G
guanophore
Guest
That is just the point, tho. Personal prayers are not appropriate for Liturgy. It is our time of shared prayer, and that is why we use prayers and hymns used by the universal church.
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
“I believe…”
There is not thing wrong with the singular personal pronouns. I find this particular argument ironic since it is the exact opposite of what traditionalists want in music. Mass is not all about us, it is also about me and God. They two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
T
thewanderer
Guest
I have heard all these reasons for it being “heretical” before, and like I’ve said, I’ve honestly tried to understand it as being heretical in and of itself, and I just can’t. I’ll explain why, maybe I’m missing something, but I just can’t see it.
In other words, using the word wretch in order to refer to people is simply not in and of itself heretical.
This argument makes absolutely no sense to me. As others in this thread have brought up, many, many saints have talked about men as wretches without falling into heresy.
In other words, using the word wretch in order to refer to people is simply not in and of itself heretical.The problem with this interpretation, as others have also pointed out on this thread, is that the word precious is an adjective, which means that the meaning of the word “appear” in this sentance is not “came into being” but rather is “seemed”. In other words this line is not at all refering to when Grace comes into existence within a person, it is refering to the fact that once a person believes they appreciate the importance of Grace in a way they never did before. There is absolutely nothing heretical with that statement.
None of these lines necessitate that someone can do whatever they want. They are not backing up the supposed heresy that some people believe exists in the lyrics because of a false understanding of the previous line talked about. Catholics most certainly believe that it is the Word of God that secures our hope, hope being one of the cardinal virtues. Also, because of the hope we have as Catholics, we often speak of the salvation we shall enjoy through the Grace of God. It is a way of expressing our hope. It does not imply that we can do whatever we want while maintaining this hope unless one bringss that understanding of hope and salvation with them to this song. In other words, I really can’t see how this song is heretical in and of itself. It does not determine all the details, and so can be sung and interpreted in a heretical way, but can also be sung in a perfectly Catholic way. The reason it does not determine all the details is because it is not prose, but poetry, it would lose a lot of its emotive power, which is a good thing by the way, if it were to take the time to bring up all the theological distinctions which it does not settle. However, the lyrics themselves are not heretical. they can be interpreted in a heretical way if one already believes in these heresies, sure, but that is not because of what the lyrics say, it is because of what they do not determine due to the nature of the hymn.
L
liturgyluver
Guest
This isn’t particulary good example for the purposes of this thread. He is a choral composer of Motets and Mass settings not a hymn writer. All of these pieces have been set to music by both catholic and non-catholic composers to set texts.
As far as hymnody goes we catholics don’t have a huge number to draw on historically. There were the very early Latin hymns sung to plainchant, but these were translated into English by John Neale, an Anglican in the 19th century. That is the reason that the Church allowed non-Catholic hymns to be sung at Low Mass and devotions in the 1930s.
P
pnewton
Guest
I think this is a modern problem. In society today, even in Churches we do not like to speak of sin and admit that we are sinners. With the return of “most grievious fault”, perhaps this will change and we won’t be offended to be reminded that we are in fact all wretched apart from the grace of God. St. Paul understood this, as did St. Therese.
C
Cat
Guest
I’m glad you think so.Best idea I’ve heard so far on this thread.
Of course, I think trying to get Catholics together just for the joy and fun of singing would be like trying to get most Baptists together just for the joy and fun of drinking alcohol.
Do you suppose if beer were part of the sing-along, that Catholics would come?
Actually, in our current U.S. culture, getting ANY group of people together for a “sing-a-long” is probably not going to happen unless a miracle occurs. Sing-alongs have gone the route of taffy pulls and quilting bees.
But on the other hand, judging on the success of cupcake bakeries and Starbucks, we’d probably have better response sending invites to a taffy pull than a sing-along. Same for quilting bees–I know quite a few women who would probably come, but they would definitely NOT come to a sing-along.
Maybe cupcakes, taffy, and quilts at the sing-along would get people to say “Yes.”
Or maybe I should just continue to play the good Christian songs at home, alone, just me and the piano and my cat.
Z
Zosimus41
Guest
T
thewanderer
Guest
Yes, it’s very unfortunate. I think if people learned how to come together for fellowship in singing the states would be a much better place. I am really lucky in this respect, we actually do have a group at my parish that gets together every once in a while for a Sunday brunch and then four part harmony hymn singing with wine. I know I’m rather spoiled at this parish, so I’m rather dreading the day when I have to move and I get stuck with some problem parish, or even one without real fellowship among it’s members. Music is such a good way to draw people together, but many people have forgotten how to sing.I’m glad you think so.
Of course, I think trying to get Catholics together just for the joy and fun of singing would be like trying to get most Baptists together just for the joy and fun of drinking alcohol.
Do you suppose if beer were part of the sing-along, that Catholics would come?
Actually, in our current U.S. culture, getting ANY group of people together for a “sing-a-long” is probably not going to happen unless a miracle occurs. Sing-alongs have gone the route of taffy pulls and quilting bees.
But on the other hand, judging on the success of cupcake bakeries and Starbucks, we’d probably have better response sending invites to a taffy pull than a sing-along. Same for quilting bees–I know quite a few women who would probably come, but they would definitely NOT come to a sing-along.
Maybe cupcakes, taffy, and quilts at the sing-along would get people to say “Yes.”
Or maybe I should just continue to play the good Christian songs at home, alone, just me and the piano and my cat.
T
thewanderer
Guest
This link has already been posted. I really have tried to read the song the way he does, but I just can’t. Maybe there is some further reasoning I am missing, but it is not heretical for the reasons people have put forward so far. please see my last post to see why I can’t understand it as heretical even though I have heard these arguments and tried to do so.
Z
Zosimus41
Guest
The end of the second verse of Amazing Grace “How precious did that grace appear The hour I first believed” thats troublesome. The verse is implying that faith precedes grace.Grace precedes faith, i.e. it’s God’s grace that moves us to believe in the first place.
paragraph 83 of the USCCB document Sing to the Lord says:
- The Church never ceases to find new ways to sing her love for God each new day.
The Sacred Liturgy itself, in its actions and prayers, best makes known the forms in which
compositions will continue to evolve. Composers find their inspiration in Sacred Scripture, and
especially in the texts of the Sacred Liturgy, so that their works flow from the Liturgy itself.
Moreover, “to be suitable for use in the Liturgy, a sung text must not only be doctrinally correct,
but must in itself be an expression of the Catholic faith.” Therefore, “liturgical songs must never
be permitted to make statements about faith which are untrue.” Only within this scriptural,
liturgical, and creedal context is the composer who is aware of the Church’s long journey
through human history and “who is profoundly steeped in the sensus Ecclesiae” properly
equipped “to perceive and express in melody the truth of the Mystery that is celebrated in the Liturgy
The argument may seem petty but necessary to help keep us traditional and apostolic.
As was noted elsewhere in this thread, the way you interpret the words is not the plain meaning. The simplest way to interpret the sentence
<<How precious did that grace appear the hour I first believed!>>
is for grace to be the subject of the sentence, for** did appear** to be the verb, and for precious to be a predicate adjective. The reason the sentence is in something of an odd order is first of all because it is poetry and secondly, it is an exclamation. The word appear is not implying that grace had just come to be present but rather that the author finally recognized the preciousness of grace.
The sentence could be reworded as:
<<That grace did appear how precious (to me) (at) the hour (when) I first believed.>>
In other words, the hour I first believed explains when the grace seemed precious, not when the grace first came to be present (appeared.)
T
thewanderer
Guest
Zoisimus41: This following is an explanation of how I see it. Yes, if the line was saying what you are claiming that it says it would clearly be heretical, but I honestly don’t see how it can be saying what you claim that it is. Explaining what the heretical claim that some people believe is in this song is not going to help me understand. I am well aware that such a position would be heretical, my problem is that I do not see that heretical claim in the song.
C
Cat
Guest
This is the way we understood the song while I was growing up in a very OSAS church.
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
Maybe it is my inner “English teacher”, but I do not understand how one could interpret this line any other way.
Thank you SMHW!
Thank you SMHW!
T
thewanderer
Guest
I am well aware that if a song makes a heretical claim it would be inapropriate. I have said that multiple times already on this thread. I also recognize that it is heretical to claim that faith precedes Grace. My problem with this argument against amazing Grace is that I cannot see how the line people quote actually says that. There seem to be two beliefs going around about what this line means
- Grace first came into existance within me when I first believed
- I recognized Grace as something precious when I first believed
The question is not whether or not it is a heresy to say that Grace follows upon Faith, it is whether or not “to appear” means “to come into existence” or “to seem”. The use of the word ‘precious’ implies that it means “to seem” and so is not heretical. I will accept that this song is heretical if there is some way of showing that it actually means what you claim it does, but I cannot see how the actual sentence in question can mean what you think it does.
P
pnewton
Guest
It does not say that faith procedes baptism. We are not free to change words, add to a thought, then condemn the result. Imply? That word alone should be a tip off that it is not heresy.
For the record though, faith can procede sanctifying grace. I think Catholics often forget that we also baptize adults. The thief on the cross believed first, then was told he would be in paradise. This is also why we accept baptism of desire. This desire springs from faith.
I think some people see it as:Maybe it is my inner “English teacher”, but I do not understand how one could interpret this line any other way.
Thank you SMHW!
<<How precious!!! That grace did appear (during) the hour I first believed.>>
Some people interpret the song to mean grace suddenly appeared (came into existence) *because *of the author’s belief. My understanding is that the author recognized the value of grace at the same time that he believed. If the author intended some kind of cause and effect it is not clearly stated.
P
pnewton
Guest
I am wondering how many who are condemning this song actually grew up with it in a Protestant faith. No one I knew gave it any spin that would make it incompatible with Catholicism. It takes a lot of twisting to give it heterodox implications. I find it ironic that non-converts have a harder time understanding this than converts. If there was any meat to the claim, this would be reversed.
- Status