It is interesting that God claims the gift of beauty from the reprobate for his own use, despite where the soul of the conceiver winds up in eternity.

Francis, excellent point. Truth and beauty are the gift and eternal property of God.

For we artists, that is at once comforting and humbling. What we think we create, we really receive from God's materials. Maybe, then, the only gift we return to Him lies not in what we think we create, but in the degree of our willingness to learn and utilize the materials given to us.
And maybe I'm just waxing poetic when I should be napping, and this is obvious to everyone else. :)

God is most interested in not what we create or produce, but souls and hearts fully given.

A better question is why one composer, Vaughan Williams, would rise above arguably "equal" composers. The answer is sociological, not music-analytical. Audiences want to hear Mozart, not Pleyel, despite the fact that Pleyel's string quartets are very good from any kind of "objective" standard. Mozart has a mystique; Pleyel does not.

Personally, I would like to know what the origin of the mystique surrounding Vaughan Williams is, and maybe the original poster would too. My hunch, without really looking into it, is that his original contributions to the EH 1906 were popular from the beginning and no one really questions why. But if that's the case, why don't we love Pleyel? He was extremely popular in his own day. What happened?

At the risk of inciting riots, I might hazard a few guesses. Firstly, RVW was a musician and scholar in the broad sense of these words: he brought scholarship to his musicianship and musicianship to his scholarship - and both ran deep. He didn't just compose hymn tunes and song-cycles: he wrote expansive symphonies, tone poems, film-music (his Sinfonia Antarctica was the scholarly musical consequence of his writing the music for "Scott of the Antarctic"), a Mass, anthems, organ and keyboard works, and works (including especially hymns and hymn tunes) based on English folk music (reflecting again his scholarship). He was an accomplished organist. Secondly, he lived a very long time in a significant era in English music, culture, and society; moreover, in that era he may be regarded as a Renaissance person. Thirdly, his sacred music was written in the context of the pervasive Church of England, which has had a long musical heritage. It is little wonder, then, that he was highly esteemed in England as well as in other churches of the Anglican Communion (and not coincidentally in Methodism which had strong roots in Anglicanism).

I suppose that, to a great extent, this discussion is also concerned with the appeal of RVW in American Catholic hymnology. This appeal is not as old as one might think, but rose quickly when Vatican II more or less kicked Latin and traditional Catholic hymnology to the kerb and replaced it not only with the folk and "modern" stuff that so many here now abhor but with traditional hymns in the vernacular taken from Protestantism that was, in some sense, closest to Catholicism: principally Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists (the earliest of whom were once described to me as Catholics that hadn't managed to find their way home). RVW, being the dean of early 20th century English hymn composers, rode that wave of imported popularity of hymns adopted and other religious music admired by American Catholics. On this side of the pond during that era, there probably was no one quite so talented and active in that sphere.

Let us consider this:

Michael Joncas is a Catholic priest, in good standing, who, to my knowledge, has never said anything blatantly opposed to Catholic teaching. Owen Alstott, Bernadette Farrell, Jesse Manibusan, Christopher Walker, Ken Canedo, Paul Inwood, M.D. Ridge, Sebastian Temple...the list goes on and on. To my knowledge, all are or were Catholics in good standing.

So, then, whose music would you prefer to be heard in the Liturgy? Any of these? Or Agnostic RVW?

I know what my choice is.

The question was asked whether Vaughan Williams wrote any of his lyrics. As far as I know, the answer is no. But, at least to my sensibilities, he exercised good judgement for the most part in selecting his texts. The Five Mystical Songs are set to texts by the English mystic (and Anglican priest) George Herbert, the Songs of Travel to poems by Robert Louis Stevenson, "Come down, O Love divine" is translated from Bianco of Sienna (d. 1434), and "Hail thee, festival day" is translated from Venantius Honorius Fortunatus (540?-600?). These are not shabby choices in my book.

As for rankings, GC, polyphony, (early?) Latin hymns, and English hymns ... I wonder just what polyphony is being referred to: Renaissance? Baroque? Classical? Romantic? Modern? And if Renaissance polyphony, then Franco-Flemish? Italianate? English? Spanish? Germanic? Indeed, time will tell for such rankings ... after all, even GC, Renaissance polyphony, and Latin hymns were once new. In 100-250 years from now, there might well be relatively recent sacred music and hymns (including English hymns) that will be regarded as highly as the Latin hymns of old. Perhaps even "Come down, O Love divine" (tune: Down Ampney, by RVW) will still be a sold Catholic staple, especially at Pentecost.