Which elements in this book help parishes to take a step toward the Church's ideals for the liturgy:
* singing the Mass instead of merely singing incidental texts at Mass
* a choir singing the proper texts for the day (or at least seasonal propers)
* sung dialogues
* sung congregational acclamations (K, G, C, S, M, P, A)
* musical styles that are recognizably sacred and not recognizably secular,
* styles derived from plainchant and sacred polyphony?

Vince Ambrosetti-
When you come back and read this thread, I apologize for the self-righteous, snooty, and thoroughly rude attitude of certain forum members. Please know that most others of us are actually interested in genuine discussion, and don't let unnecessarily condescending and ornery posts dissuade you.

[Document reference key:
SC - Sacrosanctum Concilium
TLS - Tra Le Sollecitudini
DMS - De Musica Sacra]

While I don't fully support the strong language put forward by some, I still strongly agree with the sentiment there.

This hymnal is being hailed as new and great, but I'm finding that the more I look at it, it is really much of the same sub-par, theologically shaky music that we've been getting from GIA and OCP for years. Some good hymns and a lot of other music not really suitable for Mass. Some may like that music, fine, but if that's the case, you can just get the same things from the other major publishers. Simply from a neutral standpoint, I don't see the draw of this hymnal over Worship or RitualSong or an OCP subscription.

You also state that you are trying to use the hermeneutic of continuity. However, so many of the songs seem to have a great influx of protestant ideas about the Mass. Lots of talk about "us" and about "us gathering around the table," (It's an altar, for pete sake) and about "us" doing this & that, or "us" loving everyone.

The sound of most of the songs also strikes me as very secular sounding, musically. The liturgy is supposed to be a heavenly action, and the style of music we use is (supposed to be) separated from that of "real life" for that very reason. It's supposed to be different.

Does anyone see the sharp contrast between the beauty of one of these texts, and the sing-songy triteness of the other?

The angelic bread becomes the bread of men; The heavenly bread
ends all prefigurations: What wonder! The Lord is eaten by a poor and humble servant.
Triune God, We beg of you: visit us, just as we worship you. By your ways, lead us here we are heading, to the light in which you dwell. Amen.

Here we will take the wine and the water,
here we will take the bread of new birth.
Here you shall call your sons and your daughters,
call us anew to be salt for the earth.
Give us to drink the wine of compassion,
give us to eat the bread that is you.
Nourish us well, and teach us to fashion
lives that are holy and hearts that are true.

In Pope Pius' motu proprio on sacred music, he's combating many of the one of the same things we are dealing with today: the influx of "religious music" being passed off as "liturgical music," which is a serious problem. [DMS 10, 20, 54]
[Correction: that was the 1956 document De Musica Sacra, not TLS.]

You also state that we need new music in the church. There's a few things I'd like to respond with:

1) First, you proclaim a great love of our past sacred music. We all do here. But I must ask bluntly: if it is important to you, why have you deviated so far from it in style, in content, and have included next to nothing of it? For someone who loves it, it sure feels to be ignored in this hymnal.

2) All of the church documents demand that gregorian chant and classic polyphony be given pride of place in all liturgical services [SC 116]. Considering most churches only use one hymnal, how does this hymnal help bring us back to that ideal? Part of the wonderful parts of the church is the fact that it is slow to change. When it is slow to change, things are thought out and done well. When things are changed quickly (Vatican II), chaos erupts. By publishing a hymnal that contains music from only the last 50 years or so (2.5% of the church's history), doesn't that seem to be more of the quick-change side of things? It's hardly in the hermeneutic of continuity to throw out all that music from the past and publish this with all new music, considering that most parishes only buy one hymnal.

3) New music is a good thing. But bad new music is not. Why not publish new music that is more suitable for the sacred liturgy? We have so much GOOD new music to draw from. We've got Adam Bartlett, Kevin Allen, Richard Rice, Aristotle Esguerra, all writing and arranging NEW music. But not just generic NEW music, NEW sacred music, NEW liturgical music. Keep this principal in mind for new music: the closer it is in spirit and in style to gregorian chant, the more suitable it is for the sacred liturgy [TLS 3.2]. Even pieces that have secular sounding motifs should not be played [TLS 5.2]

We don't need more of the spirit of Vatican II. That's gotten us in enough trouble already. We need more of the letter of Vatican II, the letter that asks us to celebrate the Mass in latin frequently [SC 36], the letter that requests that the people of God know the ordinary of the Mass in latin, including the chat Masses, so that they can USE them [SC 54], the same letter that says our past treasury of sacred music should be used [SC 112, 114], and the same letter that calls the organ (and no other instrument) an instrument to be held in high esteem [SC 120]. To quote someone I admire, the spirit of VII is a demon that needs to be exercised from the church while we start following the letter.

I don't mean to be uncharitable, only honest: to me, it seems that the St. Augustine hymnal does none of these things for the church. We are much better off with something like the VII hymnal. Yes, it's not perfect, but no hymnal will be.

I have been troubled by Haugen for years. He's not Catholic, doesn't accept the dogmas of Catholicism, and doesn't write lyrics that adhere to Church doctrines. Also, I have read supposed statements by him openly disagreeing with positions taken by the Church. What gives? Why the fascination with the works of this man? I looked today at the index pages for Worship IV and found too many things written by him. Why is anything by Haugen included in a Catholic hymnal? He clearly has little understanding of the Catholic Church or its teachings, especially its eucharistic beliefs.

Eighteen months ago I took over the music direction of a small parish whose former DM used a lot of Ambrosetti music. Since taking over the ministry, I have chosen against his music in favor of more traditional hymnody and organ use, but, I will say, the people loved Ambrosetti and were always happy to sing it. Songs like "Sanctuary", spoke to the people of the parish and were loved by many. I continue to use his music, although not for masses. The same goes for John Michael Talbot (please don't blast me here!). I think there is a time and place for anybody to whom the Lord has given a special musical gift. Now, let's enjoy this forum and learn from each other. We all bring special gifts to the table and are certainly entitled to opinions, but I think it's time to settle down and love each other, for, after all, what are we in ministry for in the first place? God bless to all.

While I see your point, Charles, maybe this kind of a discussion is what is needed. I do not think that SAH is necessarily a one and done deal. Maybe this kind of a discussion will give Mr. Ambrosetti some food for thought when producing the next installment.

I had a similar discussion with Pedro Rebulcava concerning the dearth of Sacred Music in Spanish. When I told him that OCP should also look at the Propers, he told me that no one had ever mentioned that to him.

As for John Michael Talbot, his music might work well outside of the liturgy, but not necessarily within it. I could see singing "Holy is His Name" at some Marian gathering, like a retreat setting or for a public recitation of the Rosary, but, not for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

What I do wish is that publishers be willing to have a real listening session and study the authoritative documents of the Holy See so that they could get a sense of how music needs to work within the Mass and not be an appendage (that sometimes, like or nor, seems to take over the liturgy). The music should be humble handmaid of the Mass and not its master.

Be careful what you ask for.

A few years ago, the US bishops effectively detoured the issue of repertoire approval on the respective bishops of the dioceses of the major publishers (Portland, Chicago, et cet.) and there things sit. The bishops have no appetite for going near this with a 10-foot pole. Even the Pope himself, a serious appreciator of sacred music, has no appetite for prescriptive measures (perhaps his 5 years in pastoral episcopal ministry acted as an appetite suppressant). The kind of men who have an appetite for this tend to have personalities that make them unlikely to be chosen as bishops or, if lucky enough to be so chosen, to be promoted except by way of being sidelined where they can do less pastoral damage.

Actually, Liam, the proposed division on Sacred Music at the Congregation for Divine Worship is still very much alive, and this is one of Pope Benedict's initiatives. I wouldn't be too quick to say that he is not willing to touch this issue.

My concern with leaving it to the Metropolitans of Chicaco and Portland to decide is that the quality control is simply not there. OCP can brag about having Cardinal Levada on its board of directors; however, what is the likelihood that he even got to see what they have been publishing?

The USCCB had a very good chance. They did submit a common repertoire to Rome back in 2006 and it is still at the CDWDS. Maybe the Congregation has to filter through a lot of what the USCCB sent. I do not know.

Equally extreme...

I hate to say it, but I'm not sure I'd want to see a USCCB hymnal. Maybe something from a Roman office though.

CCCB (Canada) put out a hymnal. CBW (1, 2 and 3) Not that great. Started Ok (CBW1) and went downhill to the present CBW3. Bishops conferences should be the best equipped to handle a hymnal but sadly I would not rely on them to produce a quality one.

Also, in the U.S., could you imagine the outrage from OCP, GIA and LTP when they have spent money (to the USCCB) to purchase the rights to the Psalms were the same bishops conference to produce their own hymnal....
Would make me laugh though.

We need episcopal example and true leadership on music, like to the bishop of Phoenix and others. Without it, publishers will publish what they do and the appetite for true reform from parish to parish will remain isolated and rarely happen.

Scott,

Perhaps I am a bit harsh to CBW 2, but the inclusion of Ray Repp materials always made my stomach turn in 4 directions. Carey Landry, Bob Dufford and Dan Schutte also make appearances in the CBW2. Sorry, but 100 years from now people will be saying Carey who? Ray what? Dan what's it? We did that???
The CBW2 does have a saddle of good and strong hymns and a peppering of chants. Victor Togni was an excellent musician and his Mass I used for many years.

CBW3 got much worse and went for so called inclusive language. Fr Stephen Sommerville contributed much for CBW and later recanted all his work in a manifesto. Took on the Archdiocese of Toronto, got friendly with Mel Gibson and I wonder where he is now.

Tracking all these hymnals outlines the slippery slope. A downward slope that takes us further and further away from our theology, our beliefs and ars celebrandi.

Kudos to Adoremus and V2 hymnal for trying to turn the tides for the average parish in the English speaking world, but I have no idea why we need more hymnals on the market to promote the same stuff GIA and OCP have been doing.
My parish will be in the market for a hymnal in 5 to 7 years. In the meantime we produced our own hymn book to work as a stop gap when we toasted the G&P. It will work for now, but I am looking for something like the V2 hymnal that we could use in Canada.

"To address those differences with arrogance and harsh condemnations is contrary to the very faith that we profess."

Aren't those words from the bible....the mutterings of the moneychangers being driven out of the temple?


When you wrote: "How edifying to see such intelligent discourse on sacred music in the Catholic tradition. As the publisher of the Saint Augustine Hymnal (SAH), I appreciate the opportunity to clarify some points of confusion regarding this fine hymnal, the collaborative work of many dedicated and talented people over the last eight years." it was obvious what you were up to....

Mr. Ambrosetti,

I was very honored to serve as a reviewer (upon your request) for some of the Mass settings for the SAH while it was still in production last year.

I was candid — but still charitable, I hope! — about my perspectives on those settings. I hope I was able to render useful judgments for you, even on the settings which I felt were not congruent with my own preference for sacred music.

I am thrilled to see you here… welcome!

Rome couldn't even manage a Missal translation on its own. Didn't even try to issue one itself.

Not sure what this means . . . unless it is a joke.

In the FWIW category: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350280?eng=y

Yes, it was meant as a joke, in the context of understanding that, if Rome wasn't going to issue an English missal on its own (where missal translation under the jurisdiction of the conferences, using texts that they own), then to expect an English hymnal (where music is under the jurisdiction of the bishop, using texts that he does not own) to be ruddered out of a new Roman back-office is a joke.

You know, folks, I entered into this discussion because the early postings that I read were, in fact, intelligent and edifying. I left this forum (temporarily) because of pressing obligations with the sincere intention of returning for ongoing intelligent discourse.

Sadly, on my return, I was disappointed to discover how far into the basement you have traveled. You do not need to lower this forum to a free-for-all coliseum of cynicism, angry rants, snooty self-righteousness and shallow back-slapping to those who might agree with you.

You seem to be bright people. You might consider that respectful dialogue will accomplish so much more than small-minded poisonous postings.

Many of you make excellent points; and you do so without resting upon insidiously destructive comments. To you, the Church is indebted and I am grateful.

To those who are seated in anger: Take a deep breath, restrain yourself, pray for wisdom, temperance and humility; then come back.

I have learned this: I prefer to play tennis with those who play better than I; it helps me to be a better tennis player. In life, I choose to surround myself with those who love more deeply, live more charitably and yearn to know God more than I; it leads me to grow in grace and goodness, to live within the heart of God.

I know the Church documents. You can spout off all the references that you wish. If you do so without the love of God, you accomplish nothing and you are nothing.

When this forum returns to respectful, charitable, intelligent discourse, I will return.

God's blessings,

Vince Ambrosetti
Publisher, ILP

When I heard the first description of SAH, I was intrigued, so I sent for the free copy. Unfortunately, I really don't see much difference between it and OCP or WLP. I wouldn't be interested in procuring a new hymnal for the church I work at to get more of the same. What would be the point? I think the problem is that many people who read the Church documents can get just about whatever meaning they wish from them, so it's easy to keep publishing the trendy style of music under the "cultural influences" phrase.

As for the questions, perhaps some of them were a little on the pointed side, but when we musicians are fed the same thing over and over again, I think some of the impatience and irritability (and honest questions!) we have can easily be understood. Leaving in a huff and failing to give answers to some key points is merely a cop-out.

Here's a condensed list of the criticisms:

"dross", "a low-budget Gather Comprehensive", "a lot not to like", "Widely sung? Where?", "early-to-mid-1990s Protestant praise & worship", "disappointed... difficult to sing/learn. Lots of syncopation, strange phrasing ... the text is not easy to understand", "a style I have never heard in a Catholic context", "disgusting... sacro-pop recycled. Broadway tunes, sappy piano pieces... trite, predictable, horrible", "glaring red flags... more of the same", "sub-par, theologically shaky music... very secular sounding, musically... sing-songy triteness".

Makes one heck of a jacket blurb, hm?

Marajoy objected a couple of times to the more visceral terms (and I agree with her). Still, even if those hadn't been written, the message is collectively a kick in the teeth, to have a bunch of disinterested strangers tell you that your labor of love stinks, based on criteria that maybe you didn't take into account. Probably he'll get more favorable reviews from some other forum of church musicians (NPM, say).

I can't fault anybody for liking the P&W music in that hymnal; I used to play similar stuff at prayer groups, even with a vague sense that the Protestant P&W music wasn't connected to Catholic liturgical spirituality.

Speaking of glass houses, how Christian is it to accuse folks of being self-righteous, snooty, and cynics?

Well said!

When I heard the first description of St. Augustine Hymnal, I was intrigued, so I sent for the free copy. Unfortunately, I really don't see much difference between it and OCP or WLP. I wouldn't be interested in procuring a new hymnal for the church I work at to get more of the same.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Vince Ambrosetti wrote: When this forum returns to respectful, charitable, intelligent discourse, I will return.

I was looking forward to seeing how you would respond to some of the serious criticisms of the selections in your book, by members of this forum. It has already been pointed out several times that thoughtful criticism of these selections has nothing to do with "personal attacks" against you. However, pretending that someone has attacked you on a personal basis is a rather ingenious way of not having to answer some pretty tough criticism and questions. Congrats!

You seem to be bright people.

I find this an odd statement, because it lumps all of *us* together ... wouldn't it be easier to simply respond to the criticisms about selections in your St. Augustine Hymnal?

Um...to use your tennis thing...it's our court, we are here....you came to us.

FNJ, I love you man, but there is no "us" versus "them."
Focus. The Enemy is afoot. We participate in "divided/conquered" our souls are at peril.
It's not rocket science.

Really, JennyH?!?! YOU were looking forward to how he responded to criticism? I'm pretty sure that you were the first to take this discussion from questions and dialogue to insult-flinging!

I was sorry to see Haas leave this forum. I haven't cared for some of his music in RitualSong, but I understand he is creating new material and it's better. People generally do improve at their crafts over time. I enjoyed hearing his perspectives on music, even if I didn't agree with them.

The St. Augustine is not something I have attacked on stylistic grounds. It wouldn't work for my congregation because it has too much new material, and they don't take kindly to changes. At this stage, I don't intend to take the time or expend the effort to teach them a great number of new hymns. I introduce a few new hymns each year, but over time have settled into using a collection of hymns they know and will sing. This hymnal would be somewhat disruptive for us, simply because it is too different from what we know. Someone else might have a valid use for it.

Part of the problem with SAH is the way the preface was written. When Mr. Ambrosetti wrote that we "are not the 'Bread of Life'" and then made some sort of veiled reference to the song "Ashes", I had some hope for this book and it's potential usability. This hope was further augmented by his claim to have consulted with the Church documents (although he never cited which ones he used).

Unfortunately, when I got down to looking at the PDF of the book, I was greatly disheartened with the content. As I read through the titles, I could not see any evidence of the "hermeneutic of continuity" as claimed by the publisher. On the contrary, as many of us have observed, the book represents more of the same. In my own observation, SAH seems to move us in the exact opposite of what Pope Benedict XVI called for in "Sacramento Caritatis, No. 42.

Charity calls for honesty. Sometimes, someone has to tell the emperor that he does not have any new clothes. I do hope that Mr. Ambrosetti can step back and examine what many of us are trying to say with some objectivity, studying our comments in the light of the authoritative documents of the Holy See and in the writings of the Supreme Pontiff (Pope St. Pius X, Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.

It is obviously too late for Mr. Ambrosetti to amend what has already been released, but, perhaps this discussion could very well help him for the next go-around.