How silly of me; I forgot the two most obvious, again in Volume I:

Nunc sancte nobis Spiritus (pg. 660, Terce, as Come, Holy Ghost, who ever one)
Rector potens, verax Deus (pg. 662, Sext, as Almighty Ruler, God of Truth)

I also want to ask this: there is a rubric on page 121 saying "The following hymns may be sung during the Advent Season..." - does this mean that others may be sung, or can only the ones listed on those pages be sung? Can only the hymns contained in the four volumes be sung? Where does it end? Who decides?

Latin hymn translation is a complicated business.

Besides the fact that a lot of translators have more or less given up accuracy during or immediately after verse 1 (Humbly we adore thee, for example), there is the deeper issue of the Urbanite reforms http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Hymni/PopeUrbanVIII.html

Many of our best translations, often done by 19th century English Oratorians or Anglicans, were based on Pope Urban's reforms. At the Lamb's High Feast, for example, is a translation based on a thoroughly rewritten hymn.

Also, the original meter is often not kept (At the Lamb's High Feast being an example). There are two normal meters used in office hymns, Ambrosian = Church Meter = Long Meter = 8.8.8.8. iambic, and Sapphic or 11.11.11.5. There are a few exceptions but not many.

The present Liber Hymnarius goes back to the pre-Urbanite versions of the office hymns--wisely, in my view--but also includes a number of current hymns of mixed value. These are noted in the index as "Novus." So one question would be whether the Hours ought to use only time-tested hymns, or whether hymns from the 20th century ought to be included.

Ben Whitworth is the real scholar on these matters and I hope he or others will correct me if I'm mistaken on the above.

There are two normal meters used in office hymns, Ambrosian = Church Meter = Long Meter = 8.8.8.8. iambic, and Sapphic or 11.11.11.5. There are a few exceptions but not many.

Kathy, are you sure about this? It seems there are a number of hymns that are 8.8.8.8 NOT iambic (but trochaic), and I thought 8.7.8.7.8.7 (plus or minus an 8.7) was also used with some frequency.

I am not an expert, but from my impressions of living with and regularly praying the offices with clergy and religious for about a year and half is that the hymns can licitly be omitted when the office is recited and that other hymns may be substituted for the provided hymns. Quite regularly in communal celebrations a hymn from the chapel hymnal would be substituted, and in the Advent/Christmas/Lent/Easter seasons you can either use the hymn provided for the day or use one of the seasonal hymns, or again another suitable hymn. Likewise you could do part of the Liturgy in English and part in Latin (or some other language).

I think in addition to Fr. Weber's fine contribution, if memory serves the Mundelein Psalter uses hymns which are English translations of the Latin hymns rather than standard American ones, and the Mundelein Psalter has approval of the USCCB to be used throughout the United States (Fr. Weber was involved in that project as well). The newer collection by Fr. Weber has the approval of the Archbishop of San Francisco, which as a hymnal the approval of the bishop in the place of publication is all that is required, but it also has an unofficial recommendation from Cardinal Burke, which should tell you that it is really OK to use.

the Mundelein Psalter has approval of the USCCB to be used throughout the United States

I don't know what this means.

chonak, I apologize for the inaccuracy. I did not know the song predated him. It is still popularly associated with Stevens, however. The guitar predates Guitar Masses by centuries, but the association is not necessarily ancient.

In the English translation from the Vatican website, canon 838 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law reads:

Can. 838 §1. The direction of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church which resides in the Apostolic See and, according to the norm of law, the diocesan bishop.
§2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, publish liturgical books and review their translations in vernacular languages, and exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere.
§3. It pertains to the conferences of bishops to prepare and publish, after the prior review (recognitio) of the Holy See, translations of liturgical books in vernacular languages, adapted appropriately within the limits defined in the liturgical books themselves.
§4. Within the limits of his competence, it pertains to the diocesan bishop in the Church entrusted to him to issue liturgical norms which bind everyone.

The manner in which conferences of bishops prepare and publish translations of liturgical books, succinctly treated in §3 above, has been consistently adhered to in the United States from the time immediately following the Second Vatican Council. A two-thirds majority vote of the de iure Latin rite members of the USCCB is required for approval of a translation. The subsequent review/approval (the “recognitio”) of the Apostolic See (specifically, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments) is also required. That same CDWDS requires that the protocol number of its recognitio as well as the date of the conference’s approval be indicated in the published work.

Bishops, individually as well as when they are gathered in particular councils or conferences, also have rights and duties concerning “instruments of social communication,” specifically, the publication of books. Can. 823 §1 states:

In order to preserve the integrity of the truths of faith and morals, the pastors of the Church have the duty and right to be watchful so that no harm is done to the faith or morals of the Christian faithful through writings or the use of instruments of social communication. They also have the duty and right to demand that writings to be published by the Christian faithful which touch upon faith or morals be submitted to their judgment and have the duty and right to condemn writings which harm correct faith or good morals.

In the United States the entire conference of bishops jointly exercises its oversight in this matter with regard to these most significant publications: bible translations and catechisms and catechetical series. Permission to publish other works which touch upon Catholic faith and morals are the responsibility of the diocesan bishops in whose dioceses those books are to be published. (I am generalizing when I name only the diocesan bishop. The Code of Canon Law contains eleven canons – canons 822-832 – covering this matter. The major superior of a male religious may also, at times, grant the necessary permission to publish.)

Consult the entire series of canons dealing with instruments of social communication at: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P2Q.HTM

The wording which Chonak supplies from the title page of the Mundelein psalter ("approved for use in the dioceses of the United States of America by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops") says nothing about when the USCCB granted this approval or when that approval was given the recognitio of the CDWDS. And, as I have been unable to find anything in the Newsletter of the Committee on Divine Worship referring to this approval, I presume that the statement in the Mundelein psalter is hyperbole. (If the USCCB did not take a canonical vote, no one else could grant an “approval for liturgical use,” not the USCCB president, or the chairman of the Committee on Divine Worship, and certainly not the executive director of the Liturgy Secretariat.)
That would mean that the approval mentioned is no more or less than what is required for any book intended to be used by Catholics. And it is no different from the “ecclesiastical approval” given by the Archbishop of Chicago or the Archbishop of Portland for Catholic hymnals published within their dioceses. That approval means that the book is free from errors against Catholic faith and morals. It does not make the hymnal an “approved liturgical book.”

Concerning Msgr. Moroney’s “concordat cum originali,” that means that he is stating that the text used in the Mundelein psalter conforms to that approved by the then-NCCB in 1974 and confirmed by the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship on December 6, 1974.

Chonak, I said nothing about hymns. However, since you raise the issue, if the Mundelein Psalter were to contain anything that is not contained in the NCCB-approved Liturgy of the Hours from 1974, it would then not be in full concordance with that canonically-approved text and Msgr. Moroney's "concordat cum originali" would not be totally accurate. In such a case, the wording of the concordat should be made more specific and list everything from the Mundelein Psalter which agrees with the 1974 text (and, perhaps, what does not).

I have no doubt whatsoever that the Mundelein Psalter was published with the permission of the Archdiocese of Chicago. The issue is not securing permission to publish. The issue is the wording used on the title page. If something has not been submitted to the entire USCCB for approval, then it is incorrect to use the wording "approved for use in the dioceses of the United States of America by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops," because it was not. That is the wording usually put into canonically-approved ritual books.

Rather, the statement of the "concordat cum originali," with the specificity I mentioned above, if necessary, would have been sufficient to establish that the texts used in the Mundelein Psalter are, in fact, the approved ones from 1974. That statement, plus the diocesan bishop's ecclesiastical permission to publish - which is a guarantee that the book is free from erroneous doctrinal or moral teaching - would be sufficient.

I've only compared the editions for a couple of examples, but it appears that the Mundelein Psalter takes the hymns from the Latin Liturgia Horarum rather than from the 1975 ICEL English Liturgy of the Hours, and presents English translations of those Latin hymns from various sources. Some are from previous hymnals, and many are by the nuns of Ryde and Stanbrook.

the funereal tempo at which it is customarily sung.

Quite.

I find Morning Has Broken a charming piece. People who complain about it being a Cat Stevens song must likewise not want to sing How Can I Keep From Singing (covered by Enya) or O Sacred Head (tune used by Paul Simon).

What has morning broken?

Like the first dewfall.

Someone should have told Cat Stevens not to use Eleanor Farjeon's text, because dew doesn't fall and morning doesn't break.

Others have probably made these objections to 'dewfall' and 'daybreak' over the last 400 or 500 years (respectively), but since they are known to have been in common use for all this time I would suggest not wasting time fighting the point. But I would not use this song at Mass.

I was being sarcastic, just to be clear....

A talk about the project Dr. Mahrt mentions was given at the 2017 Sacred Music Colloquium by Msgr. Andrew Wadsworth; a recording is on-line at http://music.dierschow.com/2017Colloquium/Other/21 Plenary Wadsworth.mp3

That vague wording does appear in at least one place in the General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours:
"42. Immediately after [the introduction to Morning and Evening Prayer], an appropriate hymn is sung." (Source: copied from my 1975 edition of the LOTH.)

Further information, but with a loophole, is given later:
"178. For vernacular celebrations, conferences of bishops may adapt the Latin hymns to suit the character of their own language and introduce new compositions, provided that these are in complete harmony with the spirit of the Hour, season or feast."

Alas, if I'm reading n. 178 correctly, I can't say that it actually mandates that the Latin hymns (or translations of them) be used exclusively.

The project to develop new translations of the classic Latin office hymns is specifically a project commissioned by the USCCB, so we probably should not expect it to be accompanied by any changes to the general documents about the Office. However, Msgr. Wadsworth did indicate in his talk that people would be free to use existing translations of those hymns.

Thanks be to God, the older breviary is still available.

smcatherine:

Yes, I believe there will be some "tightening up" of rubrics, instructions, etc., with the hope of removing some of the "vagueries" that allowed so much illicit practice to go on for so long.

The USCCB's website has actually been fairly helpful and informative on this issue. The fact that the bishop's conference's own website made references to accurate hymn translations and usage as being something desired, yet lacking, speaks volumes about genuine improvement in the mindset of those entrusted with this task.

Yes, let us look forward to the day we are "singing the Office" as well as "singing the Mass"!

Gaudete in Domino Semper!

a_f_hawkins:

I couldn't agree more.

Gaudete in Domino Semper!