To Frs. Jim and Ron (and anyone else):

This is an open forum. It happens to be hosted by CMAA, but the individual posters are expressing their own opinions. While the dynamics of online communities are such that there is an identifiable cluster of people who post more than anyone else, this group of "insiders" at the forum is no more "the CMAA" than anyone else. And the fact that among the group of "regulars" there is a contingent that seems (or is) hostile and unwelcoming should not be considered a reflection on the rest of the constituency 'round these parts.

Please don't judge the forum as a whole based on the behavior of a few of its more active participans. And don't judge CMAA based on the forum. And don't judge the RotR movement based on CMAA. And don't judge traditional sacred music based on the RotR movement.

Except for Adam, who is not likely to be dogmatic really, everyone I know has been burned.

Well, there is this one poster who keeps raking me over the coals with regards to copyright...

Which actually brings up a good point.

Kathy has attacked enthusiastically debated my opinions and philosophy on copyright.
Noel and MJO, and others, have ridiculed fraternally corrected my opinions about the use of piano in liturgy.
Just about everyone here (as far as I can tell) thinks I'm a looney liberal respectfully disagrees with me over my opinions regarding inclusive gender language in liturgical texts.

I subscribe to the Robustness Principle:
Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you transmit.

My opinion is that if I have been offended or hurt, that's on me.
If I have offended or hurt someone else, that's on me too.

The other thing is I don't feel like people need to agree with me for me to like them. I come here because I like the people- even when they annoy me. (Honestly- all the help and advice and practical/spiritual aide pales next to the real reason I come here: you people get my jokes.)

Regarding Fr. Chepponis' contributions, long before I knew what a proper was, he was writing proper-style, antiphon-Psalm processional chants. His classic ordination composition Go Up to the Altar of God was published in 1986. To put this into perspective, in 1986, Pope John Paul had only been Pope for 8 years. This was very early on in the recovery of liturgical sensibilities, prophetically and far-sightedly so.

This thread really interested me as I 1)have had a little more time to read and comment as choir season is over,2) am in the process of looking at hymnals for purchase next year and 3)trying to make sense of the scene as it is offered in the American market. Yes, I read Praytell and every other blog I can when my time allows and I see the biases on both sides of the coin.

I went to an ecumenical divinity school (yes, there are 6 of those in US) and the dialogue at times was fierce and difficult. Liberals were just as difficult as they made conservative folks out to be. And being Catholic in the group only made it more interesting. But, you learned very quickly that you had to be knowledgeable and firm in your identity if you were going to dialogue. One of the Catholic professors said to me once, "If you are fully who you are, the dialogue will never overcome you."

I am sorry that people of other stripes come and go on this blog (and any other blog such as PT), but you lay a question out there such as Kathy did and you are going to get strong answers. The question is: are you afraid you might get an answer that will change your mind. On more than one occasion I have been party to either : changing my mind or changing another person's mind.

And Fr. Krisman, while gracious in his willingness to defend his work on WIV, has a right to speak his ideas and defend them. And to be queried for why the book is what it is. But the discussion is never easy. I am glad he has shown up here and I will encourage him to come back. But I do not think because the discussion got heated is a reason to say, "Okay, behave people...." Yes, think about what you are saying, but do not run away from difficult questions. That is how we learn. By far and away, American Christianity runs away from difficult questions, is attracted by the flashy quick response of televangelism (both Catholic and Protestant) and likes simple, reductionist answers.

Be gracious, but don't run away from difficulty. Engage it and wrestle it.

Okay, back to Bonaventure for me.....

from the bourbon lands

Not sure that there's anything's available for that ...

Back to my original point, neither you nor I are the sum of Catholic music. There is much more to it than either of us. Or as I tell my students when they ask the why of something beyond my control, "I didn't make the world!"

The Church, like society, is badly divided on fundamental issues as we all know. These blogs can reflect that division passionately at times, especially when discussions are not face to face, but in the form of pure words coming at you onto a screen from somewhere-land. The fundamental presuppositions of the parties are different, so there is really very little to start discussions from that will lead to any fruitful agreement. In this case it is a fundamental disagreement over ecclesiology as someone mentioned, not helped by some of the ambiguities and tensions in the Vatican II documents. On the one hand we are told that Gregorian Chant is to have first place in the liturgy, and then the "buts" follow. Some folks take the first place of Gregorian Chant seriously, while others see the use of Protestant hymns as valid liturgical alternatives. For guidance perhaps we have to look to Rome as has often been the case to see what is done there. But of course others will argue that this is USA etc....

As for Worship IV, the local rural parish near me that started using it is very disappointed with it, and regrets its purchase. There are not enough traditional Catholic hymns, no Propers including no Gospel Alleluias, no Eucharistic prayers, too many theologically misleading if not questionable hymns, and in too many cases what sounds like computer generated music. The parish was in a hurry to get an all purpose service book and hymnal when the new Missal translation came into effect as their Missalette term was to expire and they did not want to continue with those disposables. They actually did seriously consider the Vatican II hymnal, even though the weight of going with the well established Catholic publishers was strong. What finally did it was the size of the print of the readings which is smaller in the Vatican II hymnal, and Worship III was already being used in other churches in the area without complaints. But times have changed. In hindsight, they would have gotten the St Michael's hymnal, but the new edition was not available at the time, and it is now too late after having spent so much money.

I agree, MHI. A council of the Latin church occurred in my early years, and it decided the liturgy needed revisions. Then those revisions were administered by what I have sometime thought of as a bunch of goofs - looking at the actual implementation and its effects. The process was not managed well at all. So, here we are now.

I can work with Worship IV, because I want it for hymns, psalms, and readings. The pastor wants all that in one book, which is a decision maker. Propers are something I give to the choir and cantors, and the congregation hears them, but doesn't see them. The congregation doesn't need to see them to begin with. The congregation doesn't need copies of the gospel acclamations, either. Those are simple enough that they can sing what they hear.

melo

I don't agree that this opp was squandered. It is only that if the participants refuse to continue the conversation. Good and great things do not come easy whether it's wine, music or anything else worth sweating over. Those who walk away from the subject at hand are either afraid to face the music or are just out to drink the wine to feel good. There are great minds here and I suspect all eyes are still glued to this thread. I challenge us all to rise above our ruffled feathers and get on with the responsibility of actually creating a Catholic Pew Resource that works. Adam and Jeff have begun to forge that frontier, but we have a lot still to be accomplished. Let's figure this out!

This is not just an interest or a hobby for me. I, personally, am committed to finding a good solution.

BTW... The solution must be grounded in the sound knowledge (historical foundations, traditions and philosophy) of authentic sacred music.

At the risk of beating a dead horse - it was not just a matter of one of the participants "refus[ing] to continue the conversation" because he's "afraid to face the music." In any discussion there's bound to be red herrings, unfair comments, the regular flotsam and jetsam of fallen human nature. I would hope that any participant in an online discussion can handle this. But when I saw a personal comment that went beyond the issues at hand I found it hard to blame one of the participants from leaving.

There is a very important issue at stake here - why is the flagship resource of one of the major Catholic music publishers almost completely devoted to hymns? Is this what Vatican II envisioned? Is this what the Roman Missal lays down as normative? Is this what the tradition and sensibility of the Church demands? To me this is the fundamental issue. The fact that so many of the hymns are written by non-Catholics (shorthand, as I take it, for saying that they are off-center in terms of a full Catholic understanding of the liturgy) is only a symptom of the underlying problem.

I think those introits are quite nice. It's an interesting new model that I haven't seen used with propers before, but could be quite useful in some situations where a more typical arrangement, such as SEP or GR, might not work as well.

Liam wrote

Posts: 793
This was not a good conversation about the topic. It was a poor conversation about the topic. (And, lest one mistake me as overly irenic in my conversational goals, that's not what I am saying.) A conversation of this sort requires a great deal more prep at that meta level, and ideally at the authentic relationship level, in order to become a fruitful one (which is one element of being a good conversation).

Liam

We are all certainly aware of the tensions between these two philosophies, and yes, this may have been a poor way to start, but we must move beyond the petty scuffles and get down to answering the difficult questions of what comprises an excellent CATHOLIC pew resource. In my mind there is SO much good content (old and new) it is difficult to make something that is comprehensive and that doesn't require a Missal stand, is easy to read and logical in it's approach to the liturgical year. It's a tall order, and it goes way beyond 600 hymns and 100 Responsorial psalms.

It seems to me that if one doesn't want to comment on a thread, then one doesn't have to.
I'd much rather discuss the topic at hand and its connecting points than have to sift through all the commenting about...
commenting.

Fr. R.K.:

This crowd has driven off many others in the past, so you can imagine the thought process around here, particularly among those of us (or is it just me) who grow increasingly wearied of the nattering nabobs of negativism.

Funny... you aren't driven off! How come!?

I already said- you people get my jokes.

Glad We didn't drive you off!

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Sometimes I would rather beat them than join them - and I mean severely, too. LOL.

Kathy’s “set-up” for this discussion, in which she states that “the following things also seem true about the adoption of texts into this hymnal (Worship IV)” makes an initial statement about something which “seems true” to her, but which is not, followed by two more statements which seem true to her (and to me too) which provoke in me the response, “So what?” She writes that

1) The sources for revisions to texts are earlier editions of Worship, and Lutheran and Episcopal hymnals.

My actual words, under First Use of “Fertilizing” in a Hymn?, are: “Our committee compared original hymn texts (as far as we were able to determine), with various edited and altered versions in Worship II, Worship III and other hymnals (most often Lutheran and Episcopal ones).” Kathy’s version turns my list into a taxative one; it is not.

2) Office hymns were not considered models of what the hymnal should be striving for.

So what? I do not know why any hymnal/service book intended primarily for use at Eucharist should be geared toward the Liturgy of the Hours. Several other contributors have already stated this better than I. Why don’t we ask that ICEL, in its upcoming revision of the Liturgy of the Hours, restore many or most of the Latin breviary hymns, present them with music, and with marvelous new English translations?

3) New texts for hymns of the day were largely the work of Protestant hymn writers, generally active in the liberal Protestant Hymn Society of the United States and Canada.

So what? What’s really important is that every one of these hymn texts is doctrinally sound for Catholics and that they are appropriate for the Church’s liturgy. What’s really important is that each of these hymn writers is recognized throughout the English-speaking world as being an accomplished one. Hymnal editors of English-language Catholic and non-Catholic hymnals alike very much know the names and the texts of Troeger, Duck, Stuempfle, Bell, Pratt Green, Dunstan, and Daw. And more and more, they are getting to know those of Tice, Bringle, and Dufner, the latter of which I had the great privilege of serving as editor and persistent devil’s advocate during the preparation of her hymn collection published in 2011, And Every Breath a Song.

I’ve previously addressed Kathy's putting my name on the list of hymn writers represented in Worship IV. I do not consider myself a hymn writer. Also Marty Haugen has no hymn text included in Worship IV’s listing of “Hymns for the Church Year.” However, he does have a great tune: SHANTI

Kathy's points 1 and 4 seem to call into question the very existence of Catholic hymnals.
Is that your intention?

If so, then your issue is not with Worship IV (or III, II, or I) but with (essentially) all hymnals everywhere.

If not, what do you imagine a hymnal ought to look like? A metrical Graduale?

Adam, not at all sure why you think any of those things. They do not follow at all from what I wrote. (responding to your first comment just above)

Responding to your second comment,

Basically, yes. Then it would be what I would consider a Catholic hymnal. Not a missal, obviously, but a Catholic hymnal, expressing and promoting, richly, the Catholic faith.

A new hymnal could be The New Evangelization. Imagine!

I don't really blame people who haven't done this. We live in confusing times. But nor do I think the People of God should be saddled with lame-o texts.

So you aren't taking general issue with the concept or organizational paradigm of hymnals such as Worship IV (et al), but specifically with the contents?

(That sounded like an prosecutorial leading question.... like my next post will be "Ah HA!"
Not my intention- I just wanted to make sure I understood you, because apparently I didn't before.)

I was right. Not a thing.

http://isitathing.com/a-good-hymnal

TYPE SLOWER

TYPE SLOWER

No.

Is our argument right now ecumenical?