Is Worship IV a Catholic Hymnal?
  • Irreconcilable differences going back to...
    Ecclesiology.
    Again.

    Kathy, what do you think of my "dream Catholic hymnal/kyriale" idea? Might you be on the editorial board?
    I'm thinking- take the PBC, and put some hymns in it.
    Please?
    Thanked by 1Kathy
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,678
    What I'm looking for is a beautiful congregational hand Missal with all of the readings and propers in it, along with some short antiphons the congregation can sing along with the choir singing full propers and/or English propers...

    Then to accompany that I'd like a hymnal with 300 traditional, tried-tested-true hymns. And I'd like the hymnal to cost around $7-8 a copy.

    Anyone working on this?
    Thanked by 2veromary canadash
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,431
    MaryAnn,

    Maybe Richard is the one to ask, and I could do the English hymn side. If the entire idea doesn't make him freak out.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,431
    I do think ecclesiology is precisely the issue. I don't think we should be "acrimonious" with the separated brethren, and heck, I'll take Wesley's hymns any day. But I think there is a problem when Protestant liturgists are considered models/ constituents for Catholic liturgical endeavors. There can almost be a sense that other ecclesial bodies "get it" more than we do as Catholics, and that we have to keep up with them.

    I'm not saying that there's nothing to learn. Heck, I'd take Christopher Idle too.

    But first I'd take Ambrose, next Gregory, next Peter Damian, and like that.
  • Ok.
    C'mon, Richard!
    Freak out a bit... then get to work. Because your work on the PBC is wonderful, and I'm constantly using it and promoting it.

    And we know that the chances of ordinary chants and chant hymns getting into another hymnal/kyriale is... smallish.

    The lay faithful, choir directors, deacons, priests, etc., that I expose to the PBC

    ALWAYS

    ask how to get it, and wonder why they haven't seen anything like it.

    Add some hymns to the PBC, (endure the struggle in the process) and then you have just one music book that congregations need.
    I can't imagine I'm the first one to think of this. I fully expect a coded email from CMAA secret forces telling me "shhhhh! This is already in the works!"
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,921
    (There are so many Richards on this group (Rice, Mix, me) that a little disambiguation doesn't hurt!)
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,930
    MCW

    We all have the same idea, and I suspect many of us are working on it. I think they will all emerge one after the other.

  • "There can almost be a sense that other ecclesial bodies "get it" more than we do as Catholics, and that we have to keep up with them."
    I do think there are not a small number of Catholic leaders (religious and ordained included) who espouse that type of thinking. How does the average faithful Catholic charitably test and challenge such ideas? Should they even try?

    Kathy, I'm going to start calling you Dorothy.
  • Chonak, my bad.
    Paging Mr. Richard Rice!
    You are wanted in the publishing office.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,431
    Yes. I am Dorothy!

    Here is where we start with the hymns http://archive.org/stream/westminsterhymna00londuoft#page/n3/mode/2up

  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,138
    There can almost be a sense that other ecclesial bodies "get it" more than we do as Catholics, and that we have to keep up with them.


    Thank you for articulating the issue. There is an almost eerie sense of Catholics standing small against other ecclesial bodies because of the "late" entrance into the field of participatory worship. Coupled in many parts of the country where Catholics are a minority ( certainly in the American South where I am) with this feeling gives people the sense that they should "copy" these groups. I have literally had priests and people say we should be like those ----- churches ( insert any group there). Sing their songs and act like them.....

    Its all about ecclesiology plus identity. Two things that I have screaming about for years. Sadly, American Catholics are still struggling with both. Poor theological training and loose responsibility on the part of many find us in this place.

    Thanks Kathy for speaking to this with power and truth.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Earl_Grey
  • Agreed, Kevin.

    I'd say that the vestiges of Briitish colonialism still operate in American culture to this day. Anti-Catholic attitudes stem in great part from how our country was founded, and the major religious power brokers of the first 150+ years of our nation.

    Had we been colonized by the French, the "let's show you how your liturgy is deficient" starting point would have been different. Had many of the major waves of immigrants not been Irish, forced as they had been into Low Mass mode for centuries, the origin and response to liturgical snobbery would have been different.

    Most Catholics entered this country and took jobs menial jobs and/or jobs serving Protestants. To get ahead in many areas of civic life, military, to be taken seriously in the arts, meant adopting to largely British Protestant styles and approaches. To be seen as overtly Catholic was (in some areas is) not desirable, and can even be considered distasteful.

    Sad to say that in ecumenical leadership today, we still see a lot of the underbelly of the upstairs/ downstairs approach.

    That's how I make sense much of the liturgical superiority attitude problem, fwiw.

    Why else would we be following the lead of seriously struggling denominations? Well... I don't want to speculate too much on that.
    Thanked by 1DougS
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    Anyone else disturbed by this thread, very deeply?

    Once again, we welcomed a major figure of mainstream American Catholic liturgics into our midst. And once again, we drove him off in record time. Probably the same commenters at fault as last time.

    This is why the CMAA is irrelevant to the rest of the church. It's just a bunch of angry people who want to turn the clock back. Or at least that's the face we're showing.
  • Heath
    Posts: 897
    +1 for Gavin's comment.

    I've met many of the forum members at the various Colloquiums that I've attended, and have been delighted to converse with them and share in fellowship. But I'm so dismayed how discussions with interlocutors of a different stripe go on this forum. We've had a number of influential folks who have come to see what the "other side" has to offer, only to leave shaking their head because of some, dare I say, foolish comments by one or more of our own. Very frustrating for those of us who would like to see what our mainstream friends have to say, and maybe even help influence them to see our point of view.

    Chonak, we may need to amend your reminder that we see every few comments . . . doesn't seem to be sinking in.

    Regardless . . . Happy Pentecost to all.
    Thanked by 2MarkThompson Liam
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Gavin,
    Did you read my last post carefully? Though Fr. Krisman thought perhaps I was overly contentious, I wasn't in reality. And I made a point of thanking him and asking him not to abandon ship or give up on rapport. And while typing that, he's virtually shown the door with a high ho, there you go. Hearty debate, in black and white as Francis opined, is not to be discouraged. Stereotyping, labeling and circular firing squads are so incredibly disheartening, whether or not those who engage in such are cloaked in righteous truth.
    There is no joy in Mudville. When will we as Catholics and Americans learn that lesson? I'm left to wonder whether the whole topic was what we used to call in Oakland CA the old "Okey Doke" aka setup....whatever.....sigh
    Thanked by 1noel jones, aago
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,921
    Yes. Let's consider what happened.

    The thread started out with Kathy's worthwhile presentation of facts. Facts are always welcome.

    But if we're looking for things that went wrong: in my opinion, the title question put things on a bad footing. The question "Is W4 a Catholic hymnal?" struck me as accusatory in tone. Also, it doesn't make sense to ask whether W4 is a Catholic hymnal if there isn't any recognized set of criteria for what constitutes a "Catholic hymnal"! That subject might have made for a constructive discussion.

    And I can't blame Fr. Krisman for leaving the thread after the gratuitous rebuke which Kathy directed at him. (Yes, I think that some of his theological comments in his first thread didn't make sense -- but that's not what this thread was about, and insults are no way to engage in dialogue.)

    Fr. Krisman, for his part, kicked up the rhetorical temperature a couple of notches by citing the ecclesiastical approbation as if that were the answer to all possible considerations, and posturing as if any criticism of the book or of that approval were a claim to private magisterium. Mark T. pointed out nicely why this was a mistake.

    There were some other diversions and confusions on the thread, but I think that those were the main issues. Opinions?
  • gregpgregp
    Posts: 632
    I think that many times people who exist in their own bubble only hear what they want to hear. Venturing outside the echo chamber can give one a very rude awakening. I've watched many people debate things here, sometimes quite heatedly, and still be able to joke and thank each other. But disagreeing strongly with someone's ideas is not the same as insulting them, and I think that if you want to play on the internet, you'd better develop thick skin.
    Thanked by 1Ben Yanke
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,930
    I am saddened that we cannot continue a conversation and/or debate and arrive at least to 'we agree to disagree'. However, temper tantrums are childish (storming out of a discussion, or just plain ignoring a point or question) as are personal accusations. (i.e., I have asked Fr JC a question about the Responsorial Psalm twice which has still not been addressed)

    Under it all there is a basic difference in theology (as I was hinting at in my first comment). However, I always try to keep the focus on the content posted and try to keep the differing philosophical fulcrums as balanced as possible.

    I do think Kathy's rebuke was a personal dig, and could have been said in a more charitable fashion.

    We should be quicker to listen and slower to speak as it says in the book of James. Perhaps using the "save draft" button should be employed more than at present from most of us.

    Thanked by 1Earl_Grey
  • MHIMHI
    Posts: 324
    .
  • Earl_GreyEarl_Grey
    Posts: 873
    I still think the original question is valid and apropo.

    there isn't any recognized set of criteria for what constitutes a "Catholic hymnal"!


    Perhaps the question can be rephrased as What does the church need/want in a congregational worship aid? Is a hymnal even the answer? And does Worship IV (or any other hymnal out there) meet the needs for a Catholic service book?

    I loved that Fr. Krisman acknowledged the place of the propers, and yet why weren't the texts included in the book? We just bought G3 with the readings--and no propers (and yes, in answer to an earlier question, Gather Us In is included without the 4th verse, though that still begs the question why was it approved for publication previously, but I digress) As someone who grew up using mostly GIA hymnals it certainly left the impression that they [propers] belonged to the "old Mass" and were no longer relevant. That is a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed. So perhaps GIA feels the propers belong solely to the choir, but if they were indeed sung in Latin, wouldn't that necessitate an English translation for the people to follow?

    My personal preference would be to see the Lumen Christi missal or something like it in every parish. A complete order of Mass with all the proper (texts) and readings and a basic Kyriale of congregational ordinary settings. THEN as a supplement to that an orthodox hymnal with traditional and contemporary Catholic and Christian hymns that can be used before/after Mass as well as for devotions and other parish activities. I think that would go a long way to delineate what is essential for the Mass and what is ancillary.

    I am also sad to see Fr. Krisman or anyone leave the forum. Charity--yes. A thicker skin--also yes. Such are the inherent dangers in this medium.

    Thanked by 2MHI francis
  • MHIMHI
    Posts: 324
    .
  • MHIMHI
    Posts: 324
    .
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,921
    I don't mind the term "Roman Catholic" as shorthand for "Roman-rite Catholic", as distinguished from Eastern Catholic. The term used to be a polemical expression, but since there's an innocuous way to use it, we may as well let it slide, hm?
  • MHIMHI
    Posts: 324
    .
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,431
    Just fwiw, I've tidied up my offending remark, and made a note that it used to be impolite, so that what follows does not appear to be an overreaction.

    It's Pentecost, baby, live it!
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Earl_GreyEarl_Grey
    Posts: 873
    To me, the MUSIC is actually more important than the TEXT at this time.


    I don't follow. If we are to sing proper texts in the vernacular to a psalm tone at this time, that would seem to indicate that the TEXT is more important than the MUSIC and not visa versa. That I would agree with.

    While beauty should always be a priority, singing the propers to a psalm tone should be used only as a stepping stone for the restoration of the texts. Heck, even if the priest celebrant were to read the intoit following a congregational hymn would at least be a step in the right direction compared to the blatant ignoring of the Church's wisdom and teaching. Who knows, perhaps the Church will be blessed with a new wave of Catholic composers who will set the texts anew. If they will be sung with congregation or by choir alone or perhaps a combination of the two only time will tell.

    There will always be a place for hymnody, and as the Office hymns model, we should be singing praise to God at all hours of the day both communally and privately. I think the real error lies in the tendency to cram everything Godly into 55 minutes (or less) on Sunday and then being selfish with the rest of the time we've been given.

    So if a hymnal is to serve us throughout our lives as Catholics, then yes it should contain office hymns and even appropriate orthodox Christian hymns of praise and thanksgiving from other traditions. If a "hymnal" claims to be the only resource needed to pray the Mass properly then it should first be a functional missal and kyriale.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    The unfortunate part is that, as others have said, Kathy did have a good original post, despite my own snarky response. I found it helpful to think seriously about what a Catholic model of hymnody should look like. And I have thoughts on that point, which I am not finding easy to articulate.

    I think we need to realize that, in cases like this, the other party is naturally going to be defensive. It doesn't mean we've won, or that they're being jerks. Rather, we need to not put them on the defensive.

    Believe it or not, I'm often accused of being overly defensive. But my response is "I wouldn't need to be defensive if I didn't feel under attack." Just as our guests are responsible not to make mountains out of molehills, I propose that we are responsible to make them feel at home, even if that means refraining from giving them The One Argument that will change their minds.

    They're on our side, for crying aloud!!! These people have all been faithful orthodox Catholics who care deeply about the quality of parish music. Yes, they embrace a faulty model, and many of them propagate mediocrity. But they are not our enemies.
    Thanked by 1Heath
  • MHIMHI
    Posts: 324
    .
  • Scott_WScott_W
    Posts: 462
    The good news for me is that I think that, like recent efforts to recapture Catholic distinctives in architecture, the inclusion of so-called ecumenical hymns is not going to get worse. We will probably always have some of the more traditional Protestant hymns hanging around, but, as most mainstream denominations continue to veer into Politically-correct looneyland, we probably aren't going to add anything new. Nowhere to go but up.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    Granted, Kathy's remarks were a bit too personal. The things she accused the good father of, she couldn't possibly know unless she really knew the man personally. I doubt she does, but she didn't say. I do think Kathy takes hymns very seriously, and that is a good thing.

    Worship is by far not the worst hymnal out there, but in order to sell, it tries to appeal to a broad audience. It has to. As for propers, some of my folks complained about Ritual Song with readings being too heavy and unwieldy. We actually did a survey, and some mothers told us they couldn't hold a small child on one arm, and hold that heavy hymnal with the other hand. How much more would Worship weigh if there were propers in it? There is a realistic limit to what can be put in a hymnal. A bigger issue is convincing the folks who don't know of CMAA or this forum, that propers are even something important. They don't know that.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,604
    Some types of conversations are not appropriate for public correspondence, because they tend to be traps for egoism in our cognitive-spiritual blindspots.

    This is especially likely between strangers, because there is no authentic relationship that can bring authentic understanding and accountability in a way the feeds virtue.
    Thanked by 1chonak
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,678
    I really don't understand why a hymnal would have propers in it. For me, if I want a hymnal, I want a book with good hymns in it that are well type-set and contain authentic Catholic theology, good poetry, beautiful imagery, etc.

    If I want to be able to read the readings, I want a good hand Missal. I'd want it to be nice looking, sturdy, well type-set, and contain all the readings for the 3 years.

    If I want a book of Psalms, it need not be in a hymnal. It could be its own Psalter.

    My general impression is that parishes should pick one book that is important to them and put it in the pews. If that's a hymnal, so be it - in addition to that hymnal print a weekly handout with the readings (if necessary), translations of the propers that are to be sung, and the numbers from the hymnal that will be sung. If a hand Missal is the book you want in your pews, buy the Lumen Christi Missal and then print out the hymns you want in a handout and note on the handout what page the readings are found on the Lumen Christi Missal - and if you're doing a different proper than what is in there (i.e. if you're using the Simplex) note that.

    I'm just not sure that one book needs to be everything.
  • marajoymarajoy
    Posts: 781
    To a post further up the page:
    That is quite unfair to make slightly veiled accusations like "storming off" and "being childish" and "ignoring questions," referring to Fr. K.

    Not arriving at this conversation til today, I missed the posts that had been edited (so I can't see what *really* happened), but how can you NOT agree we were "ganging up" on him? Certainly not intentionally, but hello, there were like 20 active posters asking Fr. K questions and directing posts at him around the same time... Don't take it personally if he seemingly "ignored" a question, and who is to blame him for getting overwhelmed and not wanting to argue anymore with 20 people who can type faster than him (and have more time to waste,) and all disagree with him and acknowledge that they will never agree with *him* - just mainly hope to challenge *his* views on theology and music.

    That's not being childish. That's, oh, I don't know... being realistic and/or having a life outside the internet, and possibly even being *mature* by acknowledging that this will not be a productive conversation, and it's probably best for all concerned to leave.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    MatthewJ, I would like the option of separate texts. The pastor believes that having to deal with more than one book causes the congregation to stop participating. I don't agree, but I am not in charge. Consequently, I have a hymnal with psalms and readings.
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,535
    From the tone of the subject line I wasn't expecting much of this thread. Bravo to Fr. Krisman for sticking it out long enough to make a couple of constructive points: that it's not mandatory or even particularly logical to look to office music as a model for mass (I speak though as one who just sang Veni Creator and Regina cell for communion!), and that congregational singing of the Gregorian propers is perhaps not a desirable goal (like him I don't think Rossini that much of an improvement over recto toni).

    Is it worthwhile to remind everyone that not only have protestants made a considerable head start in cultivating a tradition of vernacular hymnody, but that non-Catholic liturgical churches have played an important role in cherishing chant from the 1970's to the present? Without my long apprenticeship in Anglican and Lutheran churches it is highly questionable whether the Catholic church I now serve would enjoy (some) chanted propers and renaissance polyphony. When I hear talk of a 'Catholic ethos' I tend to wince and ask "which one?". The more widespread I'm afraid is the one admired and held up to me as a model by my last Methodist minister, whose admiration for Eagles Wings knew no bounds. At St. David's the last two rectors have been converts from the Anglican church and I can hardly begin to express how grateful I am for the musical ethos that prevails there.

    It shouldn't be surprising (or disturbing) that many here insist on going their own way. May they remember that the first letter of CMAA might not stand for what they seem to think, and that our purpose is to share a patrimony of sacred music with those we might not otherwise see eye to eye with.
  • redsox1
    Posts: 202
    Folks, we're getting caught up in the deficiencies of Worship IV when there are so many fundamental problems out there. Today after the choir Mass, our Associate Pastor, who truly sings the Mass (and does it pretty darn well,) thanked me for doing the Sequence. In his 40 years on this earth, NOT ONE parish he attended or served in ministry sang the Sequence on Pentecost! That was an eye-opener for me.

    I think we better balance ideology with pragmatism. I've said this before. This is a LONG process. My parish, which is one of the largest parishes in the Archdiocese of Detroit, was all Haugen and Hass, all the time. Over the past decade, a lot of progress has been made. Today, the music program would be unrecognizable from a decade ago. We are doing chant, have introduced the use of the Propers, the choir is singing quality literature, and we are doing sturdy hymnody and service music. Is is the program perfect? No, not by a long shot, but it is much improved. When I signed on I knew this would be a long-term project.

    We have been blessed with fine associates, who show us daily that the future of church music is a bright one, at least here in Detroit. And, my pastor who is from another generation, has given me much freedom to incorporate these changes for the better. I have earned his trust. I am careful in the changes I make-the progress is never fast enough, but we are progressing.

    Let's focus on the progress that is being made. We all have an idea about what the "perfect" music program is. Unfortunately, we ALL have to live in reality. We need to continue to SERVE the Church and serve her faithful well, with charity and love.
  • Carl DCarl D
    Posts: 992
    Thank you Gavin, Marajoy, for speaking truth and attempting to take the temperature down. This happens fairly often and I find it disturbing.
  • Ted
    Posts: 190
    Kathy's question is good and can be asked of many hymnals published by the Catholic mainstream establishment. The questions asked of Fr K were to the point, but his answers left much to be desired. It is too bad that matters were perceived as getting personal, because I do not think that was the intention of anyone. Perhaps the questions and criticisms could have been phrased differently, but it is easier to do this in hindsight.

    Is any hymnal put out by the American Catholic establishment really Catholic? It just shocks me that a "Catholic" hymnal will have so many hymns by a member of UCC, a community in which many members are perhaps the farthest removed from Catholicism as possible and yet still be labeled "Christian", but virtually no hymns from our dear Eastern brothers in Christ. Why are there no hymns from our close brothers and sisters the Orthodox, and they have had centuries of experience singing beautiful hymns in the Divine Liturgy? What is this fascination with Protestantism and neo-christianty by the Catholic music establishment? Personally, I would rather sing the sentimental stuff from an old St Basil than the watered down stuff by Marty Haugen that even a Gnostic would not object to. Why are there so few wonderful hymns from Eastern Christianity in American so-called Catholic hymnals, a Christianity that is so very close to our own beliefs? Now that would be a realistic ecumenism.
    And I say this with some historical precedent, considering that the formation of Gregorian chant had a strong Byzantine influence 1400 years ago.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW Earl_Grey
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    It seems to me that when I was a teen - during the ending phase of Vatican II - the emphasis was on ecumenism, but it was directed more to the east than to Protestants. I think many easterners looked at the west in horror as liturgy deteriorated and chaos reigned in the Latin church. Obviously, the east wanted nothing to do with that. But for some reason, I thought east/west ecumenism was the primary focus of discussion at the time. Anyone's memory better than mine on that point?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,921
    @Ted: Can you offer any examples of hymns that we might adopt in the West? Are you thinking of propers for specific occasions?

    In the churches where I occasionally attend Divine Liturgy, the liturgy is sung, including its propers, but there's nothing optional in the way a Western "hymn" is.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    Type into Google "Byzantine Catholic Hymnal" and you will see a couple of PDFs from the Metropolitan Cantor Institute. They may be a bit too Slavic for your tastes, but other eastern hymn collections exist.
  • Ted
    Posts: 190
    I was thinking more of the texts of the hymns than the music, because some of our Eastern brethren have musical intervals which may be problematic for Western singers. Russian and Ukrainian hymns would present few problems such as those by Bortniansky (listen on youtube); the texts are wonderful as is the music.
    Ironically some good Protestant hymnals do have Eastern hymns such as The Hymnal 1982 (312,560, 574, etc). The only Eastern hymn Catholic hymnals seem to consistently have is "Let all Mortal Flesh Keep Silence".
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,431
    They're on our side, for crying aloud!!! These people have all been faithful orthodox Catholics who care deeply about the quality of parish music. Yes, they embrace a faulty model, and many of them propagate mediocrity. But they are not our enemies.


    I'm not sure this isn't a little naive. While I'd like to think that the liberal liturgical world is an open, friendly place where folks of all sensibilities dialogue respectfully and take others' contributions seriously, perhaps other like me have noticed that it's really kind of a hardball atmosphere, for us folks with a RotR sensibility.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,431
    I really don't understand why a hymnal would have propers in it. For me, if I want a hymnal, I want a book with good hymns in it that are well type-set and contain authentic Catholic theology, good poetry, beautiful imagery, etc.


    Today I happened to be at the first Mass I've been to that sang a Richard Rice entrance antiphon from the St. Michael Hymnal. It was great. The antiphons only take up a few pages in the hymnal--there are three or maybe four to a page, covering the whole year. Easy peasy.
    Thanked by 1noel jones, aago
  • Upon reflection, I think the Rossini comment was a bit of a red herring more than anything else. Rossini who?

    Honestly, 90+% of the singers I direct have never even heard of Rossini. They're too young. I eschew the Rossini propers, use few psalm-tones in urgent situations, and move singers to authentic Gregorian propers ASAP. Like I said, it's common at my parish to hear 10 year olds chanting propers. Several 13-14 year olds master Alleluias and Offertories in 48 hours. Every week. Because they LOVE to learn the chants. And because we aren't distracted by a cloud of new hymns/songs.

    It's insulting to assume someone sings Rossini, and speaking for the program I direct, factually so far off its funny. That is the snap judgment of someone who hasn't spent much time praying in the Latin mass (OF or EF) in 40 years. It's a passé stereotype.

    One thing I will say Rossini had over a majority of hymns in Worship. No one called the texts and/or authors into question.

    Imagine the great offertory "Jubilate Deo" or the famous introit "Viri Galilei" being considered on par or just another option alongside with "Sing a new church" and "Gather us in". The hubris could only be excused by invincible ignorance. But I find it naive to believe that in all cases.
    Thanked by 3MHI DougS Earl_Grey
  • I understand that hymnals needn't include propers. I agree that hymns are good, and can complement the sacred liturgy very well. I sing them, and treasure them along with the rest of the faithful.

    The problem with Worship IV, and hymnals like it, is a flood of hymns with dubious origin are intended and most often used to replace propers, considered on the same level, and force fed to the faithful. The problem is a cadre of liturgists steering the structure of the mass to suit their own ecclesiology. Do we not know this? Can we not be honest about it? Can we not inquire?

    Hymnals like Worship IV do not present the richness of Catholic sacred liturgy as we have received it. And we know too much to play pretend about it.

    Perhaps the tone- on both sides- was too strong in some cases.

    But I still assert that Kathy's analysis provides necessary information that most pastors and music directors, certainly many faithful deserve to know. And if I were an advisor to Cardinal George, I would respectfully urge a review of those persons acting on liturgical advising committees.
  • And another thing-

    If a parish wants to give parishioners' money to buy ecumenical hymnals, I submit that the product should at least should be billed as such.
    Truth in advertising.

    At the level of the financial council, Kathy has provided a documented consumer alert. Again, kudos.
    Thanked by 2MHI Earl_Grey
  • Gavin wrote:
    Anyone else disturbed by this thread, very deeply?

    Once again, we welcomed a major figure of mainstream American Catholic liturgics into our midst. And once again, we drove him off in record time. Probably the same commenters at fault as last time.

    This is why the CMAA is irrelevant to the rest of the church. It's just a bunch of angry people who want to turn the clock back. Or at least that's the face we're showing.
    Thank you, Gavin, for putting into words some of what I wasn’t able –- or courageous enough –- to say here.

    When I noticed Fr. Ron Krisman’s first post on the CMAA forum just a few days ago –- before the comments made about him earlier in this current thread -- I sent him the following email, based on my own experiences here:
    Ron,

    Thanks for weighing in on the CMAA forum. I often ask myself why I bother over there... but when the integrity of Worship IV is questioned, I just feel the need to defend our work.

    But some of the comments there can come across as uncharitable and narrow-minded. So, be prepared! I've been "burned" a number of times. But I do hope that you continue to offer comments and insights there, as will I when so moved.

    I hope all is well.

    Jim
    So, Ron had the courage to continue to post here for a few days. And he got burned. Badly burned.

    Sad. So very sad.
  • redsox1
    Posts: 202
    Fr. Jim,

    I agree-it's very sad, indeed. I remember being a grad student in the early 90's. I defended the use of the organ, and would include chant and dignified traditional hymns. We even used some (gasp!) Latin. I was seen as hopelessly conservative and "old-fashioned" in my approach to liturgical music. I put up with much abuse! How things have changed in the last twenty years. Now, I find I need to defend myself more from the "right." I fear we are going to alienate the people in the pews if we aren't careful and the real progress that has been made by many individuals (Nestor, Proulx, and others such as yourself) through many years of blood, sweat, and tears will have been in vain. It's very discouraging.
    Thanked by 1Fr. Jim Chepponis
  • redsox1
    Posts: 202
    Oh, and I was setting Entrance and Communion antiphons way back in the 90's well before it was seen as "fashionable" by many.