And - three cheers for ACH HERR, DU ALLERHOCHSTER GOTT (really grand!)
And - three laments for the absence of DULCE CARMEN (good-bye to Alleluya.)

By the way - if this new hymnal project goes forth I want ST ALBINUS (Jesus lives! Thy terrors now) to be in it.

We sing the original text, Alleluia Dulce Carmen, on the Sunday before Septuagesima each year.

I don't want to derail this thread further from important topics like typefaces, but since it is my comment about Calvin that has occasioned such distress, I'll say briefly that it is particularly Calvin's views on sanctification and the third use of the Law that I had in mind, contrasted with the almost antinomian position that Luther takes (at least on occasion--inconsistency being perhaps his saving grace). But on double predestination, a Catholic has to reckon with statements by Aquinas like the following:

God wills to manifest his goodness in men: in respect to those whom he predestines, by means of his mercy, in sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of his justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others…. Yet why he chooses some for glory and reprobates others has no reason except the divine will. Hence Augustine says, ‘Why he draws one, and another he draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err.' (ST I.23.5 ad 3)

This is not exactly double predestination, but it should be close enough to give any Catholic pause before condemning Calvin as anti-Christian.

I'll let Dave Armstrong make the case for other catholic elements in Calvin.

The other way Calvinism is more like Catholicism is that it has more of the complete-system feel than Lutheranism (which, of course, has a considerable system of its own, but not quite that feel). Not surprising given there was a French lawyer involved.

Jackson, doesn't the Alleluia disappear on Septuagesima, so one would have to use a hymn with "Alleluia" on the last Sunday after Epiphany....

I served a large and prominent Lutheran church for fifteen years beginning in 1969 and always stressed to them that they had much more in common with Catholics and Anglicans than other Protestants. Being careful not to proselytise, I did my best to infuse them with a true Luther Lutheranism, which was very difficult. While not preserving the tripartite hierarchy of The Church, they never-the-less had a far more nearly orthodox theology of the Blessed Sacrament than any other Protestant body (except the Anglicans, whose tent accommodates everything from a Calvinistic to an ultra-Catholic belief about the same [it is unfortunate that, while the BCP makes clear that what is done, believed, and remains is the objective presence of our Lord, many explain it away and refute it]) and, in places can yet be found amongst very 'high-church' Lutherans whose theology varies little (but it is an important 'little') from orthodox realities. One cannot say this of Calvinists-Presbyterians, who have a strictly memorial stance (and even use grape juice instead of wine) about the eucharist, no semblance of apostolic order in their structure, and amongst whom there is not so much as a vestige of the forgoing; quite the contrary, an adamant refutation of them.

Luther's doctrine of the eucharist was that Christ was objectively present 'in, with, and under' the species of bread and wine, which species remain bread and wine. This effectively means that while Jesus is objectively, substantially, present, so also are the substances of bread and wine. Further, amongst some Lutherans is the curious belief that, while Jesus is objectively present in the sacrament during 'mass', that presence is there only in the context of the 'mass'. Such Lutherans may be found pouring, shall we say, what was the Blood of Christ back into the wine bottle after the service because Jesus is no longer in it, the service, the 'mass' being over.

This is a curious attempt, it seems to me, to sort of straddle the fence; but there is no parallel even of attempted orthodoxy in other Protestant communities. There are, too, some Lutherans who, though they have not maintained an apostolic hierarchy, never-the-less maintain that in certain of their pastoral 'lineages' it has been preserved. Such niceties are entertained by very high church Lutherans, and are of no concern to most.

Too, and this may yet hold in places, but up until recent times Lutherans were not permitted to receive Holy Communion without first going to confession. Formal records are/were kept of who went and how often to confession and Holy Communion. Laxity in this regard would invite pastoral attention and counsel.

Lutheran pastors regularly (at least once a year) visit the homes of and have genuine relationships with all their people, always visit the sick, infirm, or hospitalised; something that Catholic pastors are not typically concerned to do.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that the bishop has to approve the music used in the diocese. The USCCB has approved certain hymnals and the music therein. However, the local bishop has the authority to approve or deny approval of any piece of music. Moderntrad should contact the chancery and find out if this book is allowed by the bishop. If it isn't, then this entire topic is moot.

This EF parish needs a hymnal because ___ .

This EF parish needs this hymnal because ___ .

My (limited) experience has been that it depends on the size of the parish. I suspect that this difference (if it is real and not a figment of my idiosyncratic experience) is not, or not entirely, practical. I also detect that in very large parishes the relationship between the priest and his flock 'feels' more anonymous. (There are likely always exceptions, of course, both at the level of parishes and at the level of individual members of a given parish.)

bhcordova: I don't see what use calling the chancery would be. I can guarantee thay would never have heard of the hymnal.

Having met numerous clergy and religious order folks, I have concluded a couple of things.

1. If you put a pig in a habit, you still have a pig.

2. Wearing a habit or clerical garb does not cure incompetence or the lack of noticeable ability.

Really, this criticism of the 1940 is beneath all of us.

If there was a hymnal since then in the Anglican, Episcopal or Roman church that even came close to rivaling it, then knocking anything about it then might be acceptable.

When you have a Mass from the 1940 that is currently being sung in Catholic churches in 2015...doesn't that alone cause us to genuflect...

There is very little in the 1940 Hymnal which is not also in some hymnal published for Catholic churches. If someone wants to research that question, hymnary.org can tell you which hymns are published in which hymnals.

With due and genuine respect -
It seems to me that you are bending over backwards and with relish, even, to discredit any expression of Truth that wasn't actually penned by a practicing Catholic

This particular statement immediately made me think: yes! because for some reason people seem to LOVE Thomas Tallis, even though (to me) much of his music isn't especially moving, especially with the very Protestant (at least literally in text/translation, if not in gist/feel-good nature of the) text.

And to stay in context of the thread (rather than to seemingly just dis Tallis) one of our parishes in our Latin Mass community has a whole bunch of the St. Edmund Campion missals. I think they are very nice. We sing at least 2 hymns out of them at (not during) each EF Mass. I give a little 1/2-page program with the pp for the Ordinary chant, hymn numbers, written propers, etc.(all from St. Edmund Campion missal), as well as an image of the Alleluia+jubilus (this is the only musical proper they see). It is extremely handy, and it's nice to not have multiple books for parishioners to juggle.
I've also seen (prior to this missal/hymnal) hymns printed and handed out, but this 1 loose-leaf + missal is still much easier than having to figure out if you are looking in the correct book at any given time.

Why this hymn is in there has always been beyond me - I (happily) never heard anyone, high-church or low, sing it. While there is really nothing at all wrong with the sentiments it expresses there is just something off-putting about it. And, it's the sort of 'spiritual song' that should never be sung at mass.

We have a sister parish in Kentucky, and the pastor of that parish visits us a few times a year. During one of his guest homilies, he told us that there are still parishes in the south where "segregated" masses are not uncommon. (Not enforced, of course, but by "mutual understanding")
Might it be possible that such songs were put in the hymnal for "those masses"?

This is rather deeply troubling to me, on more than one level.

First, GALILEE (for whatever one thinks of its worthiness as a hymn tune) has long been associated with "Jesus calls us" and was in The Methodist Hymnal at least 8 years before it was in The Hymnal 1940. The tune is by the Victorian English organist & composer W(illiam) H Jude (1851-1922), who was quite well known in his time. It happens to be the second of two tunes given for "Jesus calls us" in The Hymnal 1940, and I'm not sure which has been more prevalent amongst Anglicans. But GALILEE has been the only tune for "Jesus calls us" in The Methodist Hymnal through all of its versions (1932, 1964, 1989), and I sang the hymn, growing up as a Methodist, many, many times, and also when I was in graduate school singing in an Episcopal church. Angular tune, yes. Victorian tune, yes. Sung with gusto, yes. My favorite, no, not by a long shot. I really don't care for it, but I grew up with it.

Second, The Hymnal 1940 was not intended solely for Mass (The Holy Communion), but was also a hymnal for use at Morning & Evening Prayer. That said, "Jesus calls us" is listed in the Liturgical Index of The Hymnal 1940 as being appropriate for the General hymn at The Holy Communion on Trinity V as well as on St Andrew's Day, where it is also given for the General hymn at Morning Prayer.

Third, to speculate on 'the notion that "such songs were put in the hymnal for "those masses"' (not sure whether one means "Masses" or "masses") is something that strikes me as out of place. I'm older than the vast majority of people that participate in this forum and suspect that most of you do not have all the same awareness of church music in the 1940s & 50s that I have, even if mine was principally Methodist and Episcopalian, with a smidgeon of Catholicism thanks to my (still living at 94) aunt who converted in the 1940s.

This EF parish needs a hymnal because ___ .

This EF parish needs this hymnal because ___ .

1. Every church needs hymnal. Congregational singing is a beautiful thing, and shouldn't be overlooked. We have a copy of the Edmund Campion Hymnal and Missal, but its contents are limited, and I, personally, love a hymnal with 4 parts to be sung by the congregation.

2. I guess we don't need it, however, it was in the running because I can get it for the cost of shipping alone, and we are a parish with limited means, and little support from the Chancery.

Congregational singing which supplants the Mass -- i.e., which creates singing at Mass, instead of singing the Mass is bad at Mass. When the singing is not supposed to be of of the Mass, the situation is different.

To have an effective use of a hymnal, though, requires a more full liturgical life than merely the Mass.

Well, one could sing the Introit during the procession...but I am open to a hymn, especially on Sundays when the Asperges precedes the Mass.

We still sing full Gregorian propers, and even have a daily Missa Cantata

Please. Send me directions as to where you are. Pleeeeeease.