The Hymnal 1940 for an EF Parish
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,499
    @a_f_hawkins
    Where in the Mass was the "customary" motet?


    Here in England the Customary Motet was after the Offertory Proper, and before or after the Communion Proper, my local Parish OF hidden down a back road on the wrong side of the Railway line still has this custom that has survived all the liturgical changes and 3 parish priests.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    my local Parish OF hidden down a back road on the wrong side of the Railway line


    The liturgical backwoods aren't such a bad place to be. : )

    Ideally, I think there ought to be a St. Edmund Campion Missal, a Liber Brevior and a 1940 Hymnal in every Catholic pew.
  • '...wrong side...'

    The Oxford movement and the Anglo-Catholic revival had some of their greatest original successes on 'the wrong side of the tracks'. Truth and Beauty sometimes have a strong appeal to those who have little else.
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,114
    Nah, skip the brevior and do the PBC II instead. Congregation doesn't need Gregorian propers.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    As long as PBC II has all the Mass settings and all the Credos, but I think a congregation is perfectly capable of learning most of the Communion antiphons and even the Introits over a period of years, not perfectly of course, but enough to sing or hum along in the pews. The Communion antiphon is obviously the most accessible, especially if it's repeated with verses every Sunday. Those melodies are contagious, and the Introits just seep into your soul. You can't help but learn them over the years.

    For example 'Primum quaerite' for this coming Sunday--- how hard is this?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKilHsqkOmE
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • One has many times observed what should be a self-evident phenomenon, namely, that in truth, children, choirs, 'the people', and clergy as well, are perfectly intelligent and capable of learning most anything that a talented educator-musician can teach them. The problem is not at all with what the people (or children, or whoever) can, in fact, learn; the problem is that those who have insinuated themselves into musical leadership roles do not, themselves know the Church's genuine sacred music, nor do they wish to learn it, and, therefore, they are incompetent to teach it. And, to disguise their ignorance and incompetence they will insist that the people can't learn it. (But we are not supposed to point this out to them.) The same is true of clergy who, themselves, think that genuine Church music is foreign (because no one ever taught it to them) and, therefore, they conclude, it is both foreign and unwelcome to their people. What we are dealing with is institutionalised ignorance imposed by those who are, in all reality, incompetent both of making intelligent decisions about this subject, and of teaching anything other that the pablum that they themselves know. 'The people can't' is a tacit admission of ignorance and incompetence by the speaker of those words.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,254
    I agree with Ben. The PBC and a hymnal. Save the propers for the choir and schola.
    Thanked by 1noel jones, aago
  • A P.S. is in order: there are, of course, things that really are beyond what the people can do, but they are not what those who say 'the people can't do that' think they are. I'm thinking that the people probably couldn't do a very commendable job of 'And the glory, the glory of the Lord', and maybe not 'Spem in alium', but most of what certain people say that congregations can't sing they very well can - with competent, respected, and knowledgeable choirmasters teaching them. (And when I say 'respected' I mean respected, genuinely respected, by the pastor, priests, staff, and people.)
  • But a "hymnal" puts forth a philosophy that hymns is the main thing we should be singing when in reality it is the LAST option of what should be sung at the Mass.


    I don't necessarily agree. Hymn singing in general is part of the Christian patrimony. Our ancestors in the faith have sung hymns and spiritual canticle and psalms from the beginning. Beside the fact that many hymns are based on the psalms, and other scripture (the entire Calvinist/Reform tradition of singing is based entirely on the psalter).

    I may not have been clear about our situation - I apologize. Our congregation sings the ordinary, as well as the dialogue. Why not add a processional or recessional hymn every once in a while?
  • Moderntrad,

    Calvinism isn't Christian in anything but name, so including it within this Christian patrimony is to muddy the waters --- which is precisely why a Protestant hymnal doesn't belong in a Catholic parish in the first place. In fairness, most of the stuff coming from the Big Three isn't Christian either, and shouldn't be allowed in a Catholic parish.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,254
    moderntrad:

    The point I am making is that we have 'lost' our patrimony of chant which SHOULD have the pride of place. Right now, hymns have pride of place and our job is to educate the Masses (pun inteneded) about what is the proper music for the liturgy.

    Hymns are a good thing, they just should not dominate the place of the Propers.
    Thanked by 1CCooze
  • Chris,

    My example of Calvinism's tradition isn't a tacit approval of Calvinism, just an example of a tradition of hymn singing. What's the old saying? Even a blind hog finds a truffle every now and then.

    I have to insist, again, that the Ordinariate is a part of Roman Catholicism. Their hymnal is the '40. Ergo, the '40 can and should be considered part of the musical literature of Roman Catholicism. You can hardly throw the baby out with the bath water when speaking of these matters. And doing so in the brash way that you are is quite off putting to those who may consider Traditional Catholicism - and I'm a pretty brash Trad...

    Hymn singing is absolutely a part of Christian patrimony. Heck, go read the Acts of the Apostles or the Pauline Epistles.

    Let me make myself clear: I am not for the 4 hymn sandwich, replacing the Propers for hymns, or any other ridiculous invention of the modern age. But throwing hymns and hymn singing away completely, because a bunch of people in the modern age have misused them, is foolish.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    Regarding the hypothetical "ideal worship aids" in every Catholic pew, I offer yet another option: the 1940 Hymnal and the Mass and Vespers with Gregorian Chant, edited by the Monks of Solesmes and printed in 1957 which is available for download on the CMAA website.

    This spectacular Missal is currently available in print in French/Latin only, because, as we all know, the traditionalist movement is stronger and more vibrant in France than in any other place in the world. I would submit that the French traditionalists participate in the liturgy with a quality and fervor that is second to none---one only has to listen to any recording of an EF Mass sung in France to realize this immediately.

    This Missal, which was talked about on this forum in 2011 and called by the eminent commentators there "the greatest book in the world", is a prime example of why the French liturgical life is so strong and how that same energy and participation can be made alive here in America as well. This book contains the following: All the Masses and Vespers, all the responses, all the readings, all the psalm tones for Sunday Vespers, all the mass settings, all the antiphons, AND, this is my personal favorite feature: the Gregorian notation for all the propers of every Sunday and feast day Mass.

    This book is the fulfillment and actualization of the early Liturgical Movement and Vatican II's call to teach the people to sing and say in Latin those parts of the Mass that pertain to them, and I would argue that the question is not whether we should put these propers in a missal for those who want them, but why wouldn't we. Why would we possibly not give the people to see and hold in their hands the most beautiful sung prayers in the Roman liturgy?

    For several years I've printed the Introit and Communion antiphons every Sunday in our handout, along with the jubilus of the Alleluia, and I do that because I remember my Benedictine monk friend telling me once that the Introit was meant to be sung by the people as the entrance antiphon, and Dom Johnner, in his book on the Vatican Graduale, points out that many of the Communion antiphons are very ancient and were sung by the Christians in the catacombs as Communion was distributed so I believe it's very important to begin in some small way the process of returning those antiphons to the people. As for the Alleluia, I just think the notation is graphically so beautiful and intriguing, that I want the people to see it and ponder it. Whether it will ever happen that the people will sing either the Introit or Communion antiphons on a wide scale is probably not possible in our lifetimes, but putting the music in the people's hands is the first step.

    Of course we know that not everyone is going to sing them, and that most people and congregations are not capable of ever reaching that elusive "third degree of participation" (cf. De Musica Sacra), but we also know that there will be some people who, if given the opportunity, will be entranced by all those square notes and squiggles and will be called to deepen their participation in the Eucharistic celebration precisely because we opened a door for them and helped unlock the mysteries of chant. People of all types will appreciate having the notation regardless of whether they actually sing it, but having the notation in front of them helps them reach a deeper comprehension and participation in the Mass, if only because they'll learn on their own internally to follow in some way the words and melodies.

    The sung Roman liturgy is the greatest tool of evangelization the Church has, so we should if possible offer some parts of this Missal to the laity and thereby open up for them to the fullest possible extent participation in the liturgical life of the EF.
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,781
    "Calvinism isn't Christian in anything but name"

    It is heretical, but it's more than merely Christian in name. After all, the Catholic church recognizes the validity of baptisms of Calvinistic assemblies (so long as they follow proper matter and form). That's far from nothing. It leaves a long way to go, but we should be very careful about discounting the importance of valid baptism. (In fact, historically, it's the very reason the Catholic church asserted jurisdiction over Calvinists in Catholic realms.)
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,437
    Sometimes with these conversations, one is driven to despair, and longs to say with Queen Elizabeth I: "There is one Jesus Christ, there is one Faith. The rest is dispute about trifles".
  • fcbfcb
    Posts: 268
    "Calvinism isn't Christian in anything but name"

    Both false and uncharitable. This reminds me of the sorts of things said by so-called "Anglo-Catholics" who have never taken the time and effort to actually read Calvin's Institutes (which are actually closer in many ways to the Catholic tradition than the far more radical theology of Luther).
  • JulieColl....you bring a lot to this group. Thank you!
    Thanked by 2Salieri JulieColl
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,781
    Deacon Fritz

    Bingo about Calvin vs Luther.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    Thanks so much for the kind words, Noel! Since I can't move to France, I'm trying to bring a bit of French traditional Catholicism to my own corner of the Church. I've been experimenting with the online Mass and Vespers with Gregorian Chant and came up with a booklet for this coming Sunday.
  • I'm still holding out for the much-anticipated second edition of Angelus Press's Traditional Roman Hymnal.
  • 'Both false and uncharitable'

    Indeed! -
    'Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.'

    A non-Catholic Christian who has more love and charity than a Catholic is, I think, in that aspect, more Catholic (certainly more Christian) than a Catholic who hasn't much of either. One of the gravest dangers in having the Whole Truth is spiritual pride, and spiritual snobbery, in having it. No one ever 'looked up to' someone who was 'looking down on' him.
  • All the Presbyterians I've known (and I dated one for a couple years, so I knew quite a few) were well-mannered, charitable, well-adjusted, highly intelligent, and were fearless when it came to standing up for their faith, even in the public sphere. Outside of Catholics, they're the most substantial group of homeschoolers in my area. (They're also very photogenic, in case anyone was wondering. :D )

    I purged my bookshelves of a lot of old 'religious studies' textbooks - but the Buechner, DeKuyper, and Francis Schaeffer books remained.
  • What's hilarious to me is that in the midst of all the well-deserved praise The Hymnal 1940 receives from Catholic church musicians, among what we might call "ultraconservative" Episcopalian church musicians (among whom I count a few as personal friends), I've often heard IT described as the "modern" hymnal, as opposed to "you know...the good ol' Hymnal 1916!" ;-)

    Gaudete in Domino Semper!
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • There is one (one!) that is better than 'the 1940'.
    It is The English Hymnal, edited by R Vaughan Williams, et al.
    Why, chant is even given in square notes!
  • I love The English Hymnal. If it were still in print for a decent price, I would buy them for the parish, out of my own pocket, immediately.
  • "Calvinism isn't Christian in anything but name"

    It is heretical, but it's more than merely Christian in name. After all, the Catholic church recognizes the validity of baptisms of Calvinistic assemblies (so long as they follow proper matter and form). That's far from nothing. It leaves a long way to go, but we should be very careful about discounting the importance of valid baptism. (In fact, historically, it's the very reason the Catholic church asserted jurisdiction over Calvinists in Catholic realms.)


    The Catholic Church allows the validity of the baptism of a pygmy by an atheist, if the form is correct, if the pygmy hasn't already been baptized, and if the atheist intends to do what the Church intends. It makes the baptized person a member of Christ's Church, but if he belongs to a heretical sect, he learns falsely about Christ -- and so his ability to acknowledge Christ is, by that fact, impeded.


    Hymns are a good thing, they just should not dominate the place of the Propers.


    I'm happy, maybe jubilant, to acknowledge that hymns are an enormous part of the Christian patrimony. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.

    The problem comes when we admit to Catholic worship that which is foreign to it. Hymns in particular aren't foreign to Catholic worship. Protestant music (and theology) are foreign to Catholic worship.

    throwing hymns and hymn singing away completely, because a bunch of people in the modern age have misused them, is foolish.


    Absolutely true. The abuse of a thing doesn't make the thing itself evil.

    I have to insist, again, that the Ordinariate is a part of Roman Catholicism. Their hymnal is the '40. Ergo, the '40 can and should be considered part of the musical literature of Roman Catholicism. You can hardly throw the baby out with the bath water when speaking of these matters. And doing so in the brash way that you are is quite off putting to those who may consider Traditional Catholicism - and I'm a pretty brash Trad...



    I don't disagree that the Ordinariate is part of Roman Catholicism. I'm thrilled that His Holiness built a bridge. Nevertheless, if we read Anglicanorum Coetibus, the permission to use this form isn't widespread among those not already accustomed to its use. In the same way that blue is, by indult, a liturgical color in Spain but MAY NOT BE USED LICITLY ELSEWHERE, the fact that the Hymnal 1940 is the music of the Ordinariate doesn't mean that it can be licitly used elsewhere, willy-nilly. Eastern Rite priests may marry. In this country (I'm writing from California, within the USA) Eastern Rite priests don't marry. Former Anglican clergy are allowed to stay married, but may not marry again upon the death of the wife.

    I'm certainly not trying to be uncharitable, only clear. Years ago when I first held the post of Organist -- effectively the one who chose the music -- I had to learn to avoid the Anglican music I had come to love as a young man. That music almost kept me out of the Church, given the execrable state of music in the Catholic parishes which I knew.

    To be yet clearer, there are places and times other than Mass when those hymns some of us grew up loving have place. Private devotions come to mind. I've even suggested Fr. Faber's hymns, and Cardinal Newman's hymns ("Lead, kindly light", which I've recommended here, previously) as processionals and recessionals for EF Masses. What makes these permissible is their Catholic-ness.




    Thanked by 2eft94530 CCooze
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,781
    You may not be trying to be uncharitable, but your choice of words pursues an illusory clarity at the expense of charity (I am talking words here, not you). The Church treats Calvinist congregations as Christian congregations, not as pagan gatherings. Your erstwhile clarity is not that of the Church, but a personal interpretation.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    I admire your zeal, dear Chris, but I think you may be creating a burden for yourself where one doesn't exist. I suspect that if someone were to ask Pope Francis if Catholics are forbidden to sing a hymn from the Anglican hymnal, e.g., Christ is made the sure foundation," I doubt the answer would be, "It's absolutely verboten to do anything those darn Protestants do!"

    Does anyone seriously believe that after Vatican II's famous decree on ecumenism and after a liturgical reform inspired, among other things, by ecumenism and a stated desire by Arbp. Bugnini in March of 1965, to make the Catholic Mass "more acceptable to Protestants," that Anglican hymns are not allowed in a Catholic church?

    Would Pope Benedict who participated in an ecumenical service at Westminster Cathedral which began with 5 verses of "Christ is made the sure foundation" afterwards declare that hymn anathema sit?

    Would Pope John Paul II, who designed Assisi I and II, have told us that Anglican hymns are against the Catholic faith and put the 1940 and 1982 Hymnals on the index of forbidden books?

    Would Pope Paul VI who, in the words of his friend, Jean Guitton, designed the New Mass to be "as close as possible to the Calvinistic Lord's Supper," have outlawed an Anglican hymn that reflects a theology that underscores the Church's entire ecumenical outreach?

    Finally, would good Pope John XXIII who cut a deal to bring both the Russian Orthodox and Anglican observers to Vatican II to participate have condemned the use of Anglican hymns?

    If you can't answer 'yes' to any of the questions above, then on what possible basis can you seriously claim that Anglican hymns are forbidden at a Catholic Mass?
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,034
    In this country (I'm writing from California, within the USA) Eastern Rite priests don't marry.


    Priests may never marry. However, married men are welcome at our seminary and can be ordained as priests in the USA.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,224
    Chris, this is a small point but a sacrament is valid if one intends what the church does as one can still be mistaken or only partially informed about the church’s intention when celebrating a sacrament.
  • An interesting assertion, Matthew - but (I ask genuinely), is it accurate? I'm thinking about the old debates over Anglican orders. If an Anglican priest intends what the church does is his eucharist valid? Accepting your statement at face value one could be forgiven for concluding in the affirmative. However, very, very few Catholics would agree that it was so.

    For most of my life I had no doubts at all about the validity of Anglican orders and sacraments, and deeply and sincerely believed that 'the Romans' did not have a monopoly on the Catholic faith. The events of the last fifty years have disabused me of any such certitude. It is quite likely that some of these orders are valid, while most are not - this owing to the impeccable ordination lineages enjoyed by some, but not by the greater majority. However, valid or not, there is no question any more that the Anglican church has lost any credibility it ever had of being in the same class as Rome and Orthodoxy. It has become (at least as far as the highest leadership is concerned) an entirely self-referential, idiosyncratic, institution.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,224
    Jackson, a Protestant might baptize by water reciting the Trinitarian formula only because Christ commanded it, and he might have a deficient understanding of what it causes. He might not believe it wipes away sin and punishment and places sanctifying grace in the soul. Either the more Lutheran view of it being an external confirmation of the grace of faith already within or a more modern denial of regenerative baptism fits the bill (to choose two examples that come to mind). Yet any baptism done by them would still be considered valid.

    I use baptism because it is a safe example. The Eucharist is bound up with holy orders, which makes it dependent on the validity of the latter. That being said, I agree with your conclusion.
  • to make the Catholic Mass "more acceptable to Protestants,"


    That's like serving Vegan hot dogs, right?

    This explains the NO.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,797
    MJO wrote:
    If an Anglican priest intends what the church does is his eucharist valid?

    That is one requirement; another is that the minister have actually received the Sacrament of Orders, as was discussed in Apostolicae curae. (I understand that some later ordination ceremonies tried to satisfy concerns raised in the document, and in that case the Church has to study individual histories of convert clergymen.)
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,034
    Some do have valid orders. There was an Episcopal priest here years ago who had himself re-ordained by an Orthodox bishop in Syria. Why would an Orthodox bishop do this? Maybe to poke a finger in the eye of the Latins. Who knows? Then there are from time to time, schismatic Latin bishops who create ordination lines - wasn't there a Vietnamese bishop who did this years ago?
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • Some Orthodox churches, at least in this country, have for many years had the equivalent of an Anglican Use 'ordinariate'. I have had several erstwhile Episcopalian friends (whom I haven't seen in decades) who were ordained and serve 'Anglican Use' parishes - or ordinary orthodox ones. Too, they accept the BCP almost as it is, perhaps tidying up the eucharistic prayer and the rite of ordination.

    (It is astonishing that anyone can read the prayer of consecration in the BCP and not believe that the real objective presence is both what is intended and believed, for it is quite Catholic and Orthodox at face value - but I have seen many Episcopalian priests and people over the years go out of their way to explain away the obvious meaning of the words.)

    Thanks to Chonak for clarifying the matter of valid sacraments above. I knew that I was overlooking something that I thought I knew. No orders, no sacrament. (On the other hand [he says with tongue half in cheek] - why doesn't the Donatist rule come into play? Considering the sins it fig-leafs, this should be no bother at all.)
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • to make the Catholic Mass "more acceptable to Protestants,"


    Right, Msgr. Bugnini never said that, though. Not sure where the quotation marks are coming from.
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,224
    Jackson, of course it is. Cranmer based it on Scriptural accounts of the Last Supper, but he would try to explain the presence of Christ in a way that is not one of sacrificial offering and adoration of the eucharistic elements, i.e. Christ under the appearence of bread and wine.
  • if we read Anglicanorum Coetibus, the permission to use this form isn't widespread among those not already accustomed to its use. [...] the fact that the Hymnal 1940 is the music of the Ordinariate doesn't mean that it can be licitly used elsewhere, willy-nilly.


    Chris, if memory serves, the Holy Father had hoped for some mutual enrichment, no? Also, I this it is difficult to make the assertion that you're making, and unnecessary to make those burdens on yourself. The "Catholic" hymnals in the pews have no more ecclesiastical approbation than the '40. There has yet to be a document handed down from on high stating that "these are the Catholic hymns and hymnals." Would that they had done that long before the council, then we might not be in the trouble in which we find ourselves today. But that will never happen. I truly find it difficult to find credible the assertion that hymns which express the timeless truths of the Church are "foreign" to Roman Catholicism, just because they were compiled by those outside of The Faith.

    Because the '40 is, in many ways, superior (musically, lyrically, and poetically) to many "Catholic" hymnals in the pews, and is used by a Use of the Roman Rite is exactly why I believe that it should be used in a Roman parish. Why should we not take what is good and right and beautiful, simply because protestants also saw it as good and right and beautiful, and decided to make it a part of their worship?
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    Sorry about the misplaced quotation marks, Mark. : )

    Here's the passage I was reaching for:

    "We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants…"

    --Msgr. Annibale Bugnini, L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965

    P.S. Just for the record, here's the exact quotation from Jean Guitton cited above:

    "The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic Liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy. There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass.”
  • It seems that the issue that you have with the '40 is that the title page says that it is the hymnal of the PECUSA. How would you feel if it were republished with a title page that reads "The Hymnal of the Traditional Catholic Church?" Is that really the issue? Because hardly any of the contents can be criticized for being otherwise.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    image

    Let me clear up a potential misunderstanding: I think we're so conditioned to see pictures like this of Pope Paul VI with six of the Protestant ministers who helped design the New Mass (along with the quotes attributed to Msgr. Bugnini and Jean Guitton above) in a negative light that we find it difficult to transition to the fact that somebody might also be using the above picture and quotes in a positive light, not to attack anything, but rather to defend a legitimate option permitted by the Church, esp. since the Vatican Council, which is, in this particular instance, the fact that we're certainly permitted to sing hymns that are sung by Anglicans.

    My whole point is very simple. If the Church could allow us to have a rite of Mass designed to be more tolerable to Protestant sensibilities (I'm not placing a value judgment on this; it's merely a fact) then it flows from this that the Church most certainly allows us to sing hymns that are acceptable to those in the Anglican communion.

    If I'm not mistaken, this reasoning can be ascribed to the principle that a lesser authority cannot forbid what a higher authority has permitted.

    I think we're too accustomed to having an 'either/or' mentality, i.e., trads not being interested in anything that came after 1962, or progressives not being interested in anything that came before 1962, but I would submit that, according to the principle of mutual enrichment introduced by Pope Benedict and articulated by Cardinal Sarah when he called Sacrosanctum Concilium the "magna carta" of all liturgical celebrations in the Church incorporating beautiful Anglican hymns into the EF liturgy, serves to make our liturgical celebrations more vibrant and appealing, along with fostering the legitimate goals of true ecumenism, along with liturgical reconciliation of the two forms of the Roman rite.

    Indeed, "moderntrad" is absolutely on the right track and is showing us all the path established by the work of Blessed John XXIII, St. John Paul II, Pope Emeritus Benedict and now Cardinal Sarah.

  • Julie,

    With mutual enrichment, one must be properly attentive to what has the potentiality to enrich. Given the 7-course meal which is Anglican music, it is tempting to want to include it within either the ecumenically reformed rite or within the traditional Roman Rite. If one could be sure that importing such (unarguably) good material wouldn't bring along the bad stuff (heretical theology, cesaropapism, the need to lop heads off statues, wymynpriests .....) then we would only need to overcome the requirement of Pius X that all the music sung during the Mass be in the Latin language. Beati Quorum Via of Sir Charles V. Stanford would be near the top of the list of choral pieces to admit, since it already attains the Latin threshold. Unfortunately, with music and texts written by heretics, if we accept the nose of the elephant, the rest of the animal comes under the tent.

    I happily attend every Mass in the Rite of Blessed Paul VI which doesn't use altar girls, un-necessary ministers of Holy Communion, microphones, inclusive language, or semi-Pelagian theology; which uses the Latin language in something other than a penitential character, gives Latin pride of place, and permits us to face God together, to foster vocations to the priesthood, and the time to adore God on our knees.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • Unfortunately, with music and texts written by heretics, if we accept the nose of the elephant, the rest of the animal comes under the tent.


    Truth is truth is truth - whether written down by a protestant, or a Catholic, or a Jew, or a buddhist. The fact that the Truth was discovered by a non-Catholic, does not make it any less true, it just makes the non-Catholic that much more steeped in the Truth. No one (at least not me) is anticipating, nor working for, the dilution of the Truth, just the recognition of its presence in some music.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,437
    I'd rather 3 Hymns by Charles Wesley than 2,000 by William Cardinal O'Connell any day.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    Of course, Chris, I agree with you that it's possible that some Anglican/Protestant hymns may contain something unorthodox, and one must screen them carefully, but I just haven't seen very many in the 1982 Hymnal that wouldn't pass the Catholic orthodoxy test. Could you point to any specific examples, if you have time?
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,781
    Salieri

    You should have included a trigger warning. Now I've recovered the memories of the years of intoning Himself's O Holy Name hymn every second Sunday of the Month as the HNS marched in procession....
    Thanked by 1Salieri
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,437
    I suppose it would be anathema to say that 'Ein Feste Burg' is probably THE GREATEST TUNE ever written by ANYONE.
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • Modern Trad,

    I acknowledge that truth is truth is truth. Happily. Forthrightly.

    How much horse dung will you happily consume when it is mixed with your grandmother's traditional brownie recipe? (This isn't meant as a dismissal of your observation at all, but rather a challenge to see that while truth is truth -- and your grandmother's traditional brownie recipe is excellent -- when elements which are foreign to it are introduced, we must weigh carefully the content. If you prefer a less graphic example, how much sugar can we substitute for salt in .... pick your recipe... before what looks like it's supposed to doesn't taste right? Remember that your body treats tofu like tofu and turkey like turkey, so tofurkey isn't the same as turkey.)
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,437
    CGZ: would you please parse this hymn, and tell me where the problems are?

    Lo! he comes with clouds descending,
    Once for our salvation slain;
    Thousand, thousand saints attending
    Swell the triumph of his train:
    Alleluia,
    Christ the Lord returns to reign.

    Every eye shall now behold him,
    Robed in dreadful majesty;
    Those who set at naught and sold him,
    Pierced, and nailed him to the tree,
    Deeply wailing,
    Shall the true Messiah see.

    Those dear tokens of his passion
    Still his dazzling body bears,
    Cause of endless exultation
    To his ransomed worshipers:
    With what rapture,
    Gaze we on those glorious scars!

    Yea, Amen! Let all adore thee,
    High on thine eternal throne;
    Saviour, take the power and glory;
    Claim thy kingdom for thine own:
    O come quickly,
    Thou shalt reign, and thou alone!