What G says is true. Just as vegetables aren't the opposite of fruits, so hymns aren't the opposite of Gregorian chant. The Liber Hymnarius is a book of Gregorian chant hymns, for example.

In the Byzantine Rite, the propers are like little hymns.

vegetables aren't the opposite of fruits

Vegetables are the opposite of dessert.

Carrot cake, anyone?

Back to the topic of hymns.

When they had sung a hymn, ... (Matthew 26:30, Mark 14:26).

What did Jesus sing at the Last Supper?

This might be a good time to read sing the Hallel Psalms (Ps. 113-118).

Snack is neither the opposite of nor a cognate for the Precious Body.

But it really happened that my stepdaughter was heard to say, at Mass, "Momma, why can't I have a snack, too?"

Adam's comment is cited directly from Sing to The Lord. (Purple!)

The only authentic approach to full, conscious and active participation is to raise our arms in an inviting manner

I went to one of those giant sing-along Messiah's once, world-class orchestra, fine soloists, and and opera house packed to the gills.
The soprano next to me raised her arms in the air and swayed them side to side in about a five arc arc every time any variation of the Holy Name was sung. Bear in mind she had a score in one of those hands.
Hallelujah was hellacious.
It was worse than sitting next to a morbidly obese person in an economy seat...

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

They were used as a tool to make the Mass appear more protestant, to welcome protestants into the faith.

Actually they were introduced to foster active participation. This is evident from the documents, as opposed to this troubling quote, which should be challenged because it is misleading.

when I was a youngster in CCD, not so many years ago, many of my teachers (most of whom were in their teens during Bugnini's "Great Leap Forward") told us

Questionably trained lay people running a ridiculously acronymed program explaining what they thought was going on when they were teenagers.

Hymns weren't introduced one day after the council. They aren't a new practice invented to foster participation, nor a new practice to be more Protestant.

Catholics have been singing extraneous non-liturgical hymns at Mass since forever.

What changed in the 20th Century is that (some) liturgical experts started to think that it was a good idea, instead of consistently trying to stop it or just ignoring it altogether.

This mirrors a more serious problem of the late modern era: Not an increase in sin, but a decrease in ideals.

The ecumenical aspects were in the forefront, to be sure. I remember ordained guys who should have known better, stating that if we could only have more in common with the Protestants, they would join with us. Didn't happen, did it?

Other people who were there say other things. Rather than trust hearsay, I go with what is obvious in the written record that was eventually agreed upon by the majority. There will never be peace in the Church otherwise.

Can you pronouncespell Abittoire?

I couldn't find abittoir or abbitoir, and my French is pretty bad these days. Do you mean abattoir?

Every Friday in Lent, we have one of those threads.

Sunday's coming!

We used the St. Gregory Hymnal until vernacular masses started, then switched to the Peoples Mass Book, if I remember correctly.

I do remember a bit of envy on the part of some priests concerning the protestants. The protestants had the large parking lots, multiple buildings, paid their pastors well, and they tithed for the most part - something Catholics were not so familiar with. There is nothing a priest enjoys more than spending other people's money. ;-)

... speaking of movies... remember.... "Cast Away"?
In view of recent events, the movie makes one think .........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY9Nm4RF-K0

In what ways are these the same hymn?

http://youtu.be/Hhn4erOzAoM

http://youtu.be/cR9NHXnbxlU

Yes, true, in that way they are the same hymn.

But in what ways are they different?

And taking everything into consideration, are they the same hymn?

Meter, the same: 87. 87. 87

Tune, obviously different: chant and Purcell don't really mix. The Purcell tune (Westminster Abbey) is, of course, very loftily done as a processional/entrance hymn for the ecumenical service.

I didn't listen carefully enough to see if both versions include exactly the same stanzas (Neale's translation carefully adheres to the structure, stanza by stanza).

Does any translation and setting to a different tune make the two hymns the same? The answer could be yes, or it could be no, if the disparity between the idioms is too great. From my perspective, although one cannot deny the popularity, especially in the UK, of the Purcell tune, there are other tunes to which Christ is Made the Sure Foundation could be (and are) sung, some of them with just as good a fit.

By the way, other tunes to for which this text (in English) has appeared include: Regent Square, Oriel, St. Thomas (Wade), Unser Herrscher, Urbs Beata Jerusalem plainsong, Triumph, Bavaria, Corner-Stone, Canterbury, Neale, Tilleard, Sarum Hymnal Tune 330, Edom, Sure Foundation, Salvation.

The following analogy 'popped' into my mind, for whatever validity it may have.
One often sees pictures of the queen dressed in every-day costume on a Balmoral holiday, scarf wrapped around her head, muddy gardening shoes, etc. This vesture is, of course, quite different from the regalia she avails herself of when addressing parliament. Yet, she is the same person, with the same range of dimensions and meanings, whatever her costume.

Likewise, in my view, this hymn remains, substantially, the same regardless of its language or, shall we say, its musical costume. Still, the sensual response is rather different when that costume is changed. The Purcell tune (with grand organ and all) definitely evokes a loftier aesthetic (some might even say 'hubris') than the simpler plainchant tune, which, one must admit, doesn't compete aesthetically with the text (and, this is an important aspect!). Which leads one to observe that the English version sung to the plainchant tune might present us with a more a propos comparison; or, for that matter, singing the Latin itself to the Purcell tune. From whatever facet one views this matter, still, I think, the comparison with Her Majesty in different roles and garbs may be apt: the difference is in the vesture, not the substance.

Hi, Henrik, what do you think of all of our responses to your questions so far?

Well, these would never be mistaken for Anglican. The pace is far too rapid, the singing shews little sense of musical line, and there is no gracious moment between stanzas, Thinking that it could be Lutheran or Catholic, I decided that it really lacked that rather aggressive and unrelenting, even primitive and boisterous singing aesthetic which one associates with Lutherans. So, this congregation is probably a Catholic one which enjoy singing. And the organ? well, while played quite decently enough, it isn't touched with that magical aura by which one just KNOWS that an Anglican is playing it because of the unique way Anglicans have of playing in such manner that the sound seems to be coming from the walls themselves- the building seems to sing. It isn't Lutheran because its not brash and overly rhythmic and too loud. So, it must be Catholic. The tempos are wrong, although they are consistent. And there is no gracious caesura between stanzas, rather, we just sort of gulp quickly and attack the next one. Registrations are varied and somewhat interesting, but the organ just really doesn't 'talk', it never becomes poetry, even though it IS decently played.

It is a joy to see and hear something this nice happening at a Catholic church. Now, all they need is a little Refinement.

It is a joy to see and hear something this nice happening at a Catholic church. Now, all they need is a little Refinement.

Or a little less. I often find either direction would be an improvement, at least from a spiritual standpoint.

Most organists here play like the Presbyterians

ooh ooh, I got this one

Too slowly and with the saddest registration available?

Exactly like Baptists but with mildy funny robes?

Without smiling ever?

They play the introduction exactly like Episcopalians but then during the first verse half the congregation converts to Unitarian while all the girls in the youth group cheat on their Catholic boyfriends?

Pax!
I guess my thought is like this:
The Roman Rite has its Liturgical music. It's called Gregorian chant (not even polyphony come close to that). Chorals/hymns has been used by Lutherans because this way of singing worked very vell with their Theology.
The Catholic Liturgy should sound Catholic, not Lutheran. Gregorian chant is more intelectual than chorals/hymns.
What does a real church musician think?