HallamPhil wrote:At 95 pages for a single order of service I think the Vatican has some questions to answer regarding the environment. Perhaps the ashes are created from the burning of orders of services?
IncenseTom wrote:On Ash Wed, my PP mentioned that he'd seen some of the Papal Mass for Ash Wednesday and that there was no blessing and dismissal at the end of Mass.
Yes there was a blessing and dismissal. Look on page 93 of the booklet and see that the order I have outlined above was followed.
"Among the hymns Monsignor Whitmore chooses from our Catholic tradition is 'God of Mercy and Compassion' which tells of God's mercy to us sinners. The words were written by the 19th century Redemptorist priest Edmund Vaughan, uncle of the future Cardinal Herbert Vaughan, who founded Westminster Cathedral...like many Victorian hymns it uses a refrain in which we express our firm purpose of amendment: All my sins I now detest them , never will I sin again".
and then hastened to your trusty Laudate you would be, as so often, disappointed to find that "fings ain't wot they used to be". Why on earth did the compilers of that collection feel they had the right to hack around so crassly the hymns we thought we used to know - especially in a collection promoted as combining the hymns that the more old-fashioned of us used to love with a more contemporary genre, so as to satisfy all tastes? In this case, the tune is the one you expect, the title in the index is the one you expect, and the hymn you find you have invited the assembly to sing is a total load of 'beep'. (I typed 'beep' myself - it's a fair cop.) It's a blatant case of what the lawyers call "passing off" and what the less gentlemanly of us call something lexically very similar.
quaeritor wrote:Laudate you would be, as so often, disappointed to find that "fings ain't wot they used to be".
Only one editor/compiler of Laudate - the hymnal is not a committee production. (God so loved the world that he did not send a committee). I do not possess the mind of the editor, who manifestly preferred the Michael Hodgetts text.
Any opinions expressed are my own, not those of the Archdiocese of Birmingham Liturgy Commission, Church Music Committee. Website
We have evening prayer and Benediction on Lent Sundays, with a Marian hymn at the end. This Sunday, our fairly traditional congregation struggled with the CFE version of 'I'll sing a hymn to Mary.' The editor did explain to me why he felt it necessary to change the words, i.e. Mary is not God therefore cannot be blasphemed, but I wonder no-one questioned that in earlier hymnals.
VML wrote: Mary is not God therefore cannot be blasphemed,
Just ahead of me there, VML (and I recognise that it was not you yourself who said this). I was just waiting for a moment of spare time to risk the moderator's wrath by drifting OT to mention that particularly crass example which is also found in Laudate. I am fed up with people telling me what English words mean just because that's what they want them to mean. A quick poll of all the dictionaries I could access online found not one that limits blasphemy to being blasphemy of God, or giving that as the first meaning. If I were not such a slow typist I'd quote the entry in Chambers (if only because the last time I did that I was gently reproved by one of the compilers of that tome found unexpectedly in this forum) but suffice it to say that " . . offered to God." is the end of the last option of the definition, appearing only at line seven.
And in any case, why not just amend the words a bit? why change the whole hymn from being an expression of devotion to Our Lady into something completely different? - is that no longer "allowed"? - quite apart from that positively dreadful mis-accentuation of "imiTATE thee . . "
Peter Jones wrote:I do not possess the mind of the editor, who manifestly preferred the Michael Hodgetts text.
I can't begin to think why!. - are you sure it wasn't a case of copy/paste the chosen hymn only to find it was something completely different when it arrived? Seriously, why would someone write a totally different piece but give it the same title, first line, and tune? I know sin is a bit out of fashion these days but why turn one of the few hymns of penitence into something - well, frankly meaningless?
Ominously, I notice just now that the hymn is by "Michael Hodgetts, alt" - I wonder just how much "alt"? - apologies, MH, - it may not be your fault!
Comparing older versions of 'God of Mercy' with Hymns Old & New, the following 2 verses are omitted or have their meaning changed (despite the Nihil Obstat given to the hymn as contained in the Westminster Hymnal):
2. By my sins I have deserved Death and endless misery, Hell with all its pains and torments, And for all eternity. (Refrain)
3. By my sins I have abandoned Right and claim to heav'n above. Where the saints rejoice forever In a boundless sea of love. (Refrain)
I suspect this is because the editors dislike the guilt-laden implications together with the reference to Hell and forfeiture of Heaven. This approach seems to have been be mirrored by the authors of the 'Here I Am' school resource who specifically warn teachers to be careful about reference to Hell because of the risk of frightening children.
Now, I think the Catholic Church in England needs to decide what it believes about the afterlife. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is quite clear about Hell & Purgatory but I can't remember when I last heard mention of them in church, school or seminar.
Oh and a word about the 'Resurrection of the body'. If this is the case, as stated in Creed and Catechism, the body ends up somewhere, somehow and people need to be told! It's not just our souls!
Perhaps in the past we've overdone the guilt, but surely there's a happy medium somewhere? That's my Lenten meditation for this year!
The two verses you have quoted denote a grovelling, lack-of-self-esteem attitude. I am not worthy, I only deserve Hell with all its torments, not Heaven. God is someone to be petitioned for forgiveness, and we are as far away from being virtuous as it is possible to be.
But since Vatican II we have started to see another image of God, one who is not waiting to thrust us down into the eternal flames, but rather an all-merciful God who, despite our own unworthiness and lack of virtue, is always willing to forgive, always waiting to welcome us into the heavenly kingdom, who does not in fact desire our eternal perdition, however much we may think of ourselves as scum.
That more recent attitude does not mean that we do not need to strive to be worthy of God's redeeming love, but it does mean that we do not need to exaggerate our own awfulness but rather acknowledge that God loves and accepts us as we are, warts and all. None of us can think that we can ever be worthy of the redemptive action of Jesus, but we can nevertheless accept that God is not a vengeful God but a loving God, not a God waiting to punish but a God waiting to lift us up again when we fall. A God who truly loves us, not one who is waiting to pounce on the slightest infraction of the code of conduct that we espouse.
That's why some hymn texts do not sit easily with where we are as a Church today.
quaeritor wrote:Ominously, I notice just now that the hymn is by "Michael Hodgetts, alt" - I wonder just how much "alt"? - apologies, MH, - it may not be your fault!Q
He doesn't come on here...but I could ask the question if you like?
