That was interesting. That there is a "disconnect" between the two camps is obvious. It is also apparent, that they want little to do with each other. I am in the position of needing to buy both the Vatican II and Worship IV hymnals to keep both camps semi-happy. The parish can't afford both, so that is an impossibility.

I like the older hymns in Vatican II, but the selection is limited and the layout is weird. The camp II group would hate it. I have heard forum suggestions to make handouts with unincluded hymns, but that kind of defeats the purpose in spending money for a hymnal. Worship IV has unfortunately kept some of the unsingable garbage from RitualSong, which I never use (I have RS but leave the bad stuff out). But it does sell well, and keeping it in Worship IV is likely a marketing decision. The camp I people would detest it. I am afraid this will not be winable either way.

I, too, was put off by this "version I / version II" talk. I've never heard anything like it, though I would like to hear the evidence to back up this assertion. It strikes me as perhaps trying to legitimize the excesses of postconciliar practice.

Is this the same James Frazier who wrote Maurice Durufle: The Man and His Music? I very recently read an essay of his, and so I'm given to wonder if it's the same guy. If so, he's a fantastic musicologist.

What a load of BS. If I had the time I would critique the self-proclaimed review line by line. Suffice it to say the author doesn't even understand what a book review is nor does he have a clear understanding of the council documents. While he makes some valid points and observances, he presents opinions as facts. In practice, surely there are two if not more interpretations of the council's instruction on sacred music, but nowhere in any official document that I have read is there any indication of the council envisioning two camps or ways of celebrating the liturgy. To the contrary, the council introduced the idea of progressive solemnity precisly to eliminate any distinction between a so called high and low Mass. Christ instituted One Church and One sacred liturgy. The whole notion of an American church in which everyone can have it their way just like at Burger King is indeed a very protestant notion, dare I say heresy, which may explain why the auther in question is now employed by the Episcopal church. An authetic review of the hymnals in question could quite legitimatley question the lack of present day hymnody just as an honest critique of the mainstream offerings might call into question the exclusion of Jubilate Deo. Still, it's not that difficult to understand why there is such a dearth in modern sacred music of quality, particularly with regards to hymnody, when one considers the overwhelming lack of authentic catechisis over the past fifty years.

Btw, this is not a book review, despite the headline caption given to it: as he explains at the end of the column, it's background for his individual reviews of these hymnals that are related in spirit. And he is actually quite critical of Version II, as he terms it. It's an opinion piece that toggles in a quicksilver fashion between indicative and subjunctive moods in a manner that is quite familiar in Catholic musical discussions, even on these boards here.

I would suggest there was also another Version: The Ted Marier approach. AKA The Road (Largely) Not Taken. It provided for a sung Mass (mostly in the vernacular, but with congregations also being familiar with settings in Latin of dialogues and the Ordinary and some classic liturgical hymnody), room for propers but not an emphasis on them, a tremendous mostly-vernacular psalter based on the Roman tones, and hymn selections that typically involved settings that often chosen for being sympathetic to a chantlike (arsis-thesis) delivery of phrases in a single breath (this last aspect of Marier's hymn choices is not obvious to the eye or just looking at his hymnals, but gradually reveals itself over a period of years of listening to how many of those hymns were typically offered.) Marier loved the chant tradition, yet also had "let the people sing" as a mantra. He studiously avoided the polarization that occurred in Catholic liturgical music after the Council. Instead, he combined deep scholarship with decades of cumulative experience dating to the late 1940s in working with congregations to sing the liturgy.

I'm relying upon the old admonition that there is no such thing as a "dumb" question. Outside of the CounterReformation "reaction" that allowed local deployment of Chorale Hymns that became integral to the Singmesses and its various off-shoots over the intervening centuries, what is the "smoking gun" proof (where, when, why, how?) that licensed strophic hymnody, among other forms eventually, as the so-called "Fourth Option" for use at a Roman Rite Liturgy in the first GIRM?

Sometimes with Latin and chant, it is a matter of degree rather than kind. I use English chant, and at Lent and Advent, Latin chant. The English propers for communion I always use, sometimes also singing the offertory. I rarely use introits, unless it is for preludes during certain seasons, such as Advent. Hymns work better for entrance in my situation. This is about the extent of Latin and Propers that my congregation will accept. It isn't 1962 any more and the whole world has changed since then.

The High Mass tradition (Version I) persisted in Los Angeles through the 1970's with the choir singing the Ordinary (sans Credo) along with hymns, motets and anthems. The people sang virtually nothing except the G major chant Alleluia. Gregorian chant (i.e., the Propers), however, had almost completely disappeared, which makes me wonder how well established it was pre-VII. Virtually all of that is gone now.

The original NO GIRM didn't even have a "fourth option." There were only three.

We may have to dig through documents and old editions of Notitiae to find the answer.

The Episcopalian who is doing the reviews is obviously struggling to understand basic facts.

He seems to be saying that to exclude pieces by Marty Haugen and the like is to "deny the Incarnation." Many serious Catholics might say that he would be closer to the truth if he said that to include pieces by Haugen is to deny the Incarnation!

In any event, I notice he fails to suggest a single "hymn" (song?) he feels is so great written after Vatican II ... and this is wise! Maybe he should start inquiring about the actual quality of the music, rather than when the composer or author lived. I remember when the Glory & Praise came out in the 1970's, there was not even one piece of music that had existed before the Council. This is a typical example of the kind of stuff regularly published at the Pray Tell Blog. I scanned over a few of the articles there, and saw an Episcopalian criticizing the SALVE REGINA as theologically deficient (since it calls the world a “vale of tears” etc.), a 19-year-old who praises Cardinal Bernadin, and then says "Concerted efforts have been made to kill moral theology and liberation theology, except at St. John's University," and the astonishing (heretical) statement: "The communion bread at Mass is not appropriately called the Blessed Sacrament."

Well, since this thread was supposed to be about hymnals, I would like just to say that I am impressed with the latest version of the St. Michael hymnal, and that is comes closest yet to anything I have seen to be a real 'Catholic Hymnal". It's pretty much got every beautiful hymn that you could wish, in unpolitical language, and no bizarre theology. Sure there are no propers like the VII, but the book is intended to be a hymnal, not a book of propers. Yes, it has some of the folk-type stuff that is so popular from the 7o's but you are certainly not bound to do those (unless people want to stone you)... and it does serve to make the book more sell-able to a wider group. The thing I don't like is the arranging of the hymns in alphabetical order. It does not present the hymns in context of the liturgical year. A small thing though. We should really support this accomplishment and make the hymnal better known.

I just read a rather scathing review of the Adoremus Hymnal by the Fr. Anthony Ruff group at PTB. As it happens, I actually know Helen Hull Hitchcock pretty well, so I was amused by the comments Frazier made about copyrights in Adoremus (which were completely inaccurate). The Pray Tell Blog routinely speaks in rather insulting terms about such luminaries as Monsignor Andrew Wadsworth, Cardinal Burke, our current Pope, and others, so expect the Adoremus people will wear this review as a badge of honor ...

There is nothing wrong with the Tridentine mass. If you like it and it speaks to you, attend and support it. But don't beat the rest of us over the head with it and proclaim your superiority because of it. We unfortunately have certain pontificating posters who do that routinely. Although having worked to get it established in my city, I don't attend it because - I don't have the time with 4 NO masses each Sunday, and I am Byzantine. I remember it as a child, but it is not my "native" liturgy.

Liturgy is what one makes of it. It can be garbage, or it can be glorious. In my 4 masses, it is the best NO I can accomplish with current resources.

To add to what I said previously, the "ideal' of the Church is the current Roman Missal. Granted, there can be problems in its implementation. I agree with that. Cleaning up some of the abuses would be great, and many are working toward that goal. But again, the "ideal" is the current missal.

I often find myself in agreement with the hidden Charles, btw.

charles, don't forget about GIRM no. 42. It tells us "attention must therefore be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and by the traditional practice of the roman rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the people of god, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice."

In our case, the EF is the codification of the traditional practice of the Roman Rite. It has remained almost the same for quite a long time.

"Extraordinary" does not mean "better."
It literally means "not usual."
Atypical.
Other than normal.

(Not relevant, but funny- I once heard a lawyer explain that in a ruling by a judge, the word "extraordinary" usually means "stupid." As in, "The claim that such-and-such a law can be interpreted in the way proposed is extraordinary."

Charles:

I never mentioned the 1962 Missal. I simply pointed out that your standard seems to be what the congregation wants or desires. That is quite arbitrary in terms of deciding sacred music. That's all I was saying.

...O....Kay..... this is a forum discussion, isn't it? ...think I will just leave you where you are. Thanks for clarifying your position.

Adam said:

"Extraordinary" does not mean "better."
It literally means "not usual."
Atypical.
Other than normal.

(Not relevant, but funny- I once heard a lawyer explain that in a ruling by a judge, the word "extraordinary" usually means "stupid." As in, "The claim that such-and-such a law can be interpreted in the way proposed is extraordinary."

Adam. Maybe you should find another lawyer. Note in particular Number 2 below.

(from a legal dictionary website)

ex·traor·di·nar·y (k-strôrdn-r, kstr-ôr-)
adj.
1. Beyond what is ordinary or usual: extraordinary authority.
2. Highly exceptional; remarkable: an extraordinary achievement.
3. Employed or used for a special service, function, or occasion: a minister extraordinary; an extraordinary professor.

I will give you that the EF is not normal, but that certainly doesn't put it in the "weird or stupid" category. In fact, the opposite. Only those who are disposed to it are even willing or able carry it out. Put plainly, I am proporting that those who DO celebrate the EF are extraordinary in their abilities to express the highest (highly exceptional, remarkable and extraordinary in achievement) form of the Roman Rite. Would you agree?

I totally agree with "unusual", but refute "stupid". That is what he said his lawyer said. That is also to infer that the EF is stupid. That is simply an inflamatory statement, especially on this forum.

Adam:

Thanks for clarifying

CharlesW: Didn't write that the 1962 is the ideal. For reference:

Whatever gets you through the day; that doesn't make it something to settle for.

Only thing that observation points out is that if we should settle it's on never more than a day by day basis.

If "hermeneutic of continuity" means anything, or "reform of the reform", the Novus Ordo should look suspiciously like the Tridentine Mass. That's precisely the point. Only once it does can we finally let go and let organic development take over as it always has.

In the words of Lazlo Dobszay (Klaus Gamber?):

"... we should return to 1962, not in order to stop there but rather to implement a badly conducted reform in a good way!"

Bruce:

In my view, 'reforming' the EF does not reduce it from being the highest form in the slightest way, but actually heightens it to even a greater degree. Summorum Pontificum solidifies this truth. Scrutiny over time always purifies what is redundant or superfluous in the developing rites of our church. No liturgical form will ever reach perfection here on earth, but I believe the EF comes very close in that regard. Especially in its unique musical expression, the GC.

It has taken 50 years for the innovators of the NO to begin to come to terms with what is 'good' and what is not with the new Mass. I say 'innovators' because the NO did not rise within the church organically as did the EF, but came top down in a fundamentally synthetic fashion. It is only now that the church is realizing what VII intended as opposed to what was actually implemented. It was a disconnect (as we all know about the hermeneutic of continuity).

The splendor of a rite such as the EF has been seven times refined in the furnace of time and scrutiny. I would contest that a 1 versus 3 year calendar is a point that doesn't actually affect the "form" of the rite per se, as for me, form means music, text and action.

Perhaps once the NO has been under the microscope for hundreds of years (as has been the EF) the blunders will be entirely removed and it will begin to approach what looks more like the EF. Of course I am specifically addressing the horrendous hiccup of abberation in musical form (the inclusion of pop music, etc.), let alone the text which was largely scrapped in the implementation of MR3.

More and more (even in our own small diocese here) the EF is truly being appreciated for what it is, and is having a wonderful impact on Catholic liturgical life.

The following chart was sent to us as a .doc file. With permission from the creator, I have changed it to a PDF file and have posted it online:

Comparison Chart of Traditional Catholic Pew Books

Many such charts have been sent to us, but this one seemed to me to be particularly complete and (one-page chart) fits on 1 piece of paper nicely. Feel free to download it, if your parish committee would find it useful.

The development of the old Roman rite was not entirely organic. Replacement of the immemorial intercessory biddings and collects at the conclusion of the Liturgy of the Word with an intercessory litany in the entrace rite in the late 5th century was a significant change imposed by authority--not an "organic development." Gregory the Great's excision of a huge corpus of prefaces--many of which have been restored in the Novus ordo,is another example of significant change imposed by authority. So also was his addition of "diebus nostris in tua pace disponas..." to the Hanc igitur. Other examples can be cited.

The bizarre process by which the fraction came to be transferred from the Agnus Dei (introduced by Pope Sergius to cover it) to the Embolism to the Lord's Prayer is surely an example of organic development run amok. (Briefly, the commingling of the
fermentum came to be associated with the words, "Pax Domini...." When the fermentum was no longer sent to the titular churches of Rome, a second fraction was introduced to provide a particle that could be commingled at these words. The proper fraction, performed during the Agnus Dei, with its own commingling, then came to be viewed as redundant and disappeared, leaving only the fraction performed during the recitation of a text that was in no way related to it. (See Jungmann). The mess was cleaned up in the Novus ordo.

The merits and defects of the post-Conciliar rite can certainly be debated. Furthermore, those who point out that far more change was introduced in the decade following Vatican II than in any previous period of such short length are correct. But Alcuin Reid and others who draw a sharp contrast between the "organic" development of the old rite and the authoritarian imposition of change after Vatican II do not stand on solid ground.

I suspect that my distaste for celebration facing the people is as strong as that of anyone here, but the 1969 GIRM did not mandate celebration facing the people. It required only that main altars be built apart from the wall so that one could walk around them and Mass could be celebrated facing the people. The rubrics at various points in the instruct the priest to turn to the people. These would be unnecessary if celebration facing the people had been mandated.