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?

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.

(There are so many Richards on this group (Rice, Mix, me) that a little disambiguation doesn't hurt!)

"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.

Yes. I am Dorothy!

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

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.

+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.

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?

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.

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.

.

.

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.

.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

Oh, and I was setting Entrance and Communion antiphons way back in the 90's well before it was seen as "fashionable" by many.