-Does "mother" rhyme with "hover"?
-Do humans hover?
-Does "love" rhyme with "prove"?

And it goes downhill from there...

I hope I don't regret admitting this ... but I actually really like "On This Day, O Beautiful Mother."

However, when it comes to the public worship of Almighty God, there are other aspects the Church asks us to take into consideration. Is the melody of a high enough dignity to be sung during Mass? Is the quality of the poetry "lofty" (to use the word of the saintly Pope Pius XII)?

Particularly heartened when someone, especially someone I recognize as having "good taste," points out that "taste" is not enough.

The question isn't whether someone likes it, or whether the right sort of someone likes it, or even whether it is good.

When seeking a treatment for a disease, you don't look for the "good" medicine, you look for the "right" medicine. Innate quality is important, but only secondarily to appropriateness.

As a young child, one of my happiest memories at liturgy was singing "Let it Be".

Doesn't make it good for public worship.

As a young child, one of my happiest memories at liturgy was singing "Let it Be".
Doesn't make it good for public worship.

Precisely! And stated with great clarity.

Scott--I actually taught in a Catholic high school in the early 70s when a nun used "Imagine" with her senior religion class--at Mass! She thought it was "cool" and the "in thing" to do at the time. Really!

Scott--I actually taught in a Catholic high school in the early 70s when a nun used "Imagine" with her senior religion class--at Mass! She thought it was "cool" and the "in thing" to do at the time. Really!

O the days of burlap and butterflies! Perhaps I should consider it a blessing-in-disguise that my Ayn Rand-devoted father kept me out of the Church when I was growing up.

Changing the tune may make it acceptable for devotionals, but still not for Mass. See attached.

Criticizing poetry of another time and era, especially when it comes to attacking the pronunciation of ethnic groups, including British, that represent the Faith of our fathers and mothers, people wo talked different and for that reason rhymed different?

See and listen to Mother and Hover at http://www.macmillandictionary.com American accents do tend to muddle things up.

These were to be popular songs, written in the poetic and musical style of the day that families could sing at home, while doing laundry, praying in an outside grotto in front of the statue of Mary.

It was not written by composers the stature of Kevin Allen, composers who examine every note and phrase and judge it against the masters who have gone before us and finding it lacking, destroy it so it never sees the light of day.

This is the On Eagles Wings, Sons of God and such of the 1800's but it differs in one way. It survived, probably because it filled a need for music outside of Mass. Vatican II brought protestant hymns into the church to inspire Catholics to sing and write hymns.

That's turned out to have been a worthless move, unfortunately. They should have had a contest, an approval process, something...if the American Catholic church truly respected music, it would have an American Catholic Hymnal.

ALTERNATE TUNE SETTING ATTACHED

Sorry, I meant a hymnal created for the American Catholic church by the Catholic church, just like the protestants do in their churches. It is interesting to note that the Southern baptists went contemporary and as a result all the traditional hymn writers, including one of my editors, went off and created their own traditional hymnal and have an annual summer week devoted to it.

It is very helpful to think about popularity vs. suitability for the liturgical action ... sentimentality vs. reverence and prayer.

Yes, it is a helpful distinction, although I think "sentiment" is a bit of a straw man when referring to the opinions expressed here (and in the requests made in the organ loft). Nobody is saying, "we sang the song with gusto and the band played and it was the last time I saw Dad sober *sniff*", but many are saying, "we sang the song with reverence and I entered into a deeper relationship with the Blessed Mother and I knew what she was asking of me and that's why I still go to church." Let's examine this hymn's suitability according to De Musica Sacra.

If hymns are to attain their purpose, their texts "must conform to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, plainly stating, and explaining it. The vocabulary should be simple, and free of dramatic, and meaningless verbiage. Their tunes, however brief, and easy, should evince a religious dignity and propriety". Local Ordinaries should carefully see that these ideals are observed.

On the first question we must ask of a hymn, the question of Catholic doctrine, "On this Day" is orthodox, and expressed clearly and succinctly - we pray to Mary, she of her volition answers us by keeping us from going astray, we trust she will answer, she is higher than the angels, we ought to ask and ask humbly for her grace, we have the ability to reject her guidance, devotion to the pure Mary is sweet. All of this is expressed poetically in three short verses.

My visceral sentiments for the hymn tune are entirely related to experiencing its reverent, prayerful use at a stately and honorable pace by large numbers of children, elderly and other parishioners. Is it dignified and appropriate for the liturgy? Yes, when sung with such reverence, and I have never heard it sung otherwise. I have never seen anyone dance to it (unlike the customary lullaby sway of Tu Scendi), and if I caught anyone waltzing to the hymn I would be tempted to reprimand them for irreverence. Whatever closeness Fr. Lambillotte's initial effort had with secular songs on its first day (in the 19th Century) has long been eradicated by the passage of time. Waltzes are anachronisms while this song endures.

Now that is my musical opinion, but I fail to see how it can be anything other than a matter of opinion. Theories regarding the suitability of tunes, meters and even instrumentation have failed to produce definitive statements from the Universal Church. While general agreement regarding death metal's unsuitability may approach 100% of CMAA members, and "Grosser Gott"'s suitability may again approach 100%, there will be examples where opinion is more evenly divided. I appreciate that some people would include this hymn in their hymnal, and that others would not include it. It is the discretion and duty given to them as compilers.

But dogmatizing and anathematizing in matters of opinion (and from here on I am addressing others on the thread, not yourself, Dr. Clark) is a sin against unity. The best and frankly most professional way to deal with such opinions is to promote the music you like as an example, rather than tear down what you don't. And yes, I apply that as well to Haas and Haugen. The stated reason for the famous call for a moratorium was because nothing else was being sung. Gillebrand considered their repertoire "banal" but never condemned it with the certain vitriol of Brunner against "On This Day", and the comments of those who did condemn it focused as much on its lack of doctrinal clarity as on the music.

Some people on this forum seem to believe that popular hymns must follow either the Gregorian or the Protestant type and that anything else is ipso facto deficient. This is neither the letter nor the spirit of the teachings of the Church.

But dogmatizing and anathematizing in matters of opinion (and from here on I am addressing others on the thread, not yourself, Dr. Clark) is a sin against unity.

I'm missing the part where this happened. Please cite.

@Chrism- I very much appreciate your thoughts in your longer post, and have a long record of public utterances advocating specific analysis rather than broad-based castigation. I have one observation over this statement:

The stated reason for the famous call for a moratorium was because nothing else was being sung.

Firstly, there could have never been any empirical evidence of that and should have prima facie been rejected on the moral grounds you acknowledge promoting unity. Secondly, contrary to what many here may yet and still believe, the ripples from that self righteous display persist here and elsewhere and have cost us dearly in that the shrill and self-righteous condemnations alienated and, I believe, have created a permanent detente between "the encampments." There are no more conversations with Haas, no more with Cooney, no more with Joncas to be had here or elsewhere. That is tragedy as I see it. In this sad history, nary a word was said about the actual aspects of the music being championed; no, only recriminations and resignation and eventual entrenchment.
In the meantime, voices of moderation continue to drift away from both sides, exemplified by those voices who set up shop here, and no longer at PTB.
I hope that none of us separate our shoulders as we pat ourselves on the back because we think that at this moment, in this game, "we" have finally the upper hand.

If the church banned hymns and required chant at Mass some will ignore the ruling and others will welcome it.

That'd be a strong brick in Melofluent's wall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR5ApYxkU-U

melofluent (charles of cenca)

Said:

And I have always gotten Francis' noble and heart-felt exhortations toward fraternal corrections being a Christian duty. It's just that we can't ignore the past reality that in some of those past corrections the maxim "and in all things, charity" was barely given lip service towards some of our loyal opposition confreres.

Charles:

Can you please cite thread/post where you believe charity was not shown.

Thank you.

fk

If it didn't happen or has been corrected, then thank God!

I'll take that as a retraction and concession that there is zero basis for saying anyone here committed a sin against unity.

Francis, I clearly said I was not leveling a charge of inhospitality or lack of charity at you, period. You linked two sentences, the first of which was a compliment to you (!), and the second a general recollection about engagements with these folks mentioned, and you misconstrued them as being connected and therefore a conjectured indictment of you. Really? None of this was about you. Sorry about that for you, but it's not on me. Do you really have time to burn on this? Unbelievable.

I am telling the truth. You're missing the point.
But you remain a noble, heart-felt, true Christian in my eyes, Francis, and free to believe whatever you want. And a better man than I.

I second Ben Yanke's suggestion of a thread lock.

Why lock the thread? I think it is a good thread I think we need to speak to each other. So a few egos are bruised a bit, we will survive and maybe grow in some understanding of each other. If it gets nasty and we start calling each other Music Nazis then by all means, stop the thread!

It comes in a small bottle. ;-)

Dusting my sandals, moving on. I am no surgeon, I am no sage, and whatever good I've tried to do has been hijacked or ignored in this thread. If this humble, bathetic hymn causes this train for glory to derail, I choose not to be on it.

francis, I see you're rapidly becoming drawn into other conversations, and I do want to respond more fully to your post when time allows. But for now, if we can simply discuss this:

(I did not mention that it often is accompanied by a rising half step in contrary motion resolving to the I(6) in the bass.)

To be honest, I had never considered anything other than the melody and text when thinking about its suitability for liturgical use. And, after reviewing the common accompaniment settings, I agree that they need modification. I am used to singing On This Day either a capella or in strong unison, and the organ accompaniment if any is usually significantly modified, even to the point of sounding like a drone. I reviewed a recording and the movement under "hover" had been removed completely.

Not sure if these thoughts would change your mind, but at least I think I understand your point of view better.

I was once on a proverbial high horse myself, francis, and God struck me down as well. A few years later, I learned an even more valuable life lesson: there's more than one horse.

To the mention of music theory, I would respond that the Church expects people of differing levels of musical sophistication to apply the law on "religious dignity and propriety" of tunes, bishops of all people being the final arbiters. Schmaltz is a good Yiddish word, and (according to Wiki) it apparently started being applied to music in the 1930's, about a century after Fr. Lambillotte lived and worked. To my knowledge, the Church has not determined that all that is schmaltzy is incapable of "religious dignity and propriety", although I am not conceding that the melody line of On This Day is objectively schmaltzy.

As far as "a device that somehow calls upon eros", I can agree that On This Day is clearly the love of ascent, and I think Benedict's exposition on Christian eros is worth reading (emphasis added in bold):

In philosophical and theological debate, these distinctions have often been radicalized to the point of establishing a clear antithesis between them: descending, oblative love—agape—would be typically Christian, while on the other hand ascending, possessive or covetous love —eros—would be typical of non-Christian, and particularly Greek culture. Were this antithesis to be taken to extremes, the essence of Christianity would be detached from the vital relations fundamental to human existence, and would become a world apart, admirable perhaps, but decisively cut off from the complex fabric of human life. Yet eros and agape—ascending love and descending love—can never be completely separated. The more the two, in their different aspects, find a proper unity in the one reality of love, the more the true nature of love in general is realized. Even if eros is at first mainly covetous and ascending, a fascination for the great promise of happiness, in drawing near to the other, it is less and less concerned with itself, increasingly seeks the happiness of the other, is concerned more and more with the beloved, bestows itself and wants to “be there for” the other. The element of agape thus enters into this love, for otherwise eros is impoverished and even loses its own nature. On the other hand, man cannot live by oblative, descending love alone. He cannot always give, he must also receive. Anyone who wishes to give love must also receive love as a gift. Certainly, as the Lord tells us, one can become a source from which rivers of living water flow (cf. Jn 7:37-38). Yet to become such a source, one must constantly drink anew from the original source, which is Jesus Christ, from whose pierced heart flows the love of God (cf. Jn 19:34).

As someone who goes to the EF, I have to say that this cutting off from the complex fabric of human life seems to be a particular temptation for people who are zealous for liturgical or theological purity, myself especially.

And this is a good place to bring up again the question of unity. Unity is to be found in Christ by abiding in the Catholic Church, in confessing her creeds, in obeying her laws. Wounds against unity are caused both by those who separate themselves from Catholic discipline, and also by those who distort Catholic discipline to make it seem more rigorous than it is.

It's hard to see how this hymn could be justly considered "dumbed down", either in vocabulary or melody.

I think we all agree with the validity of music such as this hymn, however, the appropriate place for this type of music is not the liturgy, and that is the real dispute

.

I'll stipulate.

I, personally, am not "condemning" this piece, or any other piece of music. I don't hear anyone else condemning it. I also think that if a piece is excluded from the liturgy, it does not fall into the category of "condemned". That seems harsh to me. I still play the pieces of music I composed for guitar back in the 70's, however not at the liturgy, but I do not consider those pieces 'condemned', just not holy enough for the liturgy.

Somewhere it says that when music that is more appropriate and more sacred is admitted to the liturgy, then the level of the liturgy is also exalted. I guess you could say that there are 'levels of exalted' liturgy. By admitting 'lesser' music, the liturgy is not able to express the more exalted state. Why would we want less?

I DO hear that we are trying to recognize what is appropriate for the liturgy in terms of this style, type, genre of music (religious) as opposed to sacred. This particular piece was used for devotions in the past, not for liturgy. Now, more and more of these pieces are used in the Mass. (ie., Let there be Peace on Earth, On Eagles Wings, etc.)

The objective standard that I use in short, are the official musical books of the Church. Graduale, Simplex, Gregorian Missal, and now (finally) the 3rd Edition of the Roman Missal is full of music that is appropriate to each liturgy. I don't feel that OTDOBM would ever be a better selection for a Marian liturgy than the great hymns we already have.

I just don't see how OTDOBM is better, or should replace these, and most of them are translated to English too.

21. Salve Regina, Simple Tone ........................................ 116
22. Salve Regina, Solemn Tone ....................................... 117
23. Salve Regina, Monastic Use ...................................... 118
24. Alma Redemptoris Mater, Simple Tone.................... 119
25. Alma Redemptoris Mater, Solemn Tone ................... 119
26. Ave Regina cælorum, Simple Tone............................ 120
27. Ave Regina cælorum, Solemn Tone ........................... 121
28. Regina cæli, Simple Tone .......................................... 121
29. Regina cæli, Solemn Tone.......................................... 122
30. Ave Maria................................................................ 122
31. Ave maris stella ....................................................... 123
32. Inviolata .................................................................. 124
33. Maria Mater gratiæ................................................. 125
34. O Sanctissima ......................................................... 125
35. Salve Mater ............................................................. 126
36. Sub tuum præsidium............................................... 127
37. Tota pulchra es........................................................ 127