So, if a Catholic had written the line, we would just assume he meant he was saved and had been quite a wretch, but if this man does it, because he belongs to a church with some specific theology, we think he imposes different meaning, evoking the whole of his church’s theology?
Only in the fertile imaginations of people with far too much time on their hands, IMO.
I think “bigoted nonsense” is uber-uncharitable. Poor choice of words for an otherwise thoughtful post.
Yes, He is!
The song does not actually say that anything is automatic. Nor does the Catholic Church deny baptism of desire. All that is said is that the author had a profound understanding of the depth of God’s grace at his moment of conversion. Could St. Paul not have had the same depth of emotion on the Damascus Road when he realized both that he had been persecuting the Son of God, yet was being called by Him?
It does not literally deny the rejection of baptismal grace, not if one reads the English words and grammar correctly. Implies? I don’t see that in implies the rejection half as much as St. Therese’s ,“Everything is grace” denies baptismal grace. Her statement expands the realization of grace even more, yet it does not deny sacramental grace, so why must this line be seen as implying a denial of baptismal grace?
I see that if you assume that certain lines mean or imply such and such a thing, then it would be heretical. But I do not see the lyrics themselves, as such, as heretical. If they were it would be impossible to understand it in a way that was theologically sound. And the way that I understand it, I assure you, it is free from heresy. I am hesitant to try to explain why I don’t see it as heretical because of looking over the controversy so far it seems unlikely that anyone is going to change their minds about it, and I’d rather not get into a pointless debate at present. The one thing I will say though is that since it is not in and of itself heretical, there is nothing to stop it being imported into the Catholic Church and embraced as Her own. The fact that some people interpret it in a way that is heretical does not make it heretical in and of itself.And this is why it comes down to simple prudence.Ok, so apparantly I opened a much bigger can of worms than I realized! I have looked through the other threads and links posted here, and have honestly tried to understand where the people who claim it is heretical are coming from, but I still can’t.
If you want something fun to think about, here is the first thread on the subject.
I’m just not sure… I know so many people who have always interpreted this song in a very Catholic light… I guess I can see how it would be imprudent around people previously influenced by the once saved always saved mentality in protestantism… but apart from those people I can’t see people misunderstanding it. I guess its just that the theologically sound understanding of it is just so obvious to me, and from what I can tell to others I know as well, that I find it hard to believe that people would be led astray outside of whatever group has been influenced by OSAS. Which I can understand being a reason for not playing it at Church… but wouldn’t the better solution just be to have the priest give a homily about the nature of Grace? Then the people will receive instruction, not be led astray, and still be able to have music they find moving and uplifting.
Don’t fret about it. You are on a message board on the internet. People are going to give you all sorts of opinions. The average Catholic in the pews probably loves this song, it is a religious standard, and they are moved by it. Doesn’t affect their Catholicity one bit. So enjoy it. I personally like when it is done on a good set of bagpipes at a funeral.Ok, so apparantly I opened a much bigger can of worms than I realized! I have looked through the other threads and links posted here, and have honestly tried to understand where the people who claim it is heretical are coming from, but I still can’t.
Even though you were raised in a very traditional setting, in which hymns like Amazing Grace would have been considered “mortal sin,”, this strict conservativism in your catechesis apparently wasn’t sufficient to keep you committed to Holy Mother Church. You said you were “away from the Church for many years.”
It apparently didn’t work for them.Well said!
Everytime something is brought up about the changes in Vat II, the reason is given that some misinterperted VII. Well there seems to be a vast majority who did just that, not a few here and there. Back then, the laity thought it would be a good idea to have the Mass said in English so we’d understand what was being said. One Mass on Sunday would have been fine and leave the others in Latin. Nope, Latin had to go to the chagrin of many of the elderly.My husband and I, along with our daughter, didn’t become Catholics because of these changes. We became Catholic because we became convinced that the Catholic Church is the True Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.Well said!
Battle Hymn of the Republic was a no-no too until Bobby Kennedy’s funeral. Now I find there are just too many Protestant hymns being sung and not enough historically Catholic.
Your point about luring Protestants into our Church is right on. I’m sure that was the thought behind removing the statues, altar railings, candles, and confessionals. Wonder how many became Catholics because of those changes?
It isn’t that difficult. All one needs to do is google and find out the history of a hymn. For example, “The Lord of the Dance” is based on the Shaker hymn “Simple Gifts”. Carter wrote the lyrics to “Lord of the Dance” in 1963 having been inspired by Jesus, Shiva and Nataraja.
Yes, but common sense isn’t so common. That’s my point.