Agnus Dei/Prince of Peace/Lord of Lords?

  • Thread starter Thread starter KephasAugustine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

KephasAugustine

Guest
My university was recently reprimanded by the diocese in which it is because during the “Lamb of God” the music ministry substituted “Prince of Peace” and “Lord of Lords” and various other epithets for Christ rather than just “Lamb of God.”

When I got home from school, I was surprised to hear the cantor at my home parish sing “Prince of Peace, King of Kings, Lamb of God.” Is this a problem, as we are supposed to remember the Sacrificial Lamb during Mass? My parish has always been conservative (as San Diego goes), and we have extremely traditional, conservative, pious priests there. How much of a problem is it to substitute other titles for the Lord during the Lamb of God?

Thanks
 
As far as I know…and I may be wrong, because I am no liturgical scholar, You can either say:
"Lamb of God, you take away the sin of the world, have mercy on us.
Lamb of God, you take away the sin of the world, have mercy on us.
Lamb of God, you take away the sin of the world, grant us peace. "

or the Latin:
“Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis.
Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis.
Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, dona nobis pacem.”

Can someone more knowledgeable chime in on this…God Bless.
 
I agree with the reprimand, I think only the approved translation should be used.

A special degree of flexibility is given to the Lamb of God. From the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) approved for the USA, which can be accessed from romanrite.com/girm.html :
“83. … The supplication Agnus Dei, is, as a rule, sung by the choir or cantor with the congregation responding; or it is, at least, recited aloud. This invocation accompanies the fraction and, for this reason, may be repeated as many times as necessary until the rite has reached its conclusion, the last time ending with the words dona nobis pacem (grant us peace).”

It can be done in Latin or with the approved translation.

The 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum includes:
“[59.] The reprobated practice by which Priests, Deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy.”

I see this as forbidding new words in the Lamb of God.

At the Liturgy Office of England and Wales catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/Documents/index.html there is a document that can be downloaded “Roman Missal - a guide for composers”. At the beginning it has that it is a draft document. But it includes, about the Mass texts in general:
“Adaptation of Texts
2. The repetition of words and phrases within a particular text is permissible but it should neither unduly prolong the setting nor affect the structure or meaning of the text.
3. To facilitate participation refrains for the assembly, based on the text, may be added to texts such as the Gloria.
4. In some cases texts may be adapted slightly to accommodate the musical line (for example the Memorial acclamation “When we eat this bread…” might be expressed “When we eat this living bread…”) but care should be taken that the essential meaning of the text is respected. These adaptations should be based on the text itself, or scriptural or liturgical sources.”

I disagree with all of these, seeing them as a breach of Redemptionis Sacramentum n. 59. Repetition should only be allowed when there is explicit permission to do so, such as for the Lamb of God.

People can be asked to sing different hymns at every Mass. So there is plenty of scope for variety in what they sing. I see it as a problem to be changing the way Mass texts themselves are sung.
 
The bishops’ new document on music adresses this issue and says that additional invocations are allowable.
 
PaixGioiaAmor said:
The bishops’ new document on music adresses this issue and says that additional invocations are allowable.
Click to expand...
Do you have a link or name of the source text? Also, has the bishop’s document been given the necessary recognitio by the Holy See? If I remember correctly, the last time the bishops requested such a thing, no recognitio was given.

As I see it, it still remains an unapproved liturgical adaptation.

See here:

Worthy is the Lamb
by Susan Benofy
 
itsjustdave1988 said:
Do you have a link or name of the source text? Also, has the bishop’s document been given the necessary recognitio by the Holy See? If I remember correctly, the last time the bishops requested such a thing, no recognitio was given.

As I see it, it still remains an unapproved liturgical adaptation.

See here:

Worthy is the Lamb
by Susan Benofy
Click to expand...
The only Mass setting I’m familiar with that used tropes is the Mass of Creation, a setting composed by a non-Catholic, which takes liberties with the Agnus Dei, the Sanctus & adds unnecessary text to the Gospel Acclamation.
 
PaixGioiaAmor said:
The bishops’ new document on music adresses this issue and says that additional invocations are allowable.
Click to expand...
That only applies in certain circumstances, for example, if the fraction rite goes longer than expected. However, the new document doesn’t have the teeth to be enforceable. Had it been approved with the necessary 2/3 vote, it would have gone to Rome for final approval. Of course with the way that the document currently reads, Rome would probably have sent it back with corrections, including the one that you just cited.

In his book, A New Song for the Lord, Pope Benedict writes that the Agnus Dei may be extended (his brother would do it when he directed the Regensberg Cathedral Choir); however, the words could not be changed.
 
Unless and until the document is rebuked and corrected by Rome, we can and do assume that it does not run afoul of the law. We are not simply free to disregard the teachings of bishops unless they have the explicit seal of approval from Rome upon them.
 
The “Mass of Creation” Lamb of God has that. There are many options such as:

Jesus, lamb of God
Jesus, prince of peace
Jesus, king of kings

and many more.

It is one of the most commonly used mass settings around and I HATE IT.
 
ItalianBoy1993 said:
The “Mass of Creation” Lamb of God has that. There are many options such as:

Jesus, lamb of God
Jesus, prince of peace
Jesus, king of kings

and many more.

It is one of the most commonly used mass settings around and I HATE IT.
Click to expand...
oh yeah…not a fan…no thanks, no thanks. :nope:
 
PaixGioiaAmor said:
Unless and until the document is rebuked and corrected by Rome, we can and do assume that it does not run afoul of the law. We are not simply free to disregard the teachings of bishops unless they have the explicit seal of approval from Rome upon them.
Click to expand...
  1. Why can you “assume that it does not run afoul of the law” when it actually does.
  2. We MUST disregard the statements of a local ordinary (not the magisterium and not when a bishop is writing for any of the sacred congregations) when they are in conflict with specific instruction from Rome.
[Edited by Moderator]
 
PaixGioiaAmor said:
Unless and until the document is rebuked and corrected by Rome, we can and do assume that it does not run afoul of the law. We are not simply free to disregard the teachings of bishops unless they have the explicit seal of approval from Rome upon them.
Click to expand...
However, because the document is very flawed and does not have the recognitio from Rome (the bishops failed to adopt it by the necessary 2/3 majority), it does not carry the force of law. There are many holes in this document that bear strong indications that, perhaps if Rome had reviewed it, the piece would have been rejected.

The Constitution for Sacred Liturgy, promulgated by the Second Vatican Council, indicates that no musical instruments that have a secular use should be employed for the Mass, this included percussion (drums). Francis Cardinal Arinze, as late as last year, affirmed this declaration. Yet, the USCCB document makes provisions for it.

The document showed great promise in the initial powerpoint presentation, but the National Pastoral Musicians Association and the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions hijacked the whole thing and the end result pretty much takes us back to square one in many areas of sacred music.

I personally do not like the Agnus Dei setting from the Mass of Creation. One of the Spanish versions touted by OCP runs all three invocations together when they are supposed to be separate and distinct. When I am at Mass and have to endure either Haugen’s piece or the Spanish setting, I resort to just reciting the Agnus Dei to myself in Latin.
 
benedictgal said:
When I am at Mass and have to endure either Haugen’s piece or the Spanish setting, I resort to just reciting the Agnus Dei to myself in Latin.
Click to expand...
When they sing the MOC Agnus Dei I only start singing at ‘Lamb’, and sing ‘Lamb of God’ regardless of which tropes the choir chooses to sing.
 
Phemie said:
When they sing the MOC Agnus Dei I only start singing at ‘Lamb’, and sing ‘Lamb of God’ regardless of which tropes the choir chooses to sing.
Click to expand...
That’s what I do sometimes. I did it this past Sunday and the person in the pew next to me gave me this rather quizzical look. Then I noticed that my PV, who was the celebrant, opted not to sing, as well.
 
… and sing ‘Lamb of God’ regardless of which tropes the choir chooses to sing.
Click to expand...
That’s what I do sometimes. I did it this past Sunday and the person in the pew next to me gave me this rather quizzical look. Then I noticed that my PV, who was the celebrant, opted not to sing, as well.
Click to expand...
The celebrant is not supposed to sing this. Since he did not sing, as was proper, it would be illogical to use this to justify one’s private opinion as being therefore correct.

But then I remember this is simply a message board with a lot of private opinions circulating … and dogmatically stated as knowing a tad bit more than the Bishops who approved it. 😉
 
Joysong said:
The celebrant is not supposed to sing this. Since he did not sing, as was proper, it would be illogical to use this to justify one’s private opinion as being therefore correct.

But then I remember this is simply a message board with a lot of private opinions circulating … and dogmatically stated as knowing a tad bit more than the Bishops who approved it. 😉
Click to expand...
I seem to recall that it was approved around the same time as they thought they were going to get their new Missal translation with all these things changed in it. Surprise! Rome roundly rejected their translation for various reasons and some of the changes they’d expected never came to pass. Now we’re stuck with this horrible Mass setting that most musicians hate but the PIP love.

As for stuff being approved by bishops, well, we still have bishops using glass chalices in their cathedral parish, something which has always been forbidden but which was reinforced by Redemptionis Sacramentum. When they can’t be bothered to listen to Rome, what are we supposed to do?
 
Rebel?

Disobey?

Split the congregation?

Write to Rome?

Your choice, I would think.

As for me, I have read too many wonderful lives of saints and Doctors of the Church, who by their example, directly obeyed their lawful superiors, even when a command from them directly contradicted guidance from Jesus Himself. He told them they did right to obey.

We in the congregation are permitted to question and/or write to a higher authority, but never to do our own thing in the meanwhile, especially in a matter that is not of the essence of liturgy, such as singing our own version of the Lamb of God. This mentally and possibly pridefully attempts to point fingers at those we consider reprobate. Is this what God would want of us? Honestly?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top