Decree Prohibiting Certain Hymns and Listing Suggested Mass Settings
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,076
    Diocese of Jefferson City:

    https://diojeffcity.org/blog/2024/10/28/decree-prohibiting-certain-hymns-and-listing-suggested-mass-settings/

    It's a small step, but it's something in the right direction.
    Thanked by 11OMagnumMysterium ServiamScores LauraKaz M. Jackson Osborn CHGiffen DavidOLGC tomjaw trentonjconn 32ContraBombarde mattebery CharlesW
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,872
    I’m quite pleased that SOMETHING (anything!) is being said and done to improve the situation. I have genuinely considered talking to my bishop about doing something similar, but now is not an opportune time. It’s funny to see some people melting down about it on FB though.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,405
    This deserves a Te Deum.
    It took (unfortunately) rare vision and a mind keen on the sacred depths of our holy rites to promulgate this decree. One can only wonder what the other bishops are waiting for.
    Thanked by 3tomjaw ServiamScores francis
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,080
    Here's a better link:

    https://diojeffcity.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Suggested-Mass-Settings-and-Prohibited-Hymns.pdf
    Thanked by 1a_f_hawkins
  • CantorCole
    Posts: 59
    Savage with the particular composer prohibition
    Thanked by 2Chant_Supremacist tomjaw
  • 32ContraBombarde32ContraBombarde
    Posts: 137
    A good start. God reward you, Your Excellency! May many other bishops follow suit.
    Thanked by 3ServiamScores tomjaw hilluminar
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,180
    The blacklist is inexplicable.

    One dozen forbidden songs. One of them is a dogmatic horror show, but several are pretty much doctrinally unobjectionable. Most of them are awful poetry, but why pick on these awful poems and ignore the boatloads of other awful poems?
    Thanked by 8Paul F. Ford MarkB francis MatthewRoth tomjaw hilluminar PaxMelodious Roborgelmeister
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,076
    I had thought that the blacklist was restricted to songs mentioned in the USCCB Committee on Doctrine's 2020 statement, "Catholic Hymnody at the Service of the Church". (Link here)

    However, that's not true: some prohibited songs in the decree were not mentioned in the 2020 statement.

    I also would have favored a much longer list of prohibited songs.

    The decision to require familiarity with the revised "Mass of Creation" setting of the Mass ordinary disappointed me. I suspect that's a pastoral concession due to its widespread use in that diocese. Maybe it was a political decision too, so that GIA would have at least one setting on the list.

    Nevertheless, the decision to establish some musical Mass settings as those that should be known by all Catholics in the diocese is a worthy aim to have for the sake of unity in worship.

    These days, Catholic parishes vary too widely in their music at Mass. It's a symptom of the general disarray within the Church in our times, I believe. The practice of the dominant liturgical music publishers to churn out new songs and new Mass settings each year for the sake of sales is counterproductive to Church liturgical unity because it undercuts stability and commonality in liturgical musical repertoire across dioceses and parishes. I have grown to detest the two dominant liturgical music publishers, and I encourage my colleagues to stop giving them business, if at all possible.
    Thanked by 8Andrew_Malton irishtenor Chant_Supremacist tomjaw hilluminar Steve Q rich_enough DavidOLGC
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,872
    I also would have favored a much longer list of prohibited songs.
    I was surprised at the lack of 'Mary did You know?'. That would be top-of-list for me. Mercifully, our DoL in my previous diocese used to remind everyone every Advent that it was impermissible on theological grounds.
    Thanked by 4irishtenor oldhymns MatthewRoth hilluminar
  • liampmcdonough
    Posts: 297
    It seems strange to require 3 mass settings though. Most parishes only know 3-4 at the max; that doesn't leave much room for others.
    Thanked by 4oldhymns MatthewRoth irishtenor hilluminar
  • francis
    Posts: 10,799
    PROBHIBITED
    ALL HYMNS COMPOSED AFTER 1963

    (is there anything of merit?)
    Thanked by 2oldhymns tomjaw
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,259
    yeah, and what if you're like "we're only doing the Gregorian Masses"? Is the pastor going to get a phone call?
    Thanked by 2ServiamScores Chant_Supremacist
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,872
    Francis, I'd say that there are worthwhile things happening in modern hymnody, yes. You just have to know where to look.
    https://youtu.be/v9fTDaxHkaE
    Thanked by 5Chant_Supremacist OMagnumMysterium francis Mattspmusic0320 Roborgelmeister
  • hilluminar
    Posts: 121
    I was surprised at the lack of "Sing a New Church" by Delores Dufner OSB. That would be at the top of the list for me. We don't need a new Church. We must be faithful to the one that Jesus started. This piece is just so Communist.
    Thanked by 4francis ServiamScores CharlesW Roborgelmeister
  • PaxMelodious
    Posts: 437
    This piece is just so Communist.


    So was Jesus!
    Thanked by 1hilluminar
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 613
    Surprised to see anyone trotting out that tired old cliche on this forum, of all places...
    Thanked by 1irishtenor
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,507
    Savage with the particular composer prohibition


    That isn't about compositions but about sexual abuse.
    Thanked by 4tomjaw irishtenor ServiamScores Roborgelmeister
  • davido
    Posts: 935
    I don’t think this list comes from the ideology shared by most on this forum. It seems put together by someone conversant with national Catholic news and USCCB trends, but not a thoroughly knowledgeable church musician.
    Thanked by 3Andrew_Malton irishtenor francis
  • francis
    Posts: 10,799
    reminds me of this

    https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/changes-in-mass-for-greater-apostolate-8969

    8. It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant.

    9. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church's values?

    10. The answer will seem banal, prosaic.


    OK... profane intruders... begone with you!
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Don9of11Don9of11
    Posts: 704
    Historically, documents banning hymns and mass settings have largely been ignored by most church musicians. It’s been my experience that regardless of the musicians tenure with a parish or parishes that they might serve, they don’t like being told what hymns or mass settings they can use.

    Besides, how do you get parish musicians to comply with such a document?

    At the heart of it, I think the resources being used by parishes are woefully inadequate for church services and Bishops and diocesan music directors should be rallying their efforts to provide better resources instead of regulating the poorer choices.
    Thanked by 4MarkB oldhymns Andrew_Malton CharlesW
  • CantorCole
    Posts: 59
    @Kathy

    My bad for commenting on something without knowing all of the details.
    Thanked by 1Kathy
  • AnimaVocis
    Posts: 146
    While not directly involved with this list, I am aware of some of the circumstances surrounding it's conception and promulgation and was even asked to give suggestions toward the final documents, which was originally meant to include a "diocesan list of approved music for liturgies": those being a short list of hymns/songs that would be more exclusive for diocesan liturgies that, at a minimum, each parish "should" know...

    The document was put together by the Diocesan Liturgical Committee and submitted to the Bishop for approval.

    The committee largely consisted of volunteer musicians and volunteer worship directors in the diocese.

    The Mass of Creation was a WIDE circulation and usage in the diocese as a while, and it was believed that they can't give that one up.


    Regarding the blacklist hymn choices, most of them have to do with high profile hymns and song, while many others weren't batted and eye at because they were too well known/liked and didn't really have anything "obviously" wrong....(That is what I had been told).


    I have many other thought that I'm happy to share privately
    Thanked by 2MarkB hilluminar
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,076
    At the heart of it, I think the resources being used by parishes are woefully inadequate for church services and Bishops and diocesan music directors should be rallying their efforts to provide better resources instead of regulating the poorer choices.

    That is correct. The model for liturgical music in use for the past fifty years has to be superseded. It is inadequate for Catholic liturgy.

    The initiative of Bishop Kemme in Wichita is an example of trying to steer parishes towards better liturgical music resources and practices under a superior model. It's been a year since Bishop Kemme promulgated his pastoral letter about liturgical music. I wonder how things are going in his diocese.

    Breaking the stranglehold that OCP and GIA have on parish music programs has to be a top priority if liturgical music is to improve. Those two publishers are a corruptive, stifling influence on liturgical music, yet many, many parish music directors believe that the model of singing OCP "Breaking Bread" songs in four places at Mass simply is what Catholic liturgical music is.
    Thanked by 5hilluminar Don9of11 mattebery CharlesW DavidOLGC
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,507
    Besides, how do you get parish musicians to comply with such a document?


    I would think pastors would send an email to the DMs and ask them to comply with the bishop's directive.
    Thanked by 3trentonjconn tomjaw CHGiffen
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,076
    Historically, documents banning hymns and mass settings have largely been ignored by most church musicians. It’s been my experience that regardless of the musicians tenure with a parish or parishes that they might serve, they don’t like being told what hymns or mass settings they can use.

    Besides, how do you get parish musicians to comply with such a document?

    Well, a pastor will have to be confident and comfortable firing an employee who refuses to comply with corporate policy. Just like in the business world.

    Some parish music directors consider their jobs to be more akin to religious community theater directors than Catholic Church liturgical musicians. The difference is that community theater is an expression of the director's tastes, whereas a Catholic liturgical musician should adhere to universal standards and norms provided by Church authority and tradition.

    I sometimes believe that there is a quasi-Protestant character to present-day American Catholic parish communities, according to which each community decides for itself too much about how it will worship and what sort of faith formation it will offer. Often those decisions depend on little more than the tastes and preferences of those who happen to occupy leadership roles in the parish.
    Thanked by 4hilluminar CHGiffen CharlesW DavidOLGC
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,080
    "I would think pastors would send an email to the DMs and ask them to comply with the bishop's directive."

    Very passive, very typical in American Catholic parish life. Better: meet in person, and followup with written confirmation.
  • TimTheEnchanterTimTheEnchanter
    Posts: 204
    The fact that they claimed the USCCB deemed all those hymns problematic, and the USCCB did not do so, dooms this decree to dead-letter status. You can't do that. You have to get everything right if you're going to do this. This is a really careless document. (Consider: the "Three Days" set to THAXTED, with the exact same words, is not banned.)

    They're going to come out with a list of recommended hymns, which is probably a better approach, anyway.
    Thanked by 2MarkB Chant_Supremacist
  • AnimaVocis
    Posts: 146
    The thing is, they don't claim those hymns were deemed problematic by the USCCB specifically, but in light of the document and it's guidelines, as exampled by the USCCB in their document.

    That's how I have also viewed the USCCB document and have gone about dealing with hymns... "In light of this document provided by the Bishops, and in line with/according to similar reasoning given on another hymn, "X" hymn is not to be done for "y" reason. That's how DioJeffCity is looking at and using the document.


    There is, also, a document in the works that is a list of recommended hymns... Though, remembering what I do of what was on it, I think any enthusiasm for this first document would be washed away by what is encouraged.....
    Thanked by 2irishtenor Chant_Supremacist
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,076
    The thing is, they don't claim those hymns were deemed problematic by the USCCB specifically, but in light of the document and it's guidelines, as exampled by the USCCB in their document.

    Ah, but the document does assert that:

    image

    image

    I agree that the USCCB committee's 2020 statement should be applied such that its guidelines lead to parishes discontinuing to use songs that don't meet its criteria. The statement provided some examples of doctrinally problematic songs that were not intended to be exhaustive nor complete. I'm the only one in my diocese who has taken those guidelines seriously, by my understanding. The statement was almost immediately disregarded, if it was even known or read.

    But the decree from the Bishop of Jefferson City explicitly states that its prohibited songs have been deemed doctrinally problematic by the USCCB; that assertion is false, as TimTheEnchanter pointed out. It would have been more accurate to state that, following the guidelines in "Catholic Hymnody in the Service of the Church," the bishop along with his liturgical advisors have deemed the decree's list of hymns to be doctrinally problematic and thus unsuitable for liturgical use, and thus prohibited in the diocese.

    Tim is right that if you're going to do something like this, it has to be done right. It is a small step in the right direction, but it seems to have been insufficiently considered and the ball fumbled.

    I noticed that an article has been published about it in the diocese's paper. The article refers to a forthcoming list of 130 recommended songs for parish use:

    https://catholicmissourianonline.com/stories/greater-unity-through-sacred-music-common-repertoire,5600
    Screenshot 2024-10-30 161209.png
    1366 x 110 - 81K
    Screenshot 2024-10-30 161222.png
    1439 x 164 - 72K
  • AnimaVocis
    Posts: 146
    Hence one of my Many, many, many problems with how this was done from the inside, out, and back again. There were flaws in all of the discussions of the Liturgy committee in approaching this entire thing.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,507
    One of the things I'm really happy about here is the interdepartmental oversight it implies. Liturgical texts have to pass scrutiny by the Doctrine office. This makes perfect sense to me.
  • AnimaVocis
    Posts: 146
    Oh, they have changed that wording since I saw it last too! Geez....

    Okay. I stand corrected. Well, it's obvious they operate under the principal of the USCCB document as opposed to the letter of it... But that's just more confusion throughout.
  • davido
    Posts: 935
    It’s refreshing to know that other dioceses are as dis functional as mine!
  • StephenMatthew
    Posts: 111
    It seems to me providing at least a brief explanation of why each song was determined to be problematic as a matter of doctrine would be helpful.

    The document from the USCCB takes the time to explain what the objections are based on.

    Ironically this diocesan document does not include as condemned some of those that the USCCB actually did call out…

    Also, who is really still using Mass of Creation at this point? For better or for worse I thought Mass of Christ the Savior had displaced it.
  • AnimaVocis
    Posts: 146
    RMoCremation .... Oh, er... Creation is ALIVE and WELL in the Diocese of Jefferson City. As is the Mass of Christ the Savior.

    I never used them in my time there, but I wasn't able to stay long enough to do too much, sadly...

    They did provide reasons for the objections in an early draft for those involved in the process .. I was asked to give feedback on that document... It was my understanding that those reasons would be given with further explanation when the document came out, and that's why it took so long to put forward! (Honestly, that's why I thought it took so long... The list, as it is now is the exact same thing I was shown two years ago... MINUS the reasons...)
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,209
    Since some people seeing the Jefferson City list on other websites have lamented the lack of specificity, I've looked at the texts of all the hymns named, and I'm offering my own indications of what may be the reasons that raised concern at the diocese. These are just my observations and opinions: a trained theologian may reach different conclusions.

    A few of these hymns are also critiqued in the USCCB doctrinal committee document, so at least for those, the reasons for objections are clearer.

    My comments are based on the full published versions of hymns as found on OCP's website, GIA's website, and Hymnary. I did not examine the specific versions that appear in some hymnals: sometimes hymnal editors have removed part or all of the questionable material.

    • All Are Welcome: misleading concept of the church; vague expressions about the Eucharist
    • Ashes: the concept of an "offering of ashes" does not reflect the Church's faith and liturgy
    • Bread of Life: Verse 2 of the Christmas verses speaks of "God's incarnate Word", a vague expression that may suggest Christ is separate from God. Classic Trinitarian doctrine speaks instead of Christ as the Word of the Father.
    • Celtic Alleluia: Sending Forth: verse 2 has vague expressions about the Eucharist.
    • Covenant Hymn: if this is meant to be a depiction of the relation of God and the soul, there are some problematic expressions such as "We will be buried together".
    • For the Healing of the Nations: the full published version disparages "dogmas"
    • God Has Chosen Me: identifies the kingdom of God as a "new kingdom on earth"
    • Hallelujah! We Sing Your Praises: depicts Christ as saying "I am wine, I am bread", which is unscriptural and inadequate as an expression regarding the Eucharist.
    • Led By the Spirit: verse 4 has vague expressions of Trinitarian doctrine (The doctrinal committee discussed this hymn in its document.)
    • Many and Great: vague expressions about the Eucharist
    • Table of Plenty: vague expressions about the Eucharist
    • Three Days: "we've shared his bread and wine": this is an inadequate expression about the Eucharist
    Thanked by 1DavidOLGC
Add a Comment