Nice tune. The first several bars are almost identical to Vater unser im himmelreich. I'm sure this is pure coincidence - or, may it be an admiring quote?

I would make a melodic adjustment or two to the last line and change the A-flat to A-natural at the end of the second poetic line, finishing off there with a G-major chord - this would add both melodic and harmonic interest.
The phrase 'O guardian...' to the end I would spell the melody thusly:
G | C G Eb F | G F-Eb D F | G C Eb D C. This would avoid repetitive stops on C.

At any rate, beautiful work from both Kathy and Earl.

Some of us like 'reversed word order' and think it, verily, normal. It is a quite ordinary manner of thought and speech - besides being fun and gleeful. It helps, perhaps, to have been reared on Cranmer and Coverdale. I do not think of English of any period as being 'modern' or 'archaic' or 'outdated'. I think of them all as English and feel at liberty to use them on a whim. This obsession with being modern is a very uncomfortable straight jacket.

I do, though, share in Fr Krisman's concern about actually addressing any being other than the Triune Godhead at mass. Doing so, no matter who it is, is not licit.

Jackson: Regina caeli, Salve Regina, Ave Maria--all in the vocative.

Sometimes introits are in the first person plural, addressing the Church, exhorting Her to praise. Gaudeamus...

Regarding the repeat of the tonic, I think Salzburg and In Babilone are usually considered "really good hymn tunes."

Gloria is more of a Carol tune, with three notes ending on the tonic.

Nettleton.

Hyfrydol.

Fr.,
I don't know about other parochial teachers, but one solid aspect that I teach our 2-8 kids focuses upon their ability to visually and aurally distinguish subtle differences between even simple ABA designations. I require them to make a definitive judgment between whether AABA is actually that, or A1, A2, B, A3 and so forth. It seems to make sense they can cognate that as they have to eventually recognize rote acquisition that does contain formal distinctions without disturbing the "earworm" factor.

I had assumed that most hymns which address the saints they honor were written for use in devotions. But quickly perusing Part III (The Proper of the Saints) of Britt's The Hymns of the Breviary and the Missal, it appears that quite a few Office hymns address the saint(s) instead of God.

The devotional hymns, which filled Catholic hymnals in the USA between the closing decades of the nineteenth century through the mid-twentieth century, have largely fallen into disuse owing to their saccharine and overly sentimental texts. Sure, this or that publisher still includes "On This Day, O Beautiful Mother," and a few other texts like that in its publications. But I've never heard them sung at Mass.

However, if the Office hymns in Britt (which have or had the status of "liturgical texts") are more and more introduced into the Mass on saints' feast days, will that be a rupture in some immemorial liturgical tradition, to which MJO alludes?

MJO, I never said I was opposed to reverse word order in hymn texts. I only suggested that IMO there were too many instances of such in the text which is the subject of this discussion.

Hmm. Propers don't teach?

There's didactic and didactic.

Something that is off-putting to me is what I've come to think of as fake praying. That's not exactly fair, but I'll explain. It's similar to what are putatively "petitions," but are actually meant to be advisory for the congregation. "That all of our parishioners may prayerfully consider mortgaging their houses to pay for new statuary and a parish hall, let us pray to the Lord.."--which is an extreme example, obviously.

Less extreme examples happen in hymns sometimes. Forgive Us, Lord, As We Forgive is an example. When In Our Music God Is Glorified. Both of those seem too preachy to me. It's not the bossiness of hymns that is the problem. "Beloved, let us love" is directly exhortatory address, but that is fine, precisely because it it isn't coy about it. What I find troubling in the others is the fairly transparent exhortation that is hidden in prayer language and directionality.

Likewise, the kind of storytelling and lengthy discussion of a feast that happens in office hymns seems ok, because the hymn is totally conscious of what it is doing and up front about it. They seem to say, "Look. We're going to start with a call to prayer in verse 1. Then we're going to weave together a bunch of thoughts about the feast of the day. And then we're going to close with a doxology thanking God for the saint / cathedral/ mystery of the day, and ask that we can be brought to heaven. Everybody ok with that? Ok, here goes."

And what about the litany of saints?
And what about the canon of the Mass which invokes the saints?
If one looks at the Euch. prayerss on saints days, there are indeed invocations to them, I believe.
MJO, Iwonder if youvare thinking of Anglican tradition?

I don't think that a competitive spirit pertains between God and His saints.

In the EF the Litany precedes the Mass.

In the EF the Litany precedes the Mass.

CR, I know that in the Easter Vigil found in the 1962 MR, the heading following the renewal of baptismal promises and the concluding part of the litany of the saints is: DE MISSA SOLEMNI VIGILIAE PASCHALIS. But the rubric following that heading explicitly states that this Mass may not be celebrated without everything that preceded it. (Celebratio solius Missae vigiliae paschalis sine ceremoniis precedentibus interdiciter.)

If there ever is a “mutual enrichment” of the OF and EF, would this heading perhaps be something that is amended to conform to SC 56?

SC 56. The two parts which, in a certain sense, go to make up the Mass, namely, the liturgy of the word and the eucharistic liturgy, are so closely connected with each other that they form but one single act of worship.

The Papal Masses include the Marian antiphons.

You are correct, Kathy. As others have already stated, the Marian antiphons address the Blessed Mother directly. But does the quite recent use of these antiphons at papal Masses open the gates, as it were, to the use of hymns addressed to saints being used at other Masses?

Chonak, perhaps hymns and all other forms of congregational singing are the "model" or, at least, the "new normal" at Masses celebrated in the vernacular. And, as I have already noted, hymns are now permitted at Mass in the particular legislation inserted into the GIRM by various episcopal conferences (including USCCB) and approved by the Apostolic See. New realities raise new questions.

I really don't understand what is going on here.

-Office hymns and Marian antiphons are not acceptable because they don't meet a rule that some liturgists came up with last Tuesday.
-But random heretical verses that don't trip over that rule, or one of the many others that modern liturgists thought of or plan to think of, are fine because of the GIRM's fourth option rule?

This is beyond the looking glass.

Well, OK. If current law is the guide to show us what the Church's current model is for music at the Mass, we may as well look at the same law to see what criteria apply in the selection of hymns.

If I remember the GIRM aright, that would mean that the hymn should be suited to the occasion (according to the calendar) or the season, or suited to the particular action underway when the hymn is sung. Is that all? Does the GIRM maintain any principle about whether hymns addressed to saints are unsuitable? I don't recall that being in there anywhere.

Nonsense.

I'm thinking how supremely ill-judged it would be of me, were I to have an audience with the king who was ardent to share his love and benevolence with me, but foolishly thought it more pleasing and profitable to me to speak to the assembled courtiers while his Majesty sat twiddling his Thumbs. At the mass, I give my all (insofar as my sins don't get in the way) to God, my Father, to his Son from everlasting and that Sonship as in the incarnate and risen Christ, and to the Holy Ghost the Lord and Giver of Life. The communion of saints joins me in this worthship, but we do not chatter amongst ourselves whilst the All Holy is holding court and bestowing his graces out of his own Goodness.

The eucharistic prayer which is presented as evidence of entreaty to entities other than the Godhead, does not include petitions and invocations of saints. It remembers them and counts them as worthies in our communion of saints, but it does not address them nor ask anything from them. Here are the pertinent portions of the Roman canon (in the language of the Ordinariate) -

Therefore, most merciful Father, we humbly pray thee...

United in one communion, we venerate the memory, of the glorious ever-virgin Mary,... of Joseph... of thy Apostles and Martyrs, Peter and Paul... grant that by their merits and prayers we may in all things be defended with the help of thy protection.

...even as thou didst vouchsafe to accept the gifts of thy servant Abel the righteous... of Abraham.... and Melchisidech offered...

To us sinners also, thy servants, who hope in the multitude of thy mercies, vouchsafe to grant some part and fellowship with thy holy Apostles and Martyrs; with John, Stephen, Matthias, Barnabas, Ignatius, Alexander, marcellinus, Peter, Felicitas, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucy, Agnes, Cecilia, Anastasia, and with all thy saints: within whose fellowship, we beseech thee, admit us, not weighing our merit, but granting us forgiveness; through Jesus Christ....

Even a careless reader could not construe these ritual texts as addressing any other than God himself. True, he is asked to weigh the merits of the mentioned saints, we ask of him that we may be among them, but they are not addressed even obliquely.

As for litanies at ordinations and such, one could reasonably point out that these occur within the Rite of Ordination, etc., which is itself inserted into the mass.

Certainly within the Byzantine traditions there is no trouble with hymns to the Theotokos within the liturgy (and veneration of the icon of the Theotokos within the liturgy as well, which is actually a more powerful statement given the Eastern view of iconography in worship).

Our Eucharistic Liturgies rather often invoke the prayers of the faithful of the church militant "oremus... let us pray". I can see no reason that, like in the Litany of Saints, the prayers of the church triumphant, who are also mystically present, can not be invoked. I don't really think any argument to the contrary can stand as an absolute given our understanding of the communion of saints. However, the wisdom or prudence of prayer to any other than the Trinity within the mass would seem to be questionable in any instance not provided for in the liturgical books, or law, or immemorial custom.

And so we 'bless' Abram and God blesses us for so doing. This is not asking Abram (in the mass) to pray for us. Remembering and invoking, blessing and beseeching, are not synonymous. I remember quite a variety of saints at mass and delight in the assurance of their presence, knowing that their prayers are joined with ours. This is not the same as asking St. Anselm to pray for me during the mass: I assume that Anselm is busy during mass doing what I'm supposed to be doing: worshiping the All Holy.

It seems to me that the true role of the saints during mass is precisely that they participate in the objectives and graces of the mass just as we do. They are a part of this (worshiping) Communion of Saints. They, too, participate in the Supper of the Lamb. And, they, being sanctified, have (divinely bestowed) merit which we ask God to accept on our behalf. This dynamic, one will note, is the very one assumed and explicity expressed in the Roman canon. All emotion and affect by us, the saints, the Mother of our Lord, the Apostles, the heavenly host, is directed with indeflectable zeal and love towards the Beloved Creator of All.

I must confess that I do sense a certain fervour on the part of those who cannot even envision God acting through the mass itself without the intercession (powerful and otherwise) of saints. While such devotion is surely not meant to be blasphemous or an affront to God, it does, nonetheless, seem to call into question his omnipotence and his very real desire (even his ability) to act of himself on our behalf. It does call into question the fact that he does act of his own volition on our behalf because he loves us. It comes dangerously close to attributing to creatures the work of the Creator.

I bind unto myself above and before all else the strong name of the Trinity. There may be helpmates both living and departed in that relationship, but there is naught betwixt it.

MJO,

It is apparent that you are considering God's glory above all else. And this is laudable.

However, I do not believe that you are correct , and I believe that you are actually unwittingly doing God a disservice .

The saints show God's glory through their work on his behalf. Rather than simply doing everything Himself , God chooses human beings to help Him. This is shown in many places in Scripture, most notably in Colossians where St. Paul says that he makes up in his own flesh what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ.

All of this comes under God's own initiative and power. However it is more complicated than you are making it and more beautiful.

For God to simply speak and change the world is marvelous. For God to move the hearts of human beings so that they actively participate in his creative action is much more glorious.

The point of Offices and Masses in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Saints is, in part, to actually honor them with their due worship. To address the one being honored in a hymn during Mass is not absurd or impious. It may not be the most eloquent way to honor a saint during Mass, but it is not blasphemous, and usually only betrays an abundance of (orthodox) devotion.

Some evidence in the Latin liturgy of a musical tradition of prayer to the saints during Mass:

As mentioned above, the Masses of Our Lady very often have proper texts that are addressed to her, and some even explicitly invoke her intercession, e.g. Alleluia verse "Post partum". See also the Tract "Tu es vas electionis" from the Conversion of St. Paul: "Intercede pro nobis ad Deum".

Masses of the saints often have propers which, in their accommodated sense, are praises directly addressed to the saint, e.g., OF. "Diffusa est", IN. "Loquebar".

10th-14th century proper Sequences (like in the Sarum Missal) often are, in part, addressed to the saints - much like "Te Ioseph celebret", "Ave maris stella", other office hymns, and the hymn in the OP above.

And also, the orations of the Mass (esp. the Collect and Super oblata) will very often - necessarily indirectly - ask the intercession of the saints, e.g., "Grant, we pray, Almighty God, that by Saint Joseph's intercession...".

Perhaps a distinction can help us to unite things.

When a hymn to a saint is not germane to a Mass, it can seem out of place. More so if a devotional prayer is said: that becomes, in effect, a little ritual of its own, added arbitrarily and interrupting the rite of Mass.

On the other hand, if a saint's memorial or feast is being observed, a hymn which addresses the saint is at least suited to the day, so it meets one requirement for use during the Mass.

Hear hear! This will wake up the schoolchildren at our 8:30 AM school Mass on Monday. Thanks for sharing!

This went over very well. Our school invited all fathers to daily mass with their children and the hymn received a positive response. Thank you!