Is the popular hymn "Amazing Grace" heretical and unsuitable for Catholic liturgy?

[DaveBj]

I think the song is overused and often (usually) sung badly so I can’t say I am a fan of the song in any setting. However, theologically, it wouldn’t be problematic if people understood it to be a reflection of someone’s personal experience set to music. Even then, I question its suitability for Mass since it doesn’t seem to fit any of the categories that Mass music is supposed to fill (gathering, offering, Communion or sending forth).

It’s not really overused at our parish, but I’ll go along with “sung badly.” It should be accompanied by a piano and a Hammond C3 organ with a Leslie speaker, and lead by a Southern Gospel quarter. With a couple of gratuitous key changes between verses and a half-step lift halfway through the last verse

DaveBj

 

[centurionguard]

If someone does not agree with you who call names? As you said: Can you say why you consider it “cafeteria?”

Amazing Grace was NEVER a Catholic music arrangement. Officially it was written by a Non-Conformist Christian “John Newton” in the late 1700’s. I not saying I hate the music arrangement. I’m stating that it officially “does not” belong originally in Catholic liturgical music as a heck of a lot of Protestanized Christian music that filters it’s way into modern Catholic liturgical music mostly on the basis of ecumenism.
It’s not a matter of me being biased. It’s a serious matter of strict authentic Catholic music. Or do you think we should go along to get along? There are a lot of Cafeteria Catholics who would prefer a radical change in every facet of Church liturgy.

 

[Servus_Domini_1]

Many Roman Catholic hymnals published in this country during the past fifteen years include the Protestant “gospel” hymn, “Amazing Grace,”

This is not the only place you will find this hymn, You will also find it in the approved Liturgy of the Hours (a.k.a. the Breviary) as the opening hymn for Evening Prayer II in the Common of One Martyr.

 

[ac_claire]

Except it is not doctrinally unorthodox, because there is no point in the song where a lyric reads “Amazing Grace how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me by grace alone without good works…”

Yeah…exactly. Believe me, I have tried to understand Amazing Grace as a heretical song, like so many of the people I respect do, but I just can’t. If you think it’s unorthodox/anti-Catholic, you’re really trying to see it as such. Because IMO none of it is there on the surface.

 

[pnewton]

Amazing Grace was NEVER a Catholic music arrangement… There are a lot of Cafeteria Catholics who would prefer a radical change in every facet of Church liturgy.

Maybe it is the “cafeteria” analogy that escapes you. The term was coined for one the picks up some of the Church teaching while refuseing to accept other Church teaching. Thus the question with any music is whether it contains something which contradicts or denies a dogma of the Church. Taking something from ouside of the Church and using it does not make one a cafeteria Catholic. It is denying Church teaching that does so.

It’s a serious matter of strict authentic Catholic music. Or do you think we should go along to get along?

Since the Church has never given a strict rule that only music from Catholic composers may be used, then there is no denying of Church teaching or discipline. It is not whether I believe we should all get along that should concern you.

I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.
John 17:20-21

 

[centurionguard]

Maybe it is the “cafeteria” analogy that escapes you. The term was coined for one the picks up some of the Church teaching while refuseing to accept other Church teaching. Thus the question with any music is whether it contains something which contradicts or denies a dogma of the Church. Taking something from ouside of the Church and using it does not make one a cafeteria Catholic. It is denying Church teaching that does so.

Since the Church has never given a strict rule that only music from Catholic composers may be used, then there is no denying of Church teaching or discipline. It is not whether I believe we should all get along that should concern you.

Taking something from ouside of the Church and using it does not make one a cafeteria Catholic./QUOTE] What you are implying here would depend on what unorthdox practice from (“outside”) the Church catholics would implement in the liturgy.

It is not whether I believe we should all get along that should concern you./QUOTE]

A rather wry remark. Are you implying everything you believe is without fault?

 

[Aramis]

Good Grief.


I think the author of that article has gone way over the top. WAY, WAY over the top.

Heritical? Pulleeezzzee. The best he can come up with is “questionable” theologically.

If the second verse is used, yes, it’s stating heresy. Don’t use that verse.

IF we wanted to be theologically correct, then every reference to “bread” in hymns that are sung during communion would have to be stricken, as after the consecration, it’s no longer bread (unless we add “the appearance of” into each and every hymn.

Depends. A few communion hymns discuss the nature of the mass and of the sacrifice.

“One Bread, One Body, One Lord of all…” it’s teaching by comparative restatement. (It actually would make more sense in a Byzantine context, tho’, since we do share one loaf, of which a portion is sactified, blessed, broken, transubstantiated, and then shared.

 

[Secret_Square]

Okay, try as I might, I can’t see what’s so “heretical” about the second verse.

“Twas grace that taught my heart to fear
And grace my fears relieved
How precious did that grace appear
The hour I first believed.”

The way I read it, Newton is saying or at least implying that grace was ALREADY at work in his life even BEFORE his conversion… grace “taught (his) heart to fear”, i.e. made him aware of his sins, before he turned back to God and “grace (his) fears relieved.”

Now don’t we as Catholics believe that “actual grace” – the various ways that God intervenes or sends help to us – can be at work in someone’s life even when they lack sanctifying grace due to original sin (unbaptized) or mortal sin? If God were not out there offering SOME kind of grace, putting it in our path, even when we have turned away from Him, how would anyone who had sinned find their way back? And usually, we don’t appreciate it until “the hour (we) first believed.”

I can think of some Catholic hymns that are far more “heretical” than this. The number one example that comes to my mind is “Ashes,” which proclaims that we “rise again from ashes, to create OURSELVES anew.”

 

[Lepanto]

Much of the defense of Amazing Grace that I have read here seems to be based on personal sentiment, or simply on statements like “I don’t think it’s heretical” with no theological explanation or backing. Such defenses are cop-outs and, quite frankly, are worthless when determining the appropriateness of whether AG belongs in a Catholic liturgy.

So far, I don’t think any of the song’s defenders have refuted any of Fr. Ward’s numerous specific examples of how the song is heretical and otherwise unfit for use in Catholic liturgies.

He provides a clear case with evidence. If you think that AG belongs in a Catholic liturgy, why not refute one or more of the his claims with your own theological counter-evidence?

Here again is his evidence:

fatherpaul.org/didaskalos/editorials_answers/liturgy/AmazingGraceNotCatholic.html

 

[tweetymom]

People sure can split hairs over a sweet and simple song! Whew as for me I love it take it for what it means and am glad that I can relate to the song. I was a wretch before Christ saved me and His Grace has brought me safe thus far and I rejoice for that.:clapping:

 

[Newbie2]

Okay, try as I might, I can’t see what’s so “heretical” about the second verse.

“Twas grace that taught my heart to fear
And grace my fears relieved
How precious did that grace appear
The hour I first believed.”

Me either.

Much of the defense of Amazing Grace that I have read here seems to be based on personal sentiment, or simply on statements like “I don’t think it’s heretical” with no theological explanation or backing. Such defenses are cop-outs and, quite frankly, are worthless when determining the appropriateness of whether AG belongs in a Catholic liturgy.

So far, I don’t think any of the song’s defenders have refuted any of Fr. Ward’s numerous specific examples of how the song is heretical and otherwise unfit for use in Catholic liturgies.

He provides a clear case with evidence. If you think that AG belongs in a Catholic liturgy, why not refute one or more of the his claims with your own theological counter-evidence?

Here again is his evidence:

fatherpaul.org/didaskalos/editorials_answers/liturgy/AmazingGraceNotCatholic.html

Evidence? Hmmmm.

What he appears to be doing is to call into question what the song’s author means in a certain verse or verses…then he assumes that what the author meant is contrary to Catholic teaching.

Now if we were to remove any and all hymns that are used in Catholic liturgies across the USA that used lyrics where we question the author’s meaning and intent rather than simply looking at the words and their apparent meaning, we’d be ripping a lot of pages out.

 

[pnewton]

Much of the defense of Amazing Grace that I have read here seems to be based on personal sentiment, or simply on statements like “I don’t think it’s heretical” with no theological explanation or backing. Such defenses are cop-outs and, quite frankly, are worthless when determining the appropriateness of whether AG belongs in a Catholic liturgy.

So far, I don’t think any of the song’s defenders have refuted any of Fr. Ward’s numerous specific examples of how the song is heretical and otherwise unfit for use in Catholic liturgies.

Insult all you like, but I would like to point out is when you are saying “refuted” what you really mean is refuted to your satisfaction. I will not engage in a battle of opinion which will yield no fruit, but I would like to point out that in my first post here I did give the reason I do not accept Fr. Ward claim of heresy, confining my remarks to his first point. Even Ward states," First, We find Mr. Newton asserting “‘Tis grace that brought me safe thus far.” The meaning of this expression can be confusing at best."

Since assuming I prefer to follow the catechism in presuming the best, then adding confusion makes the use of this song a matter of prudential judgement. What adds confusion in Fr. Wards parish may not be confusing in others. In my parish no such confusion exist that I know of due to proper catechisis.

I believe Fr. Ward misses the point of the hymn when he looks at it as a theological treatise instead of a specific conversion story. Indeed, I think the good Father could just as easily pick apart St. Paul’s writings if he takes verses out of context and assumes the worst meaning to them.

 

[Lujack]

Much of the defense of Amazing Grace that I have read here seems to be based on personal sentiment, or simply on statements like “I don’t think it’s heretical” with no theological explanation or backing. Such defenses are cop-outs and, quite frankly, are worthless when determining the appropriateness of whether AG belongs in a Catholic liturgy.

It doesn’t say what Father Ward thinks it says, because he’s looking at it in the wrong way. Amazing Grace is not meant to be broken down semantically the same way we’d break down an encyclical, or a theologian. It isn’t the Nicene Creed. Its a song, and as Father Ward shows, you really have to pick it apart and take the worst possible interpretation of fuzzy lyrics to make it heretical.

That’s not a sentimental defense, that’s a practical one. Would you semantically break down a conversation in the same way?

 

[benedictgal]

People sure can split hairs over a sweet and simple song! Whew as for me I love it take it for what it means and am glad that I can relate to the song. I was a wretch before Christ saved me and His Grace has brought me safe thus far and I rejoice for that.:clapping:

However, what the song denies is the fact that grace is received the moment we are baptized, not the hour we first believed. That is the crux of the argument. At Baptism, our soul is infused with grace and at that moment.

I like Amazing Grace; in fact, I spray it on twice a week since that is one of my favorite Philosophy fragrances. As a song, though, I have no use for it.

 

[tweetymom]

However, what the song denies is the fact that grace is received the moment we are baptized, not the hour we first believed. That is the crux of the argument. At Baptism, our soul is infused with grace and at that moment.

I like Amazing Grace; in fact, I spray it on twice a week since that is one of my favorite Philosophy fragrances. As a song, though, I have no use for it.

Like I said splitting hairs

 

[pnewton]

However, what the song denies is the fact that grace is received the moment we are baptized, not the hour we first believed. That is the crux of the argument. At Baptism, our soul is infused with grace and at that moment.

I like cutting to the chase. This is the most frequent objection to the hymn. To this I respond:

The hymn does not mention infusion of grace, at baptism or any other time. It mentions that grace is precious. The second verse reference to the hour of first belief says only that grace appears precious. What a wonderful word. It reminds me of the parable of the man who finds the treasure in the field and sells all he has to buy the field. The great value of the treasure is understood not when it is dug up, but rather at the moment of belief. Yes, grace is infused at baptism, as well as reconcilliation, confirmation, receiving the Eucharist, etc. Any catechumen can tell you though that prior to the Easter vigil one still recognizes the precious nature of God’s grace. Furthermore, if the catechumen dies prior to baptism, we still recognize the that he receives the grace of that baptism through his desire for it.

The criticism of the song misses the poing that this is on ode, a poem of praise, to the wonderful treasure that is the grace of God. This man who was hardened in sin is passing on his awe at this gift as only the hardened sinner can appreciate.

 

[benedictgal]

Like I said splitting hairs

No, it is not splitting hairs. The song states that grace appeared the hour the person first believed. At baptism, we are infused with grace. We just need to be better formed and informed about our Faith. Ambiguous songs like Amazing Grace really have no business in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[tweetymom]

No, it is not splitting hairs. The song states that grace appeared the hour the person first believed. At baptism, we are infused with grace. We just need to be better formed and informed about our Faith. Ambiguous songs like Amazing Grace really have no business in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Ok but to me it is splitting hairs. I did not feel Gods grace until I was reborm at age 35.

 

[pnewton]

The song states that grace appeared the hour the person first believed.

What it says is, “How precious did that Grace appear the hour I first believed.” Converting this song into an active sentence we get “Grace appeared precious.” The sentence does not state that grace materialized or was infused, but rather that it took the appearance of something precious at that time.

Ok but to me it is splitting hairs. I did not feel Gods grace until I was reborm at age 35.

I do not see this as splitting hairs though. Words do carry meaning and they should be used wisely. This is one reason I like to diagram sentences and put the word in the proper place. I’m strange that way.

Still, we must be cautious doing this with poetry. I know how easily the literal words of St. Louis de Montfort can be seen as idolatry when he goes into poetic praise of the Blessed Mother.

 

[Lujack]

No, it is not splitting hairs. The song states that grace appeared the hour the person first believed. At baptism, we are infused with grace. We just need to be better formed and informed about our Faith. Ambiguous songs like Amazing Grace really have no business in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

It doesn’t deny or propound anything, because it never tries to specify when grace appears. If a priest mentions the grace of God in his homily, is he obligated to specifically state that it appears at baptism, and not at the hour of first belief? That would be silly, because we could then go even farther: if a priest mentions baptism, he’s obligated to mention that it only happens once, for the forgiveness of sins. If he mentions the forgiveness of sins, he’s obligated to explain confession. If he’s obligated to explain confession, he needs to explain…

It is not that specific, and it isn’t ambiguous. It just doesn’t deal with these issues at all.