The Hymnal 1940 for an EF Parish
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,365


    '...THE GREATEST TUNE... .'

    Well, I can see why one might assert that. But, to me, its a bit strident. While I do like it once in a (great) while, there are others that are, um, somewhat more seemly. I would nominate the likes of Winchester Old, or St Albinus, or St Magnus, or Wareham, etc. There are so many. How does one choose? Ein' feste Burg always seems to me like the Christian version of Deutschland, Deutschland, uber alles. Of course, it is the 'national anthem' of Lutherandom. (And, one hasn't really sung it 'til one has sung it to the isorhythmic version of the tune used by our Lutheran friends!)
  • StimsonInRehabStimsonInRehab
    Posts: 1,916
    I'd be for using the 1940, if only because it meant everyone could be exposed to that little jewel by Lesbia Scott, I Sing a Song of the Saints of God.

    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,369
    The "Catholic" hymnals in the pews have no more ecclesiastical approbation than the '40. ...

    The Westminster Hymnal (coincidentally 1940) on my shelf has an Imprimatur. But of course these hymns are not intended for use in the Mass, except that "some of them might well be sung by the congregation in place of the 'customary' motet". I cannot say that this suggestion of the congregation singing something not part of the liturgy while the priest gets on with the sacred action appeals to me, or of the choir similarly singing a motet. I feel glad that from 1944 to 1960 I lived in a Benedictine parish where chant was the norm, and was never subjected to the experience my wife had in Dublin of a cleric leading the recitation of the rosary throughout Mass except at the consecration.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Stimson,

    That's a question of mutual enrichment going the other way, as it were. Sneaky Mrs. Scott managed to get the Communion of Saints into the Episcopal hymnal. It masquerades as a children's hymn.
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,148
    I suppose it would be anathema to say that 'Ein Feste Burg' is probably THE GREATEST TUNE ever written by ANYONE.
    I don't know about anathema, but more likely it's just plain wrong.

    Others citing hymn/chorale tunes might choose that tune which is known to Catholics (and others) as PASSION CHORALE, but of course, that tune was first set as a chorale to the text "Herzlich Tut Mich Verlangen" and hence also known by that name. However, the original tune was set to a love song, "Mein Gmuth ist mir verwiret" ("My heart is distracted by a gentle maid"), in Hans Leo Hassler's Lustgarten Neuer Deutscher Gesang, 1601. Does that make it a dreadful mismatched mix of salt and sugar? For what it's worth, to me it is a better tune than "Ein feste Burg".
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • StimsonInRehabStimsonInRehab
    Posts: 1,916
    I have yet to meet any saints "at tea", Cee-Gee-Zee. Of course, my tea parties are a wild mix of Emily Post decorum and elderberry-wine induced delirium.

    (I also can't help but wonder how many "Children's Hour" jokes were made about Mrs. Scott's first name during class . . .)
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,365


    Chris -

    With due and genuine respect -
    It seems to me that you are bending over backwards and with relish, even, to discredit any expression of Truth that wasn't actually penned by a practicing Catholic, and not to give credit where credit is due for the expressions of Truth that do exist amongst our separated brethren, whom God really does love. You might more profitably and admirably harp on the heresy penned by Catholics that is sung in our churches every week from hymnals published by our mendacious and doctrinally bankrupt publishers.

    I am reminded of one of my favourite prayers, a collect from the BCP -
    O Lord, put a stop to our lips
    that we may not speak that which is untrue,
    or, being true, is only half true,
    or, being wholly true, is merciless.

    Your merciless ethnic denominational cleansing is becoming quite imaginative and quite ugly.

    (Further: You, as [I think] an ex-Anglican, should be in on the fact that Anglicans do believe in the communion of saints. This truth didn't need to be sneeked in, as it were, through the back door, 'masqueraded as a children's hymn'.)
    Thanked by 1moderntrad
  • ClemensRomanusClemensRomanus
    Posts: 1,023
    I don't see why it couldn't be used. Tons more orthodox than many hymns in hymnals by the big three.
    Thanked by 1moderntrad
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    I suppose it would be anathema to say that 'Ein Feste Burg' is probably THE GREATEST TUNE ever written by ANYONE.

    I don't know about anathema, but more likely it's just plain wrong.

    It's probably the German Lutheran side of my family coming out in me!
    Thanked by 2M. Jackson Osborn CHGiffen
  • moderntradmoderntrad
    Posts: 49
    How much horse dung will you happily consume when it is mixed with your grandmother's traditional brownie recipe? (This isn't meant as a dismissal of your observation at all, but rather a challenge to see that while truth is truth -- and your grandmother's traditional brownie recipe is excellent -- when elements which are foreign to it are introduced, we must weigh carefully the content.


    Here is your problem. Protestant hymns are not the horse dung of the recipe. The current "Catholic" hymnody is the horse dung, and (many of) the protestant hymns in the '40 are rich, exotic fudge, which make the brownie that much tastier.
    Thanked by 4Spriggo M. Jackson Osborn CHGiffen Richard Mix
  • moderntradmoderntrad
    Posts: 49
    The Westminster Hymnal (coincidentally 1940) on my shelf has an Imprimatur.


    Unfortunately, the Westminster Hymnal is not sitting in many, if any, pews... would that we could fill a Catholic Church with a hymnal like that, but it's currently out of publication.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    Has the CMAA ever considered publishing a hymnal? Just a hymnal - no Mass ordinaries, or anything - along the lines of the English Hymnal or the 1940 or 1982. Something that has excellent contents for Devotions, and for use before and after Mass IN BOTH FORMS, drawing on the wealth of hymnody in the PD (and even some Copyrighted works), with a clean, conventional layout, and excellent typography?

    It seems to me, that while we spend so much time producing beautiful new books of Chant, we could also produce a wonderful, solid, rich, resource of hymns that would rival the beauty of old, since, it seems, many 'solid' Catholic hymnals suffer from poor layout and bad typography, since they are published without the resources of the larger firms, such as GIA - whose hymnals are actually quite nice, I think, from a publishing standpoint. Just a thought. (Obviously Chant is still holds First Place!)
    Thanked by 5M. Jackson Osborn JulieColl moderntrad CHGiffen CharlesW
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,940
    Thinking of more Protestant tunes:

    Don't forget the Genevan Psalter tunes.

    Of the tunes RVW's excavated and repurposed in the 1906 English Hymnal, DANBY is a particular favorite of mine I wish were more often used.

    And then there's Ireland's LOVE UNKNOWN with the text by Crossman.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Gavin
  • MarkThompson
    Posts: 768
    Here's the passage I was reaching for:

    "We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants…"

    --Msgr. Annibale Bugnini, L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965



    That's actually not what he said at all. You can read page 6 of the famous March 19, 1965 L'Osservatore Romano here (see top of the fourth column). He is in fact not talking about the new form of Mass at all, but about revisions to the Good Friday "heretics and schismatics" prayer in the old form of the Mass. The title of the article is "Revisions to some 'solemn prayers' of Good Friday." Regarding the change, he says,

    "E tuttavia l'amore delle anime e il desiderio di agevolare in ogni modo il cammino dell'unione ai fratelli separati, rimovendo ogni pietra che possa constituire pur lontanamente un inciampo o motivo di disagio, hanno indoto la Chiesa anche a quiesti penosi sacrifici."

    which is,

    "And yet the love of souls and the desire to facilitate in every way the path of union for separated brothers, removing any stone that could constitute, even if distantly, an obstacle or motive of discomfort, have led the Church also to these painful sacrifices."

    In other words, the removal of the "heretic" imprecation is not to please Protestants abstractly, but to facilitate their "path of union" with the Church (the idea being that calling people heretics for disagreeing with you usually makes them less likely, not more likely, to adopt your beliefs). As you can see, anyway, the version you posted is essentially a complete fabrication.
    Thanked by 3M. Jackson Osborn CHGiffen hilluminar
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Thanks for the fascinating correction, MarkThompson. I wasn't aware of this controversy before, and I don't read Italian, so I'm unable to verify your translation. A preliminary search, however, shows that the quote in question was cited in a 1982 sermon given by Archbishop Lefebrve,

    And Bugnini himself said on March 19, 1965, as can still be read in the “Osservatore Romano" and in “Documentation Catholique," which magazines published a translation of Bugnini's discourse “We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is for the Protestants.":


    and also in an article by Michael Davies and by Kenneth Wolfe in a NY Times op-ed so apparently my unwitting misquote, if it is such, has placed me in the company of some illustrious folks.
  • MichaelDickson
    Posts: 419
    Whatever one thinks of Bugnini, Lefebvre, etc., the facts are as stated. The sequence of events seems to start with the passage in L'Osservatore Romano, which is pretty clearly specifically about the Good Friday prayer. (Whether the sentiment was actually held more generally by Bugnini is another question, but what he was talking about there was specifically the Good Friday prayer.)

    Lefebvre slightly misquoted and radically took out of context the passage from L'Osservatore Romano -- and again, whatever one wants to say of his overall motives, doing so served his purpose quite well. It seems to have been picked up from there and gained a life of its own.
    Thanked by 1hilluminar
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Modern Trad,

    Your revulsion at the idea of a comparison with horse dung is precisely why I used a second analogy. Horse dung isn't for eating by humans, but it is a very valuable source of nitrogen, and great things grow with the proper fertilizer. Salt and sugar are both good, but not interchangeable. Salt and sugar are both used as preservatives, but in different ways and with different results.

    My objection isn't to Protestants using Protestant music, or to Catholics using what can be rescued from its misplacement within Protestant hymnals. My objection is to using vernacular Protestant hymns in a Protestant-published hymnal within the context of a Catholic Mass. Protestantism is (a collection of ) heresy, plain and simple. Is everything which Protestants have produced evil? That's probably an overstatement.

    Jackson,

    Some Anglicans claim to have valid orders. The essential question was settled by Pope Leo XIII. To the extent that Anglicans believe in the Communion of Saints, many, but perhaps not all, don't have a Catholic understanding of the reality. They don't usually mean the same thing by grace that Catholics do. I have many Protestant friends, former colleagues and family, so I'm not completely un-familiar with the territory. Because of that, I can say what I said when my eldest was a newborn: the surface similarities mask a deep chasm.

    Stimson,

    Is tea a meal you have at all sorts of times of the day, under all sorts of conditions? To meet saints at tea, in effect, is to verge on universalism. For what it's worth, I like the text and the tune, but I wouldn't use either at Mass.

    Seriously, folks: read Anglicanorum Coetibus and Tra Le Sollecitudini. I'm not saying anything evil or uncharitable.
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,767
    I happily attend every Mass... which doesn't use altar girls, un-necessary ministers of Holy Communion, microphones, inclusive language...and permits us to face God together,
    Sounds like Protestant hymnals are the least of your problems.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Richard,

    I have regular access to the Extraordinary, Venerable Rite, thanks be to God. One of my favorite priests doesn't celebrate the Extraordinary Form, yet. When I have the chance to assist at a Mass which he says, I don't worry about Mass being about worshipping man.
    Thanked by 1StimsonInRehab
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    First of all, MichaelD., I don't have a dog in this fight re: the controversial quote, nor do I have any agenda other than to prove that one is permitted to sing Anglican hymns at an EF Mass. I brought up the fact that the Novus Ordo has a strong ecumenical direction and framework not to attack it, but merely to illustrate that if the Church can adopt an ecumenically-inspired liturgy, Catholics are certainly free to sing Anglican hymns at Mass.

    However, since both Arbp. Lefebvre and I have been attacked, I feel it only fair to address these points beginning with the proviso that I have not, nor have I ever been, a Lefebvrist.

    First of all, I have not "fabricated" anything, but merely repeated a well-known quote that has been used by many honorable people. Whether you like Michael Davies, Kenneth Wolfe, Fr. Zuhldsorf or Arbp. Lefebvre, it is beyond doubt that they are serious people. As for Arbp. Lefebvre, whether you love, dislike him, or take a position anywhere in between, noone, to my knowledge, has ever questioned his veracity or sincere intentions.

    I quoted the archbishop in my comment above where he cited two sources for the translation of the alleged Bugnini statement. I am not prepared to accept prima facie your assertion that the archbishop "misquoted and radically took out of context" the Bugnini statement. Until and unless we see the evidence, your assertion is gratuitous and your allegation against Arbp. Lefebrve unproven. Let me say here that I am not taking a definitive position and will attempt to contact the authorities in the Society for an explication of this question since it is a very interesting question, although you haven't proved your assertion at all.

    Lastly, in the interests of truth, although I am not in any way intending to impugn either Arbp. Bugnini or his reform of the Roman rite, there are three facts regarding Arbp. Bugnini which are indisputable: 1) the prayers eliminated by Arbp. Bugnini in the 1962 Missal bear an uncanny resemblance to those eliminated by Arbp. Cranmer in his 1549 Communion Service, 2) Jean Guitton, long-time personal friend of Pope Paul VI, claimed that Pope Paul VI tried to make the Catholic Mass as close as possible to the Calvinist Lord's Supper, and 3) six Protestant ministers, as I've said before, were active participants in the drawing-up of the Novus Ordo.

    Now, I'm not using these three facts to attack the Novus Ordo, but rather merely to prove that the Novus Ordo has as its origin a strong ecumenical framework and dimension, so much so that Pope Benedict XVI claimed it to be a rupture in the organic development of the liturgy and, of course, we are all aware of the famous statement by Cardinal Ottaviani in his role as Prefect of the CDF, that the Novus Ordo, in whole and in part bears a striking departure from the theology of the sacrifice of the Mass as defined by the Council of Trent.

    So, to close, the New Mass is ecumenically situated (I'm not attacking it, just stating a fact), and as to whether or not Arbp. Bugnini's words were taken out of context, no proof has been presented that Arbp. Lefebrve did so, or that if he did, that he did so deliberately.

    The ecumenical credentials of the Novus Ordo are beyond dispute. Most traditionalists would use this fact to attack the Novus Ordo, but that is not my purpose. My purpose is simply to state that if we can be given an ecumenically-derived and ecumenically sympathetic liturgy, then there shouldn't be too much problem with singing an Anglican hymn at the EF.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,157
    Since Salieri posted "Lo, he comes with clouds descending" to submit it for scrutiny, perhaps this might be a good opportunity to post a recording of it. Apocalyptic hymns are fine material for weddings, especially if the bride, the organist, the conductor, and half the choir are also CMAA members:

    https://soundcloud.com/rjl210/lo-he-comes-with-clouds?in=rjl210/sets/wedding-mass-of-elisabeth

    Thanked by 2CHGiffen M. Jackson Osborn
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,148
    Simply sublime, stunningly so, chonak! Many thanks for sharing this recording.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,365
    A perfectly Anglican pace!
    Do you know whose was the harmonisation of the third stanza?
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,157
    The conductor might recall the arranger's name.
    Thanked by 2M. Jackson Osborn CHGiffen
  • MichaelDickson
    Posts: 419
    Sorry if I caused offense. It was not my intention.

    First of all, MichaelD., I don't have a dog in this fight re: the controversial quote, nor do I have any agenda other than to prove that one is permitted to sing Anglican hymns at an EF Mass. I brought up the fact that the Novus Ordo has a strong ecumenical direction and framework not to attack it, but merely to illustrate that if the Church can adopt an ecumenically-inspired liturgy, Catholics are certainly free to sing Anglican hymns at Mass.


    My only intention was to add a voice of confirmation (fallible, doubtable, etc.) to what was said about the historical facts.

    However, since both Arbp. Lefebvre and I have been attacked, I feel it only fair to address these points beginning with the proviso that I have not, nor have I ever been, a Lefebvrist.


    I'm sorry if you felt attacked. I'm having a hard time seeing how anything I said was an attack on you (but perhaps you are referring to something else). That Lefebvre was misleading in his reference to Bugnini seems clear to me (see below), and whether pointing it out constitutes an attack I'll leave to others to decide, but I have no interest in or intention of making attacks.

    First of all, I have not "fabricated" anything, but merely repeated a well-known quote that has been used by many honorable people. Whether you like Michael Davies, Kenneth Wolfe, Fr. Zuhldsorf or Arbp. Lefebvre, it is beyond doubt that they are serious people. As for Arbp. Lefebvre, whether you love, dislike him, or take a position anywhere in between, noone, to my knowledge, has ever questioned his veracity or sincere intentions.


    I don't think I ever accused you of fabrication! (I certainly didn't intend to.) Another poster described Lefebvre's statement as fabrication; I don't think he was referring to your quotation of Lefebvre, but only to what Lefebvre himself said. Nor, just as an aside, would I, personally, characterize what Lefebvre said as a 'fabrication' so much as a misquotation out of context (which could have many causes, fabrication one of them).

    I quoted the archbishop in my comment above where he cited two sources for the translation of the alleged Bugnini statement. I am not prepared to accept prima facie your assertion that the archbishop "misquoted and radically took out of context" the Bugnini statement. Until and unless we see the evidence, your assertion is gratuitous and your allegation against Arbp. Lefebrve unproven. Let me say here that I am not taking a definitive position and will attempt to contact the authorities in the Society for an explication of this question since it is a very interesting question, although you haven't proved your assertion at all.


    I didn't intend to prove my assertion. The evidence is what was posted already. Lefebvre (in 1982) claims to be quoting Bugnini from the source that was posted. What he writes is both not a quotation and taken out of context. You said that you do not read Italian. Fair enough. I do read Italian, and was simply adding a voice to the original statement that what Lefebvre said that Bugnini said is not what Bugnini said.

    Lastly, in the interests of truth, although I am not in any way intending to impugn either Arbp. Bugnini or his reform of the Roman rite, there are three facts regarding Arbp. Bugnini which are indisputable: 1) the prayers eliminated by Arbp. Bugnini in the 1962 Missal bear an uncanny resemblance to those eliminated by Arbp. Cranmer in his 1549 Communion Service, 2) Jean Guitton, long-time personal friend of Pope Paul VI, claimed that Pope Paul VI tried to make the Catholic Mass as close as possible to the Calvinist Lord's Supper, and 3) six Protestant ministers, as I've said before, were active participants in the drawing-up of the Novus Ordo.


    I don't deny any of this, nor what follows in your post. However, my intention was to stay out of any controversies regarding these matters, and speak only to the facts of the matter regarding the quotation in question (which is why I added qualifiers such as "Whether the sentiment was actually held by Bugnini is another question" and so on).

    I'm not attacking it, just stating a fact


    My intentions were similar. Sorry if they came across any other way.

    as to whether or not Arbp. Bugnini's words were taken out of context, no proof has been presented that Arbp. Lefebrve did so, or that if he did, that he did so deliberately.


    The original from which Lefebvre claims to take the quotation has been posted. Lefebvre's attribution has been posted. They don't match. Moreover, nowhere in his quotation of Bugnini does Lefebvre mention that the context of Bugnini's comments was the Good Friday prayer. Instead, the context of his remarks is the mass in general, and the clear suggestion in Lefebvre's text is that Bugnini too is speaking of the mass in general.

    I make no claims about Lefebvre's intentions, but the evidence for misquotation and taking out of context seem quite clear. If you disagree, that's fair enough. These are matters of judgment.

    Again, my sincere apologies if I caused offense. Such was not my intention.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    My apologies for misattributing someone else's comments for yours and thanks for the clarification.

    I agree that this matter deserves further investigation. I find it significant that Arbp. Lefebvre cited in his sermon two sources for the translation of Bugnini's words. Perhaps there was a question even then about the quote and he wanted to make sure he gave authoritative sources. What does the English or French version of the March, 1965 L'Osservatore Romano say, I wonder, if there was an official English or French version back then.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Answering my own question: The weekly English edition began in 1968, the French weekly edition in 1949 so is it possible the Archbishop quoted the French edition?

    Also I think it's important to remember that Archbishop L. knew Archbishop B. personally and was closely involved in the work on the liturgy during the Council and certainly had first hand knowledge of many of the events that transpired. It's difficult to imagine that he could have made such a blunder in this matter, especially since many of their contemporaries were still alive in 1982.

    You'd think there would have been an enormous kerfuffle after his 1982 sermon if Arbp. Lefebvre had made such an egregious error and falsely attributed incendiary words to his ideological nemesis. I'm sure Arbp. L was being closely monitored by his opponents and they would have gleefully seized such an opportunity to discredit the Arbp.

    Likewise with Michael Davies who also used the allegedly erroneous quote. It's all a bit mysterious.
  • MichaelDickson
    Posts: 419
    It's all a bit mysterious.


    I agree. It's a hash of personalities, relationships, attributions, misattributions, etc., that is difficult to unravel. It would be nice if somebody who is fair-minded and has good research abilities would try to sort it out.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Yes, I'd like to know more, too. It isn't consistent with Archbishop Lefebrve's known persona to make such a crucial error. His sermons were indeed closely monitored by his critics, and, to my knowledge, while he was often accused of not having proper "tone," he was never accused of sloppy or devious scholarship.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,605
    Has the CMAA ever considered publishing a hymnal?


    The PBEH now listed as English Hymns in the Commons, was Jeffrey Tucker's idea, thinking that CMAA could do a hymnal. Starting out with PDF's online that could be used immediately by those that wanted them, there was more than a bit of sniping over choice of hymns and that made it obvious that it would have been a waste of time a fruitless venture, I think.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    (This may, very likely, get split into a new conversation, but...)

    I would think that a project like that would have to be undertaken by a select group of people with a true love of English Hymnody and an almost infallible taste in harmonizations - nothing needlessly clever (like the harmonies for some hymns in another hymnal which shall remain nameless) - and in typography/design (ahem).

    (A hymnal edited by Noel, Chuck, Adam (W.), Kathy and Jackson, would, I think, probably be a splendid anthology.)

    My .02 .
    Thanked by 2JulieColl CharlesW
  • MichaelDickson
    Posts: 419
    Yes, I'd like to know more, too.


    Alright, I was compelled to spend a little time looking around. I have no more time, now, and things are getting well off-topic, perhaps, but here's what I found, looking first, more carefully, at the original Italian, and then hunting for the original French translation. Alas, it seems that the archives of L'Osservatore Romano are not available online, and apparently they are not taking requests to supply individual articles from the past, so finding an actual print copy of the original would take some doing. I was able to find what claims to be a quotation from the original. No guarantees...

    (Prior to the passage quoted below, Bugnini describes several changes to the Good Friday prayer.)

    Here is the original Italian (taken from the scan of the original – for what it’s worth I found a couple of online transcriptions that are wrong in places, though not in ways that seem to make any substantial difference – they are more like typos):

    Gli studiosi penseranno e mettere in luce le fonti bibliche e liturgiche da cui derivano o alle quali si inspirano i nuovi testi, elaborati col cesello dai Gruppi di studio del 'Consilium'. E diciamo pure che non di rado lavore è proceduto 'cum timore et tremore' nel dover sacrificare espressioni e concetti tanto cari, e ormai per lunga consuetudine familiari. Come non rimpiangere per esempio “ad sanctam matrem Ecclesiam catolicam atque apostolicam revocare dignetur” della settima orazione? E tuttavia l'amore delle anime e il desiderio di agevolare in ogni modo il cammino dell'unione ai fratelli separati, rimovendo ogni pietra che possa constituire pur lontanamente un inciampo o motivo di disagio, hanno indotto la Chiesa anche a quiesti penosi sacrifici.



    Here is a translation of it (rough and a bit too literal in places, leaving the Latin parts alone):

    "Scholars think to put light on biblical and liturgical sources from which the new texts are derived or inspired, effected by a chisel by the Study Groups of the “Consilium”. And let’s say that not infrequently work proceeded ‘cum timore et tremore’ by sacrificing expressions and concepts so dear, and now part of a long family tradition. How not to regret, for example, “ad sanctam matrem Ecclesiam catolicam atque apostolicam revocare dignetur” of the seventh prayer? And yet the love of souls and the desire to facilitate in any way the path of union to the separated brethren, removing every stone that can constitute even remotely constitute a stumble or a reason for discomfort [probably meaning ‘stumbling block or embarrassment’], have induced the Church to make even these painful sacrifices."


    And here is the original French (from an online quotation, here: http://www.nostra-aetate.org/HTML_La-lettre-Serviam/2010/SERVIAM_027.html – I make no claims about its faithfulness to the original, as I cannot seem to find the original anywhere):

    Les spécialistes ont pensé à mettre en lumière les sources bibliques et liturgiques dont découlent ou s'inspirent les nouveaux textes, lesquels ont été ciselés par les groupes d'étude du Consilium. Disons aussi que bien souvent le travail s’est effectué “avec crainte et tremblement” lorsqu'il s’agissait de sacrifier des expressions et des concepts si chers et auxquels on était familiarisé depuis toujours. Comment par exemple ne pas regretter le ad sanctam matrem Ecclesiam catholicam atque apostolicam revocare dignetur de la septième oraison? Là encore, en faisant ces sacrifices pénibles, l'Église a été guidée par l'amour des âmes et le désir de tout faire pour faciliter à nos frère séparés le chemin de l'union, en écartant toute pierre qui pourrait constituer ne serait-ce que l'ombre d'un risque d'achoppement ou de déplaisir.


    This, translated, says much the same (except that the Latin has been translated to French for some reason). Where the Italian speaks of ‘family tradition’ the French simply refers to 'longtime familiar'. The last sentence changes the word order and the part about stumbling blocks reads, roughly, “discarding every stone which could constitute even the shadow of a risk of stumbling or displeasure.”

    I was unable to find a copy (online) of the Documentation Catholique (except that the publication into is: Apr 4, 1965, No. 1445, p. 603). Their online archives go back only to 1998, apparently. I think that getting further might involve visits to libraries.
    Thanked by 2JulieColl eft94530
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Ah, hah! The mystery deepens! My apologies, too, for this diversion, but many thanks, Michael, for your outstanding and speedy research. I have emailed Fr. Jurgen Wegner, the American District Superior of the SSPX, asking him if he might have any further information or commentary on Archbishop Lefebrve's 1982 sermon.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,933
    In any event, too much time and effort was spent worrying about how things would affect the "separated brethren." Many of the changes did not bring in said "brethren," but caused countless Catholics to leave the church. Can I say again what I have often said in the past? It would have been better if Paul VI had spent his life in prayer and meditation and never have entered the Vatican.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,933
    nothing needlessly clever (like the harmonies for some hymns in another hymnal which shall remain nameless) -


    Yes! Traditional harmonizations, not "cleverness" by musicians who are not as clever as they think.

    and in typography/design (ahem).


    Yes, again. Standard hymn layout without multiple pages.

    Also, standard hymns that people know and will sing. Not a collection of stuff because it is out of print and cheap.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Julie,

    I enjoyed reading your long post. Yes,

    My purpose is simply to state that if we can be given an ecumenically-derived and ecumenically sympathetic liturgy, then there shouldn't be too much problem with singing an Anglican hymn at the EF.


    Of the Popes in question since the establishing of the "ecumenically-derived and ecumenically sympathetic liturgy", how many were friends of the EF?



    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    Also, standard hymns that people know and will sing. Not a collection of stuff because it is out of print and cheap.

    Yes. Though, I wouldn't object to the inclusion of some of the excellent new texts and tunes seen on this forum.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,933
    Yes. Though, I wouldn't object to the inclusion of some of the excellent new texts and tunes seen on this forum.


    I wouldn't object, either. I am sure we all know of that infamous hymnal with verses spread across multiple pages and filled with hymns so old I don't even remember hearing them. That was supposed to be the answer to our hymnal problems, remember? LOL. That hymnal also had too few hymns to be practical.
    Thanked by 1Salieri
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    Guys...

    Making a hymnal is HARD.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen mattebery
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,605
    (A hymnal edited by Noel, Chuck, Adam (W.), Kathy and Jackson, would, I think, probably be a splendid anthology.)
    For some reason, this brings to mind One Flew Over The...of course, that was before Xanax, right?
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Adam Wood
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,365








  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    Yeah, forget I mentioned it. Been kicking myself in the *** ever since.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    (A hymnal edited by Noel, Chuck, Adam (W.), Kathy and Jackson, would, I think, probably be a splendid anthology.)


    I'm honored to be included in such a list...
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,148
    (A hymnal edited by Noel, Chuck, Adam (W.), Kathy and Jackson, would, I think, probably be a splendid anthology.)


    I'm honored to be included in such a list...

    As am I.
  • moderntradmoderntrad
    Posts: 49
    Your revulsion at the idea of a comparison with horse dung is precisely why I used a second analogy. Horse dung isn't for eating by humans, but it is a very valuable source of nitrogen, and great things grow with the proper fertilizer. Salt and sugar are both good, but not interchangeable. Salt and sugar are both used as preservatives, but in different ways and with different results.

    My objection isn't to Protestants using Protestant music, or to Catholics using what can be rescued from its misplacement within Protestant hymnals. My objection is to using vernacular Protestant hymns in a Protestant-published hymnal within the context of a Catholic Mass. Protestantism is (a collection of ) heresy, plain and simple. Is everything which Protestants have produced evil? That's probably an overstatement.


    I do not have any revulsion of the analogy. I have a revulsion at the assertion that (formerly) Protestant (now to be considered Catholic) hymns are the dung in that analogy. That is a ridiculous assertion. It has already been addressed that that body of hymnody is to be considered within bounds of Catholic musical literature by virtue of AC, and the Ordinariate's adoption of the '40 as their standard hymnal.

    So my former question stands: were I to self publish a hymnal that was an exact copy of the '40 and put "Catholic" on the front page, would that make it better? You seem to be fine with the actual hymnody (at least with some of it), but not with the fact that the Church Pension Fund of the PECUSA published the book. Am I wrong there?
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    So my former question stands: were I to self publish a hymnal that was an exact copy of the '40 and put "Catholic" on the front page, would that make it better? You seem to be fine with the actual hymnody (at least with some of it), but not with the fact that the Church Pension Fund of the PECUSA published the book. Am I wrong there?


    You would need to remove or fix the service music section, and also the ridiculous font used for headings.
    Thanked by 1moderntrad
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,365
    Ahem! What ridiculous font?!
    Thanked by 1moderntrad
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,157
    The blackletter font? It was appropriate at the time.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,365
    Fonts, layout, and all , 'the 1940' is superior by far to 'the 1982', which is really just boring to look at. The one positive about 'the 1982' is the liturgical section (except that it makes 'Gloria' optional), and a few good new hymns-tunes.
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    and a few good new hymns-tunes

    woot woot for BOURBON
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
Add a Comment