Agnus Dei/Lamb of God

[tobinatorstark]

After reading about weather or not saying “Body of God” by a Eucharistic Minister is a liturgical abuse, I have a couple of concerns as well as to what may be a liturgical abuses or not. Most of the time during mass when saying the Agnus Dei/ Lamb of God. it is the same. Lamb of God to take away the sins of the world have mercy on us. Lamb of God to take away the sins of the world have mercy on us. Lamb of God to take away the sins of the world grant us peace. However, every now in then it is most usually sung in Church, but an alternative version is used. Lamb of God to take away the sins of the world have mercy on us. Bread of Life to take away the sins of the world have mercy on us. Lamb of God to take away the sins of the world grant us your peace. Is that considered a liturgical abuse by changing the Agnus Dei?? Also we aren’t allowed to use the term “Eucharistic Minister” instead we it was changed to “Extraordinary Minister”.

 

[benedictgal]

After reading about weather or not saying “Body of God” by a Eucharistic Minister is a liturgical abuse, I have a couple of concerns as well as to what may be a liturgical abuses or not. Most of the time during mass when saying the Agnus Dei/ Lamb of God. it is the same. Lamb of God to take away the sins of the world have mercy on us. Lamb of God to take away the sins of the world have mercy on us. Lamb of God to take away the sins of the world grant us peace. However, every now in then it is most usually sung in Church, but an alternative version is used. Lamb of God to take away the sins of the world have mercy on us. Bread of Life to take away the sins of the world have mercy on us. Lamb of God to take away the sins of the world grant us your peace. Is that considered a liturgical abuse by changing the Agnus Dei?? Also we aren’t allowed to use the term “Eucharistic Minister” instead we it was changed to “Extraordinary Minister”.

This is not licit at all. In fact, when the translations for the New Ordinary of the Mass came out, Francis Cardinal Arinze, the Prefect Emritus for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, reminded the USCCB that the parts of the Mass could not be paraphrased or amended:

It will likewise facilitate devising the musical settings for the parts of the Mass, bearing in mind the criteria set forth in Liturgiam Authenticam n. 60, which requires that the musical settings of liturgical texts use only the actual approved texts and are never paraphrased.

Here is the note from Liturgiam Authenticam that was referenced in Cardinal Arinze’s letter:

1. A great part of the liturgical texts are composed with the intention of their being sung by the priest celebrant, the deacon, the cantor, the people, or the choir. For this reason, the texts should be translated in a manner that is suitable for being set to music. Still, in preparing the musical accompaniment, full account must be taken of the authority of the text itself. Whether it be a question of the texts of Sacred Scripture or of those taken from the Liturgy and already duly confirmed, paraphrases are not to be substituted with the intention of making them more easily set to music, nor may hymns considered generically equivalent be employed in their place.39

Unfortunately, both publishing houses, OCP and GIA, are guilty of doing this. They can’t say that this is something new since Liturgiam Authenticam is now almost eight years old. They have certainly had enough time to clean up their settings.

 

[Phemie]

Also we aren’t allowed to use the term “Eucharistic Minister” instead we it was changed to “Extraordinary Minister”.

Only Priests and Bishops are Eucharistic Ministers, as they can confect the Eucharist. Deacons, priests and bishops are “Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion”. Lay people are ‘Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion’. This distinction has been pointed out in several Vatican Documents, the most recent “Redemptionis Sacramentum”.

 

[Lazerlike42]

This is an interesting topic for me. I used to say the same thing, until I read , Sing to the Lordthe USCCB’s most up to date document on music, released near the end of 2007. I actually was, overall, very pleased with it. It is a major improvement over the Music in Catholic Worship*, the conferences first attempt decades ago. There’s a lot that’s really good in it.

Now it does say that things like “Prince of Peace” are acceptable: “When the Agnus Dei is sung repeatedly as a litany, Christological invocations with other texts may be used. In this case, the first and final invocations are always Agnus Dei (Lamb of God).” (188)

Does anybody have any information on why this is or is not valid? I can’t see anything that rules it out in the GIRM. People often cite GIRM 366:“It is not permitted to substitute for the chants found in the Order of Mass, e.g., at the Agnus Dei.” However, this seems to refer to substituting an entirely different chant, as opposed to what the USCCB document is talking about (for example, singing “City of God” in place of the Angus Dei).*

 

[benedictgal]

This is an interesting topic for me. I used to say the same thing, until I read Sing to the Lord, the USCCB’s most up to date document on music, released near the end of 2007. I actually was, overall, very pleased with it. It is a major improvement over the Music in Catholic Worship**, the conferences first attempt decades ago. There’s a lot that’s really good in it.

Now it does say that things like “Prince of Peace” are acceptable: “When the Agnus Dei is sung repeatedly as a litany, Christological invocations with other texts may be used. In this case, the first and final invocations are always Agnus Dei (Lamb of God).” (188)

Does anybody have any information on why this is or is not valid? I can’t see anything that rules it out in the GIRM. People often cite GIRM 366:“It is not permitted to substitute for the chants found in the Order of Mass, e.g., at the Agnus Dei.” However, this seems to refer to substituting an entirely different chant, as opposed to what the USCCB document is talking about (for example, singing “City of God” in place of the Angus Dei).

However, Sing to the Lord is not a binding document. It does not carry the necessary recognitio of the Holy See because it failed to get the necessary votes in order for it to happen. Therefore, Liturgiam Authenticam and the official statement made by the Congregation for Divine Worship when it released the first part of the new translations carry the force of law.

Composers such as Marty Haugne, David Haas and Bob Hurd do not have the authority to override what the Holy See has stated. In this case, Liturgiam Autneticam states no paraphrases.

I was cleaning my room a couple of weeks ago and I came across some of the notes at a meeting some years ago of the Federation of Diocesan Liturcical Commissions. One of the regions noted that Liturgiam Authenticam was not a suitable document for use in the United States. I read my side notes indicating “Say what?” It bothered me then to the point that I told someone in my region that I smelled trouble brewing.

Sing to the Lord was supposed to have carried more teeth, more weight and was supposed to be in compliance with Liturgiam Authenticam. Unfortunately, the comments that I have from that FDLC meeting led to the group teaming up with the National Pastoral Musicians association to gut the document and render it to a paper tiger with little to no authority.

 

[Lazerlike42]

However, Sing to the Lord is not a binding document. It does not carry the necessary recognitio of the Holy See because it failed to get the necessary votes in order for it to happen. Therefore, Liturgiam Authenticam and the official statement made by the Congregation for Divine Worship when it released the first part of the new translations carry the force of law.

Composers such as Marty Haugne, David Haas and Bob Hurd do not have the authority to override what the Holy See has stated. In this case, Liturgiam Autneticam states no paraphrases.

I was cleaning my room a couple of weeks ago and I came across some of the notes at a meeting some years ago of the Federation of Diocesan Liturcical Commissions. One of the regions noted that Liturgiam Authenticam was not a suitable document for use in the United States. I read my side notes indicating “Say what?” It bothered me then to the point that I told someone in my region that I smelled trouble brewing.

Sing to the Lord was supposed to have carried more teeth, more weight and was supposed to be in compliance with Liturgiam Authenticam. Unfortunately, the comments that I have from that FDLC meeting led to the group teaming up with the National Pastoral Musicians association to gut the document and render it to a paper tiger with little to no authority.

Do you have a reference about SttL not receiving Vatican approval? I’d be interested to learn about it.

I have been poking around the internet and some folks have pointed out a few things which may give the document power:

Eucharisticum Mysterium:

1. The Laws of the Church Must Be Faithfully Observed in Celebrating Mass

Especially in the celebration of the Eucharist, no one, not even a priest, may on his own authority add, omit, or change anything in the Liturgy. Only the supreme authority of the Church, and, according to the provisions of the law, the bishop and the episcopal conferences, may do this. Priests should, therefore, ensure that they so preside over the celebration of the Eucharist that the faithful know that they are taking part not in a rite established on private initiative, but in the Church’s public worship, the regulation of which was entrusted by Christ to the Apostles and their successors.

That law seems to be, in part, from GIRM chapter 9.

 

[benedictgal]

Do you have a reference about SttL not receiving Vatican approval? I’d be interested to learn about it.

I have been poking around the internet and some folks have pointed out a few things which may give the document power:

Eucharisticum Mysterium:

That law seems to be, in part, from GIRM chapter 9.

Before the USCCB can take any action on things regarding the Sacred Liturgy, they need to have a 2/3 vote of the Latin Rite bishops and then send the proposed change to the Holy See for the necessary recogitio (this means permission). In other words, the conference cannot make adaptations to the GIRM, or any other authoritative liturgical document of the Holy See, without getting Rome’s permission first.

Furthermore, if something is going against what the authoritative documents of the Hol See, the USCCB has to give a compelling reason as to why it needs this recogitio. The USCCB does not act in a vaccuum.

Sing to the Lord failed to get that margin and so it was not sent to Rome. It is a teaching document, but, it is not binding. Furthermore, it really says nothing new because it simply restates things found in Musicam Sacram. The whole idea behind Sing to the Lord was to bring us into conformity with Liturgiam Authenticam.

For a luck at what the document was supposed to have done, send me PM and I will email you the powerpoint presentation that highlighted what the document was supposed to have contained.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Before the USCCB can take any action on things regarding the Sacred Liturgy, they need to have a 2/3 vote of the Latin Rite bishops and then send the proposed change to the Holy See for the necessary recogitio (this means permission). In other words, the conference cannot make adaptations to the GIRM, or any other authoritative liturgical document of the Holy See, without getting Rome’s permission first.

Furthermore, if something is going against what the authoritative documents of the Hol See, the USCCB has to give a compelling reason as to why it needs this recogitio. The USCCB does not act in a vaccuum.

Sing to the Lord failed to get that margin and so it was not sent to Rome. It is a teaching document, but, it is not binding. Furthermore, it really says nothing new because it simply restates things found in Musicam Sacram. The whole idea behind Sing to the Lord was to bring us into conformity with Liturgiam Authenticam.

For a luck at what the document was supposed to have done, send me PM and I will email you the powerpoint presentation that highlighted what the document was supposed to have contained.

Oh yes, I am aware of the need for a recogitio. I was simply not aware that the document had applied and been turned down.

 

[benedictgal]

Oh yes, I am aware of the need for a recogitio. I was simply not aware that the document had applied and been turned down.

Because the document did not get the necessary votes, it was not sent to Rome. It was sent for publication; however, it has the same status as Music in Catholic Worship. It is a statement and nothing else.

 

[japhy]

Sing to the Lord, in its preface, calls itself “guidelines designed to provide direction”. It is not liturgical law, and it only holds the force of law when it is quoting a document which is law.

The bishops and episcopal conferences do not have free reign over liturgical adaptations. The GIRM explains the limitations of bishops and episcopal conferences. A Bishop does NOT have the permission to rewrite the Agnus Dei. Note that STTL 188 does not refer to any other liturgical document when it claims that “When the Agnus Dei is sung repeatedly as a litany, Christological invocations with other texts may be used. In this case, the first and final invocations are always Agnus Dei (Lamb of God).”

The other problem with STTL 188 is that it doesn’t define what it means by “sung repeatedly as a litany”. The Agnus as written in the liturgical books has the “have mercy on us” verse sung at least twice and the “grant us peace” verse sung once at the end. It is permitted to sing the “have mercy on us” verse more than two times, if the Fraction Rite (with which it coincides) is not completed. Is the typical three-verse Agnus Dei that we hear (only two “mercy” verses) an instance of the Agnus Dei being “sung repeatedly as a litany”? If so, why even add that qualification to the document? It’s superfluous.

But if the three-verse Agnus is not an instance of being “sung repeatedly as a litany”, what is? How many verses? Or did they mean when the Agnus is used in other liturgical settings apart from here in the Communion Rite?

 

[VociMike]

But if the three-verse Agnus is not an instance of being “sung repeatedly as a litany”, what is? How many verses? Or did they mean when the Agnus is used in other liturgical settings apart from here in the Communion Rite?

I would think the latter is correct. After all, if “sung as a litany” applies to the Communion Rite as well, then when would the Agnus Dei said to be not sung as a litany? I can’t think of any such time. “Sung as a litany” is clearly meant to differentiate from another case, and what is that other case, if not the Communion Rite?

(I know, you pretty much said the same thing. )

 

[tobinatorstark]

thanks for the responses.

 

[japhy]

I would think the latter is correct. After all, if “sung as a litany” applies to the Communion Rite as well, then when would the Agnus Dei said to be not sung as a litany? I can’t think of any such time? “Sung as a litany” is clearly meant to differentiate from another case, and what is that other case, if not the Communion Rite?

Right. When the Agnus Dei is used (as a model, really) somewhere else in the liturgy, it is reasonable that it needn’t be done exactly the same.

Otherwise, we’re faced with the question: “When does the Agnus Dei stop being the Agnus Dei?” That is, how much can you change the words without changing the identity? It’d be like taking the Kyrie and changing it to “Lord, have mercy. / Jesus, be merciful. / Son of God, forgive us.”

 

[Phemie]

Right. When the Agnus Dei is used (as a model, really) somewhere else in the liturgy, it is reasonable that it needn’t be done exactly the same.

Otherwise, we’re faced with the question: “When does the Agnus Dei stop being the Agnus Dei?” That is, how much can you change the words without changing the identity? It’d be like taking the Kyrie and changing it to “Lord, have mercy. / Jesus, be merciful. / Son of God, forgive us.”

But when have you ever heard the Agnus Dei sung at any other place?

BTW, it’s defined as a litany in Music in Catholic Worship but now they say it’s not always sung as a litany???

 

[FrDavid96]

Right. When the Agnus Dei is used (as a model, really) somewhere else in the liturgy, it is reasonable that it needn’t be done exactly the same.

Otherwise, we’re faced with the question: “When does the Agnus Dei stop being the Agnus Dei?” That is, how much can you change the words without changing the identity? It’d be like taking the Kyrie and changing it to “Lord, have mercy. / Jesus, be merciful. / Son of God, forgive us.”

Yes, that is precisely the question: “how much can you change the words without changing the identity?” That question is not for any of us to answer. It is for the Conference of Bishops to submit proposed translations to the Holy See, and unless and until the Holy See has given recognitio to the text, it is not acceptable to use that text in the Mass. It realy is that simple. Any texts of the Ordinary of the Mass which do not enjoy the approval of Rome are by their very nature illicit.

The Holy See has given its approval that the line “Lamb…have mercy on us.” may be repeated as often as necessary. Anything other than that, or beyond that, is illicit.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Yes, that is precisely the question: “how much can you change the words without changing the identity?” That question is not for any of us to answer. It is for the Conference of Bishops to submit proposed translations to the Holy See, and unless and until the Holy See has given recognitio to the text, it is not acceptable to use that text in the Mass. It realy is that simple. Any texts of the Ordinary of the Mass which do not enjoy the approval of Rome are by their very nature illicit.

The Holy See has given its approval that the line “Lamb…have mercy on us.” may be repeated as often as necessary. Anything other than that, or beyond that, is illicit.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut on the Agnus Dei. Should I approach our priest about the words of the Agnus Dei or do I inform the Bishop of our Diocese???

 

[FrDavid96]

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut on the Agnus Dei. Should I approach our priest about the words of the Agnus Dei or do I inform the Bishop of our Diocese???

I’m not going to attempt a direct answer to that one.

In all cases of things happening at the parish, it is always best to approach the pastor first before going to the bishop.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Thank you

 

[tobinatorstark]

Mass was better with the Agnus Dei this week as we did the Agnus Dei in Latin.

 

[Justin1224]

Our choir, that I sing with has been informed the the Lamb of God needs to cover the fractioning right and the distribution of consecrated host into the 7 ciboria that are used for the distribution of communion. We sing Lamb of God, Bread of Life, Cup of Hope, Prince of Peace, King of Kings and then back to Lamb of God… Grant Us Peace.