the Clown "Pope" himself, JPII the Un-great. Still, the underlying theology of this "Mass" is in contradiction to the meaning of the Mass itself; i.e., a propitiatory sacrifice or bloodless renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary, as defined by the Council of Trent, and reiterated in the Encyclical of Bl. Pope John XXIII, "Ad Petri Cathedram".

[dsydebot]

@GasconyKid On the contrary, the Ordinary Form of the Mass affirms the propitiatory nature of the Eucharist. Granted, the Extraordinary form is more *thorough* in the expression of this theology, but insofar as we view the prayers of the liturgy as expressions of Christ's doctrine, both forms of the Roman liturgy are in harmony with one another.

[supergene256]

Awesome!!  THIS is the Novus Ordo!!

[lawrencefash]

is this the mass of Paul VI only celebrated in ad orientem and latin?

[ColeDanMovieStudios]

Beautiful Mass

[rumpranger65]

This is very good, though I don't see the point very much if you have a Dialogue TLM, which leaves no options for abuse, where it must always be celebrated in Latin, and with many good prayers which have been omitted here.

[supergene256]

@rumpranger65 Good point. But both are valid and available. Until people are comfortable with the Extraordinary Form, this kind of celebration sure makes for a great "transitional phase"...

[dacatholicbandorgan]

This is the real and auctual Novus Ordo the Letter of Vatican II intended. Not the one we see usually.

[hiroshi2020]

@dacatholicbandorgan

Spot on! Now, only if the church at the time had to have listened and obeyed what the Holy Father told them...well, this is what we would see today.

But, now they are listening!

[enzoselva888]

@dacatholicbandorgan Vatican II did not create the Novus Ordo... Paul 6 did, as I'm sure you know, since you used the word "intended"

[luvpinas123]

@dacatholicbandorgan thats cool

[crafter111]

At least this form of the Novus Ordo is a step back to the reverence of the Tridentine Mass and I would be quite at peace with this form, no liturigcal abuse going on here such as new age dancing and guitar twanging folk groups.

[lionlittle]

If it's Novus Ordo, then why are the priests facing the altar?

[HolyCatholicApostoli]

The Novus Ordo never said they had to turne their back to the Lord and face the people this was the work.

[christianvs1]

The Second Vatican Council did not prescribe in its Sacrosanctum Concilium of 1970 that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass MUST be celebrated facing the people. It just assumed that the 'ad orientem' of tradition would continue. However, the Bishops took the presciption "let the altar be free standing so that the priest can easily walk around it.." to mean Mass may be offered facing the people. This is an abuse which Benedict VI is trying to remedy: see his book "The Spirit of the Liturgy" pub. 2000

[getjetsetgo]

hey can anyone say wat the title is for the opening hymn

[StThomasMoreSociety]

Lord you give the great commission, I think.

[Matt3740]

Well at Atonement we use the words "Sing we of the Blessed Mother"

[helenw100]

"Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive hime not onto the house nor say, God speed you, for he that sayeth unto him God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works".

ecuminsim is false teaching. Being as one as He and the Father are One means one in his sanctacy.teaching which has been heartwrenchingly twisted.

[BlackCappa]

Do you reject Pope Pius IX?

He also taught ecumenism.

[iotaunam1]

Pope Pius IX taught ecumenism? I would like a quotation from him on this regard. He taught that all others must return to the faith!

Have you read Singulari Quidem?

[BlackCappa]

And you are acting as if ecumenicm meant anything else: it is one that should lead to doctrinal unity as is taught by Pope Pius IX in "In Suprema Petri" in which he assures the Eastern schismatics of preservation of their own rites and customs and even offices when they return to the unity of the Church.

This same and correct enumenism is taught unto our times: one only needs to read Dominus Iesus or Ut Unum Sint by Pope John Paul II.

[BlackCappa]

"The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. In the Body of Christ, "the way, and the truth, and the life" (Jn 14:6), who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth?"

Ut Unum Sint §18

[iotaunam1]

For Pius IX's view on modern day ecumenism see Singulari quidem, Iam vos omnes, Quanto Conficiammur Moerore.

Leo XIII - Satis Cognitum

Pius X - Our Apostalic Mandate

Pius XI - Mortalium Animos

Pius XII - Instruction on the ecumenical movement.

Try and reconcile these with modern day ecumenism etc.

Look at Assisi - shintoists, Buddists, pagans, hindus etc worshiped false Gods in Catholic Chapels, in which Crucifixes were hidden, and tabernacles rmoved - and all is on video!

[BlackCappa]

"Modern day ecumenism"? I am not interested in the - though well-intentioned - mistakes of some people, my concern is the official teaching of the Church which has been clarified enough in Dominus Iesus and in Ut Unum Sint.

I'm no fan of disobedient extremists: both on the left and the right.

And on right there, the ultra-"traditionalism of some people is´quite funny, since the very disobedience they condemn in others, they too are guilty of in other fields..hypocrisy, the curse of man

[iotaunam1]

You havent answered the direct question I asked you! You said Pius IX taught ecumenism - you have yet to provide a quotation. Also, this example you provided where Pius IX assured the Orthodox that they would retain their offices etc if they came back into the Church is not ecumenism! He was telling them to convert, and since they had a valid priesthood, that they could maintain their rites, which are also valid.

[BlackCappa]

Convert? That is to reunite. This is precisely what ecumenism is to me: to lead all the separated brethren back to union. Now, your preference to follow an ultra-liberal and modernist interpretation thereof is not my issue. And judging by your page, I believe I am wasting my time with yet another schismatic.

Have you actually read any of these encyclicals? It's not an "ordering" tone.

I gave you the reference, go read.

[iotaunam1]

Firstly, I assure you I am not a modernist, nor a liberal, never mind "ultra liberal". This should have been evident by my channel page. I would gladly bring back St Pius X's Oath against Modernism, which Paul VI done away with, in a heartbeat.

Secondly, I have read these encylicals, otherwise I would not recommend that others read them. Have you read the encyclicals that I quoted?

Lastly, I am not schismatic. I reject nothing of the true faith, nor Popes - but error does not bind on anyone.

[BlackCappa]

I know you are not one on the "left" spectrum of those who have already abandoned the Church in spirit, but you are not adhreing to Sacred Tradition either: despite your apparent claims from your profile.

The "nitpicky" excuses of the right-wing heretics have never been that credible. You're just a step away from sedevacantism, or already there? ;)

[iotaunam1]

Perhaps you have misunderstood. It is not only the Bishops and priests private directives, but also the official Vatican/papal documents I am referring to . Was Assisi not official?

How about Lumen Gentium - sloemnly ratified by Paul VI - which teaches that with us Muslims "worship the one God, who will judge mankind on the last day"?

They certainly do not worship God the Father, nor God who will judge manking on the last day: Jesus Christ!

[BlackCappa]

I have no issues with Lumen Gentium whatsoever: it is a Dogmatic Constitution which Catholics have to believe in.

Surely, one can argue over semantics as was and still is the case e.g. with the Fathers.

It just so happens to be that I understand these texts in the orthodox manner. There is no orthodoxy that goes against the Magisterium.

It would have been wiser for you to study these texts first before starting out on a "crusade" against the Church. It's not yet to late to learn.

good night

[iotaunam1]

Sadly, I expected as much - you havent even touched the issue I brought up - nor the direct quote. I would like to know if you,along with Paul VI believe that Muslims worship the "one merciful God, who will Judge mankind on the last day".

If you think that I am misinterpreting this clear text (it really couldn't be clearer) then you should, in charity, explain to me how this is not a denial of the Dogma that Christ will Judge ALL on the last day?

[BlackCappa]

Mate, I live in a monastery and need my sleep: there are things much more important than youtube.

As for the explanation to the CCC entry (which I accept btw): go to my profile, check the link to my blog site and go to the link "Biblical Evidence for Catholicism" there to "Catholic Apologetics", then to section "Catholic "Traditionalists"", finally to: "does the CCC equate Allah and Yahweh?".

The information is easily accessible.

Good night for now

[iotaunam1]

Everyone needs their sleep - I wasnt expecting an answer right away - anytime will do. Also, I know there are more important things that Youtube, which I only use to discuss the most important thing of all - the True Faith and Salvation.

The quote I provided is not ambiguous. It states clearly that Muslims worship the God who will Judge mankind on the last day - and we know they do not worship Christ! The contradiction still stands. Since they reject Chirst they reject God who will judge all.

[BlackCappa]

The quote you provided is explained quite well - especially in its right context where it says that muslims PROFESS to hold the faith of Abrahm (not meaning that it is truly so) - in the source I directed you to.

In matters where people offer various interpretations, I choose that which is orthodox: this means, that I have to accept LG - dogmatic constitution - and that I have to accept it in an orthodox manner.

Any other alternative leaves the path of Sacred Tradition.

[iotaunam1]

Again, I was obviously not referring to the fact that the document states that Muslims CLAIM to hold the faith of Abraham - I have no problem with this statement.

The statement I was referring to is that Muslims, along with us "worship the one merciful God who will judge mankind on the last day" - This CANNOT be taken in an orthodox manner no matter how one twists the words, or their clear meaning. The text is crystal clear on this matter!

[BlackCappa]

The text is clear to me as well and my understanding of it does not imply the equation of Allah (non-existent) with the Trinity (the one God).

He who has ears, let him hear. If your understanding still is clouded by a veil, then pray that you may be granted the grace of understanding: instead of claiming a defect in faith on part of the Magisterium.

[iotaunam1]

I repeat - the document says:

Muslims, along with us "worship the one merciful God who will judge mankind on the last day"

In what way can this be taken orthodoxly? Do muslims "worship the one merciful God who will judge mankind on the last day"?

[BlackCappa]

And I repeat: check the source I have provided.

I find it unnecessary to copy and paste things that others have already provided for in public.

I am not a servant of yours to do your work.

[iotaunam1]

Again, no document has/can explain away the celar meaning of the statement:

Muslims "along with us worship the one merciful God who will Judge Mankind on the last day"

It is beyond clear - and is false ! To say this is true is to deny that Christ will judge mankind on the last day, as He said He would - and this is a Dogma of the True Faith!

[BlackCappa]

You see, to simply ignore the existence of the actual explanation is nothing but delusional. I cannot argue against a delusion, nor am I willing to waste my time on it.

[iotaunam1]

I simply wanted an answer to the question:

"do Muslims worship the one merciful God who will judge mankind on the last day"?

A simple yes or no answer will suffice. I do not need linked to any more articles/documents. If you cannot answer, I would rather you just said. It seems nobody is able to give me a direct answer to this simple question.

[BlackCappa]

First you ask for the explanation, when you are directed to it, you wish to ignore it.

Mate, you're proving yourself to be dishonest: not interested.

[BlackCappa]

As for the "true faith": one must be very careful not to turn to something like the Eastern schismatics who claim "orthodoxy", but have long departed form the unity of the Holy See and now are stuck in a certain period of history: arrested development. The Church is alive and is not stuck in a time pre-1962.

Denying this is something that is common amongst all heretics and schismatics.

It takes humility to "obey prelates" instead of following one's own ideas (which are fallible).

[iotaunam1]

I am Catholic, and have no intentions of defecting to the so-called "Orthodox" faith.

The Church is alive, but Truths, Dogmas dont change. Modernism is not the "living Church." Obey prelates, like the Saints, but rebuke them when they are in error and Heresy, also like the saints!

[BlackCappa]

Is this Church you speak of also visible? Is there still a visible head?

I obey my prelates insofar they are orthodox: this is the reason why I am Catholic.

However, I refuse to "rebuke" my prelates on basis of the lack of understanding of the orthodox message they will to convey in diplomatic language: I'm not that arrogant.

[iotaunam1]

Yes, the Pope is the visable head.

It is perfectly acceptable to rebuke/resist prelates, when they attempt to enforce error - saints have done iso in the past!

Error binds on nobody!

[BlackCappa]

And I humbly hold to that thing called Sacred Tradition which teaches that Ecumenical Councils are under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth: without any relevance of a council being "pastoral" or "dogmatic": ecumenical is ecumenical is valid is binding to all is true.

[iotaunam1]

It is sacred Tradition which makes these errors null and void - Dogmas cannot be contradicted. Error does not bind in heaven - so therefore is not bound on earth.

[BlackCappa]

As if Vaticanum II contradicted any dogma: it is Tradition that Ecumenical Councils are under guidance of the Holy Spirit.

This seems to be something you are unhappy with - not that different from a protestant who just picks and chooses what he understands and likes.

It so happens to be that you are not the teaching body of the Church to decide on what is an error and what not. I rather listen to the Pope.

[iotaunam1]

It is the Popes - their decrees, councils and infalible Dogmas that refute these heretical positions. Dogmas cannot change - what was once truth, still is and will be forever.

[BlackCappa]

Heretical positions? In your dreams perhaps. Thus far, Vatican II has only reinfirced and elaborated more clearly the dogmas of the Church that remain unchanged for all eternity.

Perhaps listenting to St. Vincent of Lérins would help you understand it.

You're almost sounding like Luther who thought of himself to be "purifying" the "corrupted Catholic Church"...

no new heresies

[iotaunam1]

So you cannot answer the question?

The links you/anyone provides do not answer the question I asked - I was looking a yes or no answer. Who is being dishonest?

[BlackCappa]

Your tactic is similar to the petty tactic of a muslim asking the question: "Can God die? Is Jesus God or human? Yes or no!"

If you wish to have simplistic theology, then perhaps you should consider Islam. Truth requires people actually interested in explanations, not superficial formulae.

[iotaunam1]

This is going nowhere! The Catholic answer to this question is NO - any other answer is a denial of the Dogma that Christ will judge all on the last day.

It continues to amaze me how people remain indifferent and obstinate in obviously heretical positions.

[BlackCappa]

The Catholic answer denies neither dogma nor the guidance of Ecumenical Councils by the Holy Spirit.

I am no longer marvelled by the degree of stupidity and/or ignorance some people show.

ciao

[iotaunam1]

Stupidity?

The council document say YES, which is NOT the Catholic answer!

[BlackCappa]

There is no point in arguing with someone who wilfully rejects the Truth.

That is my final note: anyone else can check the links and explanations.

ciao ciao

May God have mercy on your soul and lead you back to the Church.

[iotaunam1]

Again, you remain dishonest, as you will not give me a DIRECT answer to my direct, simple question. The True answer make this statement as null, and utterly void - like Anglican Orders!

[baldwalrus7]

Hmm... I'm not sure...

Aren't Ecumenical Councils only infallible when formally defining something as a dogma, with attached anathemas? For example, the Council of Florence erroneously said that the matter of the Sacrament of Orders was passing on the instruments. This error was corrected by Pius XII (Sacramentum Ordinis). So it seems that Vatican II could contain errors in it, since it defined no dogmas. That's just what it seems to me. :-)

[BlackCappa]

No.

Are you refering to the Council of Basle/Ferrera-Florence which was to settle the dispute between East and West?

If you refer to this one, then not all of its decrees were ratified by the Pope.

As for Vaticanum II: its decrees were ratified by the Roman Pontiffs, thus they stand under the charism of infallibility and are to be obeyed.

To suggest that an Ecumenical Council is actively teaching error which has to be followed by all the faithul is heresy.

[baldwalrus7]

Well, just because an Ecumenical Council can be infallible doesn't mean that it has to be. Infallibility occurs only when defining ex cathedra a dogma, or when a teaching is an ordinary and universal teaching of the magisterium. E.g. canon 68 of Lateran IV (saying Jews can't appear in public on Easter Sunday) is not infallible. Michael Davies said: if it's invested with the authority of the Extraordinary Magisterium, in which case it is protected from error,

[baldwalrus7]

[cont'd] or it can be invested only with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium, in which case the possibility of error cannot be excluded."

Just because the Pope decrees something doesn't make it infallible, unless he defines it as an ex cathedra dogma. What did Vatican II define?

[baldwalrus7]

[cont'd2] And yes, I was referring to that Council. I was referring especially to the "Decree for the Armenians" issued by Pope Eugene IV as part of the Council of Florence. There he states: "The sixth sacrament is ordination. The material for the priesthood is the cup with the wine and the paten with the bread". As I said, Pius XII corrected this in "Sacramentum Ordinis" by saying "we determine and ordain: the matter of the holy orders... is the laying on of hands alone".

[BlackCappa]

Which part of the Council was this decree for the Armenians formulated? Was it in Basle?

As for infallibility: I would suggest to check the website of Mr. Dave Armstrong who has two articles on the binding authority of Vaticanum II:

the obedience required from the faithful is not limited to de fide doctrines only: wherefore, one would have to obey anyways.

[baldwalrus7]

It was in the 8th session. Are you asking whether the Decree for the Armenians was before or after the 1437 dissolution of Basel? This decree was on 22 November 1439. This was after Eugene IV had moved the Council from Basel to Florence.

"the obedience required from the faithful is not limited to de fide doctrines only". Yes, I agree. We are bound to obey everything the Pope decrees, unless it is gravely scandalous and contrary to the faith (e.g. John XXII's views on the Beatific Vision).

[BlackCappa]

Indeed, we are bound to obey anything given it is not contrary to the orthodox faith, Sacred Tradition.

Now, the question is whether Vaticanum II has indeed promulgated anything contrary to the Sacred Tradition: some say yes, I belong to those who say no.

[baldwalrus7]

Don't think I was arguing that we don't have to obey Vatican II. I'm not. (Though I would be interested in reading Mr. Armstrong's articles, if you can give me the link.)

[BlackCappa]

I'll send you the links via PM.

[baldwalrus7]

Thanks. God be with you.

[BlackCappa]

et cum spiritu tuo

[dacatholicbandorgan]

This is the way the Pope wants the Novus Ordo to be conducted. This form of the Novus Ordo is not an excuse for the Priest not to supply a Tridentine Latin Mass.

[manga12]

Ok folks after myself visiting the home page for this church, they are wholy Catholic but they are not like most, as they are strickly speaking a church that uses an episcapalian style mass, as well as the latin masses in both forms. They were a church formed from catholic minded episcapalians who converted,

Their church was built in 1986 with all the trappings though of a traditional old style catholic church, and strangely they have creamation niches in the church which is not that common.

[timtrotter42]

It's Nothing more than the invalid Novus Ordo done in latin. When are they going to realise that it does not matter if it is done in latin or english it is stil invalid!

[justdobbs]

Get a clue, tim. For validity, there needs to be the proper matter, form, intention. The matter is bread and wine, the form in Latin is identical to the Venerable Rite. Unless you claim to know the intentions of the priest, you would claim to be God, but without that, the Mass is valid, fool.

[manga12]

check their church homesite they do have tridentine mass also and not just low mass but also high mass, as I said they are not your typical type Catholic church though they are in communion with Rome though.

[timtrotter42]

Sorry just thought they were doing the novus ordo in latin. didn't mean to offend

[manga12]

Don't worry about offending me, I am from indiana far from this church that is in Texus, I do attend both the Tridentine mass with the Saint Mother Theodora Gurrin latin mass society of FSSP at sacred Heart in Fort Wayne with former head of the american branch of FSSP, Father George Gabbet

I also attend a Novus Ordo at my home parish also.

This parish here in the video is Anglican style rite in communion with Rome so their novus ordo is differant then the roman anyway. lol

[manga12]

Just check out their church website its all there, they hold tradition in high reguard, but you dont have to take my word for it just peek at their home site yourself its a nice looking church.

[rumpranger65]

The only thing that could make the Mass invalid is improper intention and the wrong words being said at consecration. "Pro Multis" is here expressed in its fullest. There is no doubt whatsoever about the validity of this Mass. However, in Masses where they say "for all" rather than "for many" the validity can be questionable (though it is assumed valid). This will be fixed with the new translation, after which there can be no doubt about the validity of the Novus Ordo Missae.

[LJBSasha]

It would be nice to know the text of the processional hymn being sung as well as the lyricist(s) and the composer. Could somebody please post these here? Many thanks in advance!

[wjweigand]

So far in this short segment, we see the elimination of the prayers at the foot of the altar, the combined presbyter and congregation confiteor prayer with no absolution by the presbyter at the end.

[Matt3740]

THATS BECAUSE IT'S A SEGMENT! Ive been attending this parish for 9 years and every thing you listed above is practiced in our Mass.

[browwwn12345]

so creepy

[mctav2010]

Could you please find out what the musical setting for the propers is? In other words, what Mass is it derived from (ex. Missa de Angelis)?

[lockerby]

Not "Abbot's Leigh"? Shame.