Two of them even solicit donations to support their causes.
The aim of all three hymnals is to restore the solemnity, the reverence, the universality, the beauty and sacredness that have actually been demeaned by many in the hierarchy, by parish clergy, pastoral musicians, composers and even some academics who have driven the reforms so imperiously for the past five decades. There’s no denying that the pre-conciliar liturgy needed reform in a bad way and the council undertook its task with fervor.
Version II became so prevalent that many Catholics thought that Masses in Latin were pre-conciliar and illegal.
Only in unusual cases did a congregation truly become the singing body envisioned by the U. bishops in (1972), despite the liberal dreams for participation and the lofty language in MCW.
The argument sometimes given for a total reliance on classical texts and tunes is that they represent the best of Christian tradition. The low budgets of the three hymnals is no excuse for completely avoiding modern texts and tunes. Another thorny question that merits asking in this context has to do with the justification of a Mass celebrated in a language that extremely few people understand.
Arsis And Thesis-Gregorian Chant
Yes, Latin is the historic language of the Roman Rite, and in that capacity it deserves preservation, which is one of the reasons for Version I.
All three include the Ordinary Form (OF) order of Mass in Latin, and one even has the Extraordinary Form (EF).
Two of them take a strictly classical approach to liturgical music (the third is more centrist, with just a few examples of “secular” fare).
The concepts of sacrality, universality, holiness and beauty were frankly unwelcomed because they did not help to create community.
Pastoral musicians and liturgists preached the three-fold judgment, did away with the language of “ordinary” and “proper,” and ignored the propers or treated them as obsolete.