Comparison of Catholic Hymnals / one-page

[AntoineDaniel]

Parishes searching for a "traditional" Catholic Hymnal will appreciate this 1-page comparison chart (PDF):

http://www.ccwatershed.org/pdfs/comparison-catholic-hymnals-complete-readings-pew-books-traditional/download/

[Southern Comfort]

None of these hymnals is in use, nor can be in use (without going through the nihil obstat/imprimatur process), in England and Wales.

However, interested readers will find comprehensive reviews of some of these books at
http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2012/10/15/hymnal-review-part-three-the-st-michael-hymnal/
(which contains links to the introduction [part 1] and first review [part 2])
and also at
http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2012/07/22/a-review-of-worship-fourth-edition/

[AntoineDaniel]

Part III is here:

http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2012/10/19/hymnal-review-part-four-the-vatican-ii-hymnal/

"None of these hymnals is in use, nor can be in use (without going through the nihil obstat/imprimatur process), in England and Wales."

This is not quite an accurate statement.

[Peter Jones]

This is not quite an accurate statement.

As we have no published guide as yet, as to what does and what does not require an imprimatur, please explain.

The territorial requirement for a publication coming out of England and Wales is that the Imprimatur / Nihil Obstat be granted from the chancellery of the diocese wherein the publisher is situated. (So, for example, the new edition of Laudate has received these permissions from the Diocese of East Anglia.)

Does that mean that should we import a US published hymnal, the Imprimatur / Nihil Obstat from the US diocese wherein the publisher is situated suffices here? Surely what matters is that a publication has received an Imprimatur / Nihil Obstat rather than where these were granted, don't you think?

IF the US Bishops have NO requirement for an Imprimatur / Nihil Obstat on new hymnals, what then? May we import them? I don't know.

[JW]

GIRM 2005 specifically stated that hymn collections had to be approved by the bishops of England & Wales. That seems quite clear to me, there is no comment there about importing approval from other countries.

I also have to say that I'm concerned about some of the opinions expressed in the one-page comparison. For example, if all the books compared have been approved by the local bishop, how come one of the later questions is:

Are hymn texts changed in order to be “politically correct” and support heterodox and/or “progressive” Theology ?

Are you implying that the bishops who approved the hymnal are not orthodox? There is Vatican-approved precedent for changes to texts; for example, the new translation of the beginning of the 'Gloria' is "Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to people of goodwill. Is the translation of 'homines' here "politically correct and supporting heterodox and/or progressive theology?"

I only needed to go down to "Faith of our Fathers" to find a hymn that is altered in the Vatican 2 hymnal: the 3rd verse (Faith of our Fathers, Mary's prayers) appears to have been omitted, presumably not because of political correctness? Poor Fr. Faber...!

Then, scrolling down, "Crown Him with many crowns " omits the verse "Crown him the Virgin's Son" ending "fruit of the mystic rose, as of that rose the stem, the root, whence mercy ever flows, the babe of Bethlehem". So we have 2 hymns where verses referring to Our Lady are omitted. One might enquire as to why? I also notice that the text is attributed to Matthew Bridges who was a Catholic. However, verses 2,5 and 6 are not by Bridges but by Godfrey Thring, an Anglican. Why are perfectly good verses written by a Catholic omitted in favour of an Anglican's verses who wrote them out of concern that Protestant congregations were singing Catholic theology?

Personally, if the editors want to make these changes I've no real problem. My problem arises when it is suggested that the Vatican II hymnal is purer than the driven snow in these matters!

Another question in the hymnal comparison asks :

"Includes dignified, truly congregational Mass settings in English by various Catholic composers?"

I suspect the publishers of the two hymnals to which the answer is "no" disagree profoundly with that analysis! Is it being suggested that the Mass settings in those hymnals aren't dignified, aren't truly congregational, aren't in English (no Latin and no Spanish for hispanic communities permitted?), aren't by various Catholic composers or not all or some of the above?

[Southern Comfort]

This is not quite an accurate statement.

As we have no published guide as yet, as to what does and what does not require an imprimatur, please explain.

The territorial requirement for a publication coming out of England and Wales is that the Imprimatur / Nihil Obstat be granted from the chancellery of the diocese wherein the publisher is situated. (So, for example, the new edition of Laudate has received these permissions from the Diocese of East Anglia.)

Does that mean that should we import a US published hymnal, the Imprimatur / Nihil Obstat from the US diocese wherein the publisher is situated suffices here? Surely what matters is that a publication has received an Imprimatur / Nihil Obstat rather than where these were granted, don't you think?

IF the US Bishops have NO requirement for an Imprimatur / Nihil Obstat on new hymnals, what then? May we import them? I don't know.

The US Bishops do have a requirement for nihil obstat/imprimatur, so Worship 4 (GIA) and the latest incarnations of Gather (GIA) and Journeysongs (OCP) have all been submitted to the process (and in some cases have had to remove texts that were not approved). I can find no indication that any of the hymnbooks Jeff/Antoine mentions have been through the process in the US.

My impression is that the E&W bishops' conference is happy to admit sheet music published in other territories that has received approval in those territories, but that they are not happy to admit hymn books without submitting them to the same local nihil obstat/imprimatur process that Laudate and CFE have undergone.

This would mean that Jeff/Antoine and others may manage to sell hymnbooks to purchasers on the UK side of the Pond, but those purchases may not be licitly used in those countries.

[Nick Baty]

I wonder how, in the long term, this will affect publishers of single items, like Decani and Magnificat. As SC has remarked on here before, it could all become quite unmanageable.

[Peter Jones]

Can. 824 §1. Unless it is established otherwise, the local ordinary whose permission or approval to publish books must be sought according to the canons of this title is the proper local ordinary of the author or the ordinary of the place where the books are published.

§2. Those things established regarding books in the canons of this title must be applied to any writings whatsoever which are destined for public distribution, unless it is otherwise evident.

Canon 824 seems a little ambiguous - "Unless it is established otherwise...." - by whom and for what purpose? Yet if, for example, a US hymnal has been granted an Imprimatur by the local ordinary of the publisher, I cannot see how our own Bishops' Conference can then, as it were, demand another process of assessment for another Imprimatur for the collection to be distributed here. The publisher remains territorially outside England and Wales and is within the bailiwick of his/her local ordinary.

It is an entirely different matter if the US hymnal were to be published here (say, under licence from the parent US publisher). Those circumstances would lead to the collection being submitted to the local ordinary of the diocese wherein the UK publisher is situated.

[Peter Jones]

without submitting them to the same local nihil obstat/imprimatur process that Laudate and CFE have undergone.

Canonically, there is no local process for a US published hymnal here in E & W. The local process takes place in the US diocese of the publisher.

[Peter Jones]

...... it could all become quite unmanageable.......

Which is why it collapsed before.

[AntoineDaniel]

1. I did not create the list: I only posted it in case it may be of help. I apologize I did not make this more clear in my initial post, but it was mentioned here:
http://www.ccwatershed.org/blog/2012/oct/17/comparison-chart-catholic-hymnals/

2. I never claimed the V2H was perfect: as a matter of fact, there are certainly improvements that could be made (and will be made). "Crown Him With Many Crowns" has too many verses to include them all.

3. I have to admit that some of the information being put forth in this thread (above) is not entirely correct. For instance, hymns that are approved in one book can certainly be sung from another book, no matter who prints it. But more importantly, (practically speaking) there is a lot of confusion as to what songs/texts/books/participation aids, etc. need approval, and what kind of approval is needed, and which do not. I'm not saying this is good: I'm just saying this is what is happening.

In America, the main thing is to get approval from the Bishop, and the chart I posted does address this, which I think is important.

[Peter Jones]

In America, the main thing is to get approval from the Bishop.........

The Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland makes the following distinction in its commentary on Canon 824:

"Permission - licentia - is usually expressed by the word imprimatur and it carries with it an implicit declaration that the work contains no doctrinal or moral error. Approval - approbatio - seems to involve more than permission, rather an acknowledgement, at least in general terms, of the positive worth of the work."

So perhaps approbatio includes assessments made upon the criteria of taste and style? This distinction seems to me to indicate that a local Ordinary can declare a publication free from doctrinal or moral error yet refuse its use because of poor textual and musical qualities. (Raising a further question about subjective and objective assessments perhaps.)

However, authors and composers do have, as it were, a form of appeal process in that they may seek a favour from another Ordinary, ensuring that this second Ordinary is aware of the assessment of the first Ordinary - Canon 65 §1.

So maybe, if your local Ordinary loathes your three-guitar-chord rock setting of the Agnus Dei and will not approve it on grounds of taste and style, you can try another Bishop who likes it!

[Southern Comfort]

If all those books have received imprimaturs from their local bishops then Yes, Antoine/Jeff is correct and they may be used over here. The problem is that without actually seeing the interior of the books in question there is no way of knowing in advance whether or not they have been granted an imprimatur.

[JW]

So the GIRM differs from Canon Law?

[Peter Jones]

So the GIRM differs from Canon Law?

May we have a reference please JW?