I've never tried to discuss anything with anyone who tried so much to "win" every conversation by leading it down rabbit hole after rabbit hole. Although feel free to talk to him anytime, Matthew.

His criteria for evaluating hymns seem to be rule- based in a way that is unsupported by any study of the paradigmatic hymns of the ancient monks. Most ancient hymns do not address God directly, except perhaps in the doxology. Often they refer to Scripture without quoting it. They often say "we," especially in the little hours, but often they are so focused on the mystery of the day that the subject of us never comes up. Here is one of many important examples.

I don't see any reason for using Todd's criteria, nor for bringing his conversational tactics anywhere near this board. Perhaps you would enjoy engaging him on his blog?

A number of years ago, we looked at contemporary hymnals, mainly Glory & Praise. My premise was that one positive innovation offered by contemporary genres was a deeper connection to Scripture.

I didn't read much farther than this. The reason is simple: there are so many problems here that I needed to consider them before I proceeded.

Glory and Praise didn't intend to be a hymnal. To treat it as if it did, and then hold it up as a standard of comparison with Worship III is to compare apples to oranges.

To say that Glory and Praise offers a "deeper connection to Scripture, he must (it seems to me) define what Glory and Praise does as "present an deeper connection to Scripture", and then find that the connection between Glory and Praise and Holy Writ is exactly how he defined it. To claim, however, that the relation of Glory and Praise is deep on any level, except perhaps its immersion in contemporary culture, is to accuse it unfairly.

To claim, however, that the relation of Glory and Praise is deep on any level, except perhaps its immersion in contemporary culture, is to accuse it unfairly.

I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here, but I take Todd's point to be that the original three Glory and Praise collections consisted of songs that were almost all scriptural paraphrases. So they had a connection to Scripture not unlike the metrical psalters of the Reformed tradition. Are you saying that this does not qualify as "deep"? I'm just not quite clear on what your criticism is.

I think there's a difference between a song that paraphrases Scripture and one that reflects on Scripture, but it doesn't seem to me that one approach is necessarily "deeper" than the other. I know from other things Todd has said that he wants to give G&P credit for taking Scripture more seriously than the previous generation of folk-Mass composers. This doesn't seem to me to be an outrageous claim.

One way in which I might want to qualify his claim about depth would be to note a lack of breadth in G&P's Scriptural engagement: there seems to be a strong preference for Deutero-Isaiah and a neglect of many other parts of Scripture.

there seems to be a strong preference for Deutero-Isaiah and a neglect of many other parts of Scripture.

I heartily agree! Thank you for saying this so clearly.

...strange...

Yea, even bizarre!

I have had as many frustrating dialogues with Todd as anyone here, including a period of radio silence as I'd reached the same conclusion Kathy mentioned quite early in terms of his intransigent argumentation. However, the only way to sway his negative prejudice away from CMAA and "us" is to further a dialogue, such as we've maintained with Frs. Chepponis and Krisman, and that which we failed with Mr. Haas. Many things are unhelpful, but we ought to not be among them.

Chonak,

I don't know the first thing about the state of another's soul, but I'm not claiming to do so. What I mean is that merely quoting large sections of Scripture doesn't qualify as a song's ticket to being appropriate for Mass or having drawn out (musically) anything deep in the Scripture cited.

As the most obvious example I can think of, On Eagle's Wings does almost nothing but quote Scripture in the verses. The music sounds like someone swooping down from the parapet of the temple. For all I know, the composer may be a saint. The song's treatment of Scripture sounds more like the presentation of the Devil in St. Matthew's Gospel rather than King David's in the psalter.

Context and literary value, as well as musical value, are the crux of it all.

One would get the impression that these persons thought that quoting scripture was something new. Where have they been!

Anyone can, and does, quote scripture, and always has.

Old Beelzebub knows scripture backward and forward.

So do the manufacturers of the tons of worthless happy-clappy drivel that would make a nice bonfire - except for the matter of air pollution.

The author-composers of the propers could quote scripture, but, alas, that doesn't count in the steam of today's cultural decay.

The 1940 is not the only hymnal to be chock full of scripture! 'Immortal, Invisible, God only wise' is but one of dozens, but these won't do, will they - they don't have the right folksy bounce, do they? And their like may be found in other hymnals than the 1940, but they're just not what the happy-clappy crowd is looking for. You see, it's not just scripture - it has to swing and have guitars and combos and electronic keyboards.

Tallis and Byrd, and Poulenc and RVW, S.S. Wesley and our friend Lauridsen, can and could all quote scripture and lovingly grace it with musical genius - but, that's not what the happy-clappy crowd really have in mind, is it! The works of these men don't count.

We quoted scripture at Walsingham this morning! In our 1940's hymnody we sang scripture quoted and alluded to ("Praise, My Soul...' and 'Jesus Shall Reign...'), our choir sang a psalm, Palestrina's Sicut cervus during communions. I'm sure that some others here could say as much for their churches. But again: it's just not whatever is in that 'glory and praise' brain, is it. It doesn't count.

With this milieu the object really isn't quoting scripture so much as couching it as pedestrianly as possible and framing it with as little aesthetical worth as they can devise and manage. It doesn't count that H. Howells, et al., quote and compose scripture. Alas! They don't call for guitars, and, pity!, they don't have the right beat. And so it goes. Be ye vigilant and be not fooled! This is a cultural war masquerading as a scriptural crusade.

My favorite. And Judas went and hanged himself. Go thou and do likewise.

"Didn't SC tell us that the closer a composition is to Gregorian chant, the more suitable for the liturgy it is?"

Tra le sollecitudini - paragraph 2 of #3: "On these grounds Gregorian Chant has always been regarded as the suprememodel for sacred music, so that it is fully legitimate to lay down thefollowing rule: the more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savor the Gregorian form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple."

Ask, and you shall receive....

(same document, once as pdf)

Oh, hey! Chris Garton-Zavesky, neat paper!

The reference to eagle's wings is actually from Deuteronomy 32:11, from the midst of a rare OT passage about God as Father --

"Is this the return you make to the Lord, O foolish and senseless people? Is not He your Father that has possessed you, and made you, and created you? Remember the days of old, think upon every generation. Ask your father, and he will declare to you, your elders and they will tell you.

"When the Most High divided the nations, when He separated the sons of Adam, He appointed the bounds of people according to the number of the children of Israel. But the Lord's portion is His people: Jacob the lot of His inheritance. He found him in a desert land, in a place of horror, and of vast wilderness. He led him about and taught him, and He kept him as the apple of His eye.

"As the eagle enticing her young to fly, and hovering over them, He spread His wings and has taken him, and carried him on His shoulders.

"The Lord alone was his leader: and there was no strange god with him. He set him upon high land: that he might eat the fruits of the fields, that he might suck honey out of the rock, and oil out of the hardest stone, butter of the herd, and milk of the sheep with the fat of lambs, and of the rams of the breed of Bashan, and goats with the marrow of wheat; and might drink the purest blood of the grape."

There's also Exodus 19:4 -

"You have seen what I have done to the Egyptians, how I have carried you upon the wings of eagles, and have taken you to Myself."

There's also a possibly-relevant passage at Revelation 12:14, where the Woman Clothed in the Sun escapes from the dragon into a place prepared for her in the wilderness:

"And two wings of a great eagle were given to the woman, that she might fly into the desert to her place...."

The rest of the chorus is a mashup of Psalm 138/139:9 (although it's really "wings of the morning"); Sirach 50:7 and Matthew 13:43 ("shine like the sun"); and Isaiah 40:12 and Isaiah 49:16. Probably all done by memory rather than by plan, unless it's some antiphon reference I don't know.

Yup, hymnbook editors are lazy. At least Catholic ones. (Although some Protestant "reference" lists I found were pretty far off.)

Upon a closer, comprehensive reading, Todd's initial review doesn't seem all that contentious. As Fritz mentioned, not a lot to be outraged over. There's some irony with his observations about the SOP concerns of first and second person addressing, and direct petition/mention of God, issues which surface here almost weekly.

Fritz

We need to separate the Matthean creche from the Lucan creche....

Rogue63,

I'll let Maureen defend herself, but I would think that "lazy" is a more charitable observation than others which might explain their conduct (negligent). "Ignorant" is preferable (and more charitable, at least in its original meaning) than "willful" or "ideologically driven".

Let me make a distinction, in my own posting about OEW. To say that something is diabolically inspired does not mean that I believe the composer is possessed or anything similar.

Kathy,

Well, surely, the solution is Justice Kennedy's: each of us has the right to define reality for ourselves .........

Thanks to CGZ for offering some observations about flaws in OEW. Many of the songs written in that era were produced by composers and authors with plenty of good will but not plenty of musical and literary training.

For @rogue63: in general, your friendly forum admin [me] maintains a rather free approach; see the Forum Etiquette Guidelines for information.

I care about apparent slander directed at individuals, and I try to make sure it doesn't go uncorrected. Some cases are ambiguous.

On the other hand, more generalized negative assertions about categories of people (e.g., "hymn book editors") don't really hurt the reputation of anyone in particular. The audience can judge the quality of such remarks and their authors. In addition, other users can respond, so feel free to do that.

If you think something needs emergency attention, send a message to me through the forum system, and I will receive an e-mail notice; and I will at least look at the matter as soon as possible.

TODD has now achieved something that would make the neckbeards of 4chan tip their hats with great intensity:
Troll by proxy.

He's had his fifteen minutes of fame. Give him the hook!