Well, go away for a few days, and see what you miss! What fun to come back to this discussion. Great line about the popcorn, Gavin.

Nathan – thanks for livening up the discussion. I will of course disagree, without being disagreeable, so don’t take any of this personally. But here are some of the weaknesses in your counter argument, which makes your case unconvincing.

The liturgy is a primary and privileged vehicle of sacred Tradition; therefore its content is given all due respect. Some texts can be adapted, others can’t, and the details are carefully laid out.

One can indeed sing a new song to the Lord, but not all new songs are worthy of admission to the canon of worship. Hence the current discussion. The Becker is not being rejected on the basis of its “newness” alone. New songs are admitted to worship all the time, if approved by the competent authorities. So your advice that I “ought not to be getting your knickers in a not over the fact that something isn't the same as it always has been” is irrelevant. I have voiced support for better new settings than the Becker above (and even gave a link!). So this is not about newness alone, sorry.

The Litany of the Saints is a part of our liturgy which hands on something of our Catholic belief in the “Church triumphant.” Therefore, in evaluating a modified setting of a text, one must look at gains and losses in the overall liturgical role of the work under consideration, and see where it hangs in the balance. I don’t think you have considered the modification of the text from this perspective at all. The ranking of the saints might not be a hugely important part of Catholic tradition, but since it is lost in the Becker setting, I have to ask why.

The glaringly obvious reason is that the Becker litany is driven more by the music than the text; in the case of a conflict, priority is given to fitting the names into the chord progression. The chord progression wins out. This contradicts principles of liturgical music that are self-evident and expressed in Catholic thought on liturgical music in general. It strikes me as being self-indulgent, for a composer to treat the text with such cavalier whimsy, so that we can enjoy this lovely setting he has wedged it into.

I never used the word “random” to describe the Becker setting. Others have used the term, but please don’t ascribe this to me. The Becker setting uses a common chord progression. There is nothing random about the chord progression. (Or interesting, original, or edifying for that matter. But that would be arguing about taste, which I indulge in only occasionally.) I have described the reordering of saints as arbitrary, and you have not demonstrated otherwise.

No one argues that God is above time. But He created it. So arguments for or against chronological order are pretty minor. But again – is the reordering worth losing the singing of our heavenly family tree as its branches unfold? And the loss of chronological ordering seems minor to me compared with the grouping of orders of saints, which is a tradition with a visual, eschatological component as we connect with the choruses of our heavenly brothers and sisters. Choirs sing in sections, you know. (Hope you don’t mind that I got a chuckle out of your statement, “On what basis, then, does Paul mandate that the Litany of the Saints make such separations?” Well, it’s in the book. On what basis does Mr. Becker “improve” it?)

The omission of the titles – yes, this is a new thing, therefore we need to ask, what are the pros and cons of this adaptation? If there is widespread agreement that it is a good thing, then the Catholic thing to do would be to sanction the adaptation. But I ask – have we really agreed that this is a good thing, and an improvement? Is there some reason that we should no longer delight in hailing the saints in heaven as we have done since time immemorial? I don’t see it. Makes me wonder about the motive.

So, in conclusion – yes, it is a very sweet sounding way to sing about the intercession of the saints. But it is not worthy to displace the original, or have a monopoly which is preventing more worthy contemporary settings from emerging.

I agree, Noel. It's those wonderful folks who make the others bearable.

I like it, but it's not liturgically appropriate.

I used to like it. I like it less now, but I find it just as liturgically appropriate as the music that is used in 90% of Catholic churches. (I'm referring to the properly revised version.) Luckily, my parish falls in the other 10%. ;-)

I realize this thread is a bit old, and apologize for "reviving" it for those who are tired of this debate.

I can't help but think to myself of the old adage given to priests about the Roman Missal: "say the black, do the red" (which is referring to the colors of texts found in the Missal for those who didn't know). To me, this would indicate that any deviation from the text should be avoided. Becker's version does deviate from the text - a necessity for rhythmic purposes. Therefore, I would not recommend its use as an actual litany when the rite calls for it. Rather I would stick to the chant in the Missal.

This doesn't mean the Becker version can't be used at all. It can be used as a processional, at the beginning of Mass, during communion, and even as an offertory or recessional. It can be used during paraliturgical celebrations as well. It can be done at those places on the feast or memorial of any saint, and is also especially appropriate during the month of November.

It seems to me that with all of the debate as to whether or not it can/should be used "in place" of a litany (when called for), we tend to overlook the fact that we do indeed have many other options to consider for when and where it can be used. I'm sorry if this had been mentioned in a previous post, but I did not see it.