Amazing Grace

[ProVobis]

Yes. The song really needs to be translated in other languages so that people may known it is truth.

Strange statement to make.

Please explain how imperfections in translations make a dubious Catholic hymn one of expression of true Catholic faith.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Strange statement to make.

Please explain how imperfections in translations make a dubious Catholic hymn one of expression of true Catholic faith.

I have. Read my posts and the posts from HelenRose and EphremMor.

 

[ProVobis]

I have. .

Please provide an example in another language which shows the truths in question. This was your claim, wasn’t it?

If you don’t know another language, please don’t make such claims.

 

[WT1]

I love the hym and will continue to sing it.
Every argument against the hym on this thread can be countered.
My parish has sung it at Mass and it’s a joy to me when we do.

When I think of heaven I imagine singing this verse:

“When we’ve been there ten thousand years
Bright shining as the sun,
We’ve no less days to sing God’s praise
Then when we first begun.”

Amen!

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Please provide an example in another language which shows the truths in question. This was your claim, wasn’t it?

If you don’t know another language, please don’t make such claims.

Did you read my posts? Obviously, you did not.

 

[ProVobis]

Did you read my posts?

I did in fact, but I agree with usige, Clare, liturgylover, tawny, corsair and others.

It might be liked by some, defended strongly by others, but why would we want to replace the Church-written antiphons and/or Gregorian chant for this particular hymn, which is sung ad nauseam at so many public events?

 

[MorEphrem]

It might be liked by some, defended strongly by others, but why would we want to replace the Church-written antiphons and/or Gregorian chant for this particular hymn, which is sung ad nauseam at so many public events?

To throw my two cents in, I defended the general use of Amazing Grace in post #39, as I understood the thread is discussing general usage (if one looks at the OP, it does not mention a discussion revolving around the exclusive liturgical usage). I tried to edit this into my post but apparently I tried past the 20min. terminus - if hymns (such as Amazing Grace) are precluded by liturgical form from the Latin mass by immemorial custom then it is inappropriate for the usage in the mass, as it is inappropriate for the same use in the Maronite Church. I was simply defending its usage from a doctrinal standpoint (i.e. “Can I sing Amazing Grace or will I be professing something heretical?” - to which I answer in the affirmative, yes you can sing it). Liturgical use is a different qualification.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

I did in fact, but I agree with usige, Clare, liturgylover, tawny, corsair and others.

It might be liked by some, defended strongly by others, but why would we want to replace the Church-written antiphons and/or Gregorian chant for this particular hymn, which is sung ad nauseam at so many public events?

The majority of chants have similar messages to the above.

In the song Holy God We Praise Thy Name, there was a verse similar to this:

SPARE Thy people, Lord, we pray,
by a thousand snares surrounded:
keep us without sin today,
never let us be confounded.
Lo, I put my trust in Thee;
never, Lord, abandon me.

Yet it was labeled as dubious since it had so-called “Protestant theology.”

Yet the actual chant has something very similar to this:

Make them to be numbered with Thy Saints in everlasting glory.
Save Thy people, O Lord, and bless Thine inheritance!
Govern them, and raise them up forever.
Every day we thank Thee.
And we praise Thy Name forever, yea, forever and ever.
O Lord, deign to keep us from sin this day.
Have mercy on us, O Lord, have mercy on us.
Let Thy mercy, O Lord, be upon us, for we have hoped in Thee.

 

[ProVobis]

To throw my two cents in, I defended the general use of Amazing Grace in post #39, as I understood the thread is discussing general usage (if one looks at the OP, it does not mention a discussion revolving around the exclusive liturgical usage). I tried to edit this into my post but apparently I tried past the 20min. terminus - if hymns (such as Amazing Grace) are precluded by liturgical form from the Latin mass by immemorial custom then it is inappropriate for the usage in the mass, as it is inappropriate for the same use in the Maronite Church. I was simply defending its usage from a doctrinal standpoint (i.e. “Can I sing Amazing Grace or will I be professing something heretical?” - to which I answer in the affirmative, yes you can sing it). Liturgical use is a different qualification.

Thanks for the clarification.

And I agree.

 

[ProVobis]

What is ironic about the hymn Amazing Grace found in the current CBW III up here is that someone has taken the liberty to change the words from
so that they read

My understanding is that songs that are in the public domain (I believe anything written before 1923 is) can have their words altered for public singing, though it’s not generally advisable for patriotic or religious songs. But I could be wrong.

 

[OraLabora]

The majority of chants have similar messages to the above.

The majority of chants are psalm and scripture verses from the Latin Vulgate Bible.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

The majority of chants are psalm and scripture verses from the Latin Vulgate Bible.

And the Bible says similar things to what is in the song Amazing Grace.

 

[NeedImprovement]

My understanding is that songs that are in the public domain (I believe anything written before 1923 is) can have their words altered for public singing, though it’s not generally advisable for patriotic or religious songs. But I could be wrong.

I know that in Canadian copyright law , usually the way it works is that 50 years after an author’s death the song enters into the public domain. This site (which confirms your post re US-specific public domain) says the average in most countries other than the USA, is 70 years after an author’s death. I’m not sure what British public domain guidelines are exactly, but John Newton (God rest his soul) passed away just a little bit more than 70 years ago (1807). So there doesn’t appear to be an issue from the public domain perspective.

What I’m questioning, is “why” anyone (presumably on a Canadian liturgical committee) would need to change the verse in Amazing Grace before the third edition printing of our CBW III from:

“That saved a wretch like me” to “That saved and rescued me” ?

There are no good theological reasons to do it. According to the related opinions posted on this thread, altering that verse for purported theological reasons would necessarily have required an edit of the word save, instead of the word wretch.

So the only reason I can see , is that someone was afraid of the word “wretch.” I don’t think there is any need to be. I would be willing to bet that St. Peter thought himself a kind of a wretch when he went outside and “wept bitterly” after publicly denying his dear friend - our Blessed Lord three times during His Passion.

But then again, this is Canada - the land of the overly-politically correct ( :doh2: ). Up here, we aren’t even allowed to say that someone is dead anymore. Now , we have to say that such people are metabolically challenged.

Below is an overview of how political correctness works in Canada: The government is the cat, and we the general public, are the puppy.

i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm228/stem50/Shh.jpg

 

[ProVobis]

What I’m questioning, is “why” anyone (presumably on a Canadian liturgical committee) would need to change the verse in Amazing Grace before the third edition printing of our CBW III from:

“That saved a wretch like me” to “That saved and rescued me” ?

There are no good theological reasons to do it. According to the related opinions posted on this thread, altering that verse for purported theological reasons would necessarily have required an edit of the word save, instead of the word wretch.

So the only reason I can see , is that someone was afraid of the word “wretch.” I don’t think there is any need to be. I would be willing to bet that St. Peter thought himself a kind of a wretch when he went outside and “wept bitterly” after publicly denying his dear friend - our Blessed Lord three times during His Passion.

But then again, this is Canada - the land of the overly-politically correct ( :doh2: ). Up here, we aren’t even allowed to say that someone is dead anymore. Now , we have to say that such people are metabolically challenged.

I’m no sociologist or theologian, but I would guess the change would bother those who are enamored with certain English words. This is not theology in the strict sense IMO. What happens when you change it to another language, as the OP has suggested? How does one retain the power of words like “amazing” for example?

It bothers me more when they change a note or chord on a musical tune, but the subject of musical notes (and hymns by definition DO have notes) having meanings AND associations has barely been touched on these fora.