Thanks, I wasn’t addressing anyone in particular. I guess you hit what bothers me. As long as it is not heresy, but problematic, then the possibility exists that such a song may be prudently allowable in some situations. If the readings for the day were from 1 Corinthinans 12, what would be the problem using this song for an offetory or meditation?
Well, personally I think the lyrics are rather oversimplified and ambiguous in meaning, but I recognize that my views on the matter are not de fide of course
Well, personally I think the lyrics are rather oversimplified and ambiguous in meaning, but I recognize that my views on the matter are not de fide of course
It is good, if somewhat shocking to see someone here who does not consider their point of view de fide.
The hymn in question is theologically and doctrinally deficient. First of all, it stresses the meal aspect of the Mass while ignoring the Sacrificial aspect. I refer you to what our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, said regarding sacred music in Sacramentum Caritatis:Looks like you never paid attention all the times you heard it. It’s “story”, singular, not “stories”. The story of our redemption by Christ’s death and resurrection, the greatest story ever told. If that’s heretical, I’m a Dutchman. “leaves out”, shmeaves out. On that l;ogical principle you could ban every hymn, because they all “leave out” some important things. Unless somebody has set the entire Catechism to music!Looks like I missed another memo, “Thou shalt not use any hymns which were written by heretics”. Too bad for all those popular traditional hymns which were written by protestants. Like “Away in a Manger”, reputedly by Martin Luther - now there was a guy with an “agenda”!
You may challenge what we say, but, when it comes from the Holy Father, himself, it is perhaps best to rethink your position. I would suggest that you read what the Holy Father said while he was Cardinal Ratzinger regarding sacred music. It may very well serve to enlighten you as to why this particular song is so problematic in so many ways.
Again your only objection is what it **doesn’t *say. And again I point out that the Church has never demanded that every hymn must include every dogma of the faith in its lyrics. Is Schubert’s Ave Maria *“theologically and doctrinally deficient” because it doesn’t explicitly mention the Immaculate Conception and Assumption?
Thanks for your kind and o-so-patronising offer to “enlighten” this poor dumb fool. I am very familiar with Sacramentum Caritatis, and being involved in music ministry I have closely studied it. Therefore I know for a fact that there is nothing in it which condemns hymns which omit any particular dogma/s as “problematic”, much less “heretical”. This hymn is perfectly capable of being used “to correspond to the meaning of the mystery being celebrated, the structure of the rite and the liturgical seasons”. It’s not a good look to try to twist the pope’s words to pretend that he condemns something just because it’s not to your personal taste.
A rather distorted presentation of the concerns of course. There is a difference between not mentioning every dogma and limiting oneself to a partial understanding that is incorrect because it is partial.
It is more about “us” than about God. It celebrates what “we” do; rather than what He has done for us. No mention is made of the Sacrifice of Jesus; the composer reduces the Mass to a mere meal. Furthermore, before we can go out and save the world, as this hymn implies in the second verse, we need to ground ourselves in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The first commandment is to love God. We love God by worshipping Him and adoring Him in the Mass, the Church’s prayer par excellence. Furthermore, the coming of the Kingdom of God is not dependent on our dying and our rising (this particular phrase is nebulous).
So you would say that a hymn which praises Jesus as a great Man but does not explicitly mention His divinity, is “incorrect because it is partial”??
It is not respectful to tell someone who disagrees with you that you are “enlightening” him. I believe I responded in kind to you. “Professional”? I was not aware that posting to a web forum has now become a “profession”.
(a) He does not say anything like “hymns which are doctrinally and theologically deficient are forbidden (or even discouraged)”. And (b) “doctrinally and theologically deficient”, whatever that means, seems to be a phrase which you, not the Holy Father, invented.
No, it urges us to do what “we are called to” do. Big difference. I’m sorry but I’ve examined the words carefully many times and I can’t detect a hint of the self-congratulation and self-celebration which you seem to think is so obvious.
Hmmm, I wonder Who it is talking about in the part you (no doubt quite accidentally) omitted:
Nonsense. “Mere” is **your **word. All that the hymn, on the contrary, says about the meal is that “we are called to break the bread, the Bread of Life and the cup of promise, in this meal we all are one.” Just as the New Testament says. I’m very sorry to hear you have a problem with that.
So your point is that they’ve got the verses in the wrong order? In that case sing verse 2 at the end if it makes you happy. I’m sure God doesn’t mind if we first remind ourselves to heal the broken, give hope to the poor, and feed the hungry, and then remind ourselves why we have to do those things. Or vice versa.
Because…?
And the parts of this hymn which you object to also come directly from Sacred Scripture, as I mentioned.
The Catechism, the Scriptures, and the Mass, all spend more time talking about us and what we must do and getting us oriented in the right direction. That in no way means that they are saying that we are more important than God.
You don’t apply this idea to these things, so don’t apply it to this hymn.Again, “reduce” and “merely” are your words, not the hymn’s*. Not explicitly mentioning* something is not the same as not recognizing it. If someone gave a short speech introducing me, and omitted to mention my wife, I wouldn’t accuse him of denying that I am married.
It is a “sideshow” to the main discussion, but in fact, Schubert does not.
Now this is getting just too ridiculous. How on earth is it this hymn’s fault that some parishes who sing it have “other questionable hymns, weak homilies, and various liturgical abuses”? Let alone make this hymn into “heresy”? I’m getting really, really sick of some people around here throwing the “H” word at everything that’s not exactly to their taste. There are plenty of real heresies out there to combat. There’s no need to dream up imaginary heresies in hymns you dislike.
Oh, the horror! Progressive ideas! Fetch my clove of garlic, silver cross and a stake to drive through the heart of anyone with progressive ideas!
Maybe your parish is an exception, but every one of the dozen or so parishes I’ve lived in, in 4 different dioceses and 3 different states, had a mixture of old and “new” (<40 years) hymns at just about every Mass. And even if they don’t in your parish, how is it THIS hymn’s fault? As another poster mentioned earlier, this thread is about a particular question about a particular hymn. Not yet another opportunity for a thousandth thread full of crushingly boring and lengthy gripes about everything certain people dislike that’s happened in the last 40 years.
Petergee, first of all, I do not know what background you have regarding liturgy. Second, it would help if you step back and look at this song for what it really is. This particular hymn does undermine the Faith because the Mass is not a meal in and of itself. There is also the sacrificial element that is very important. Do you not know that at every Mass, we become just as present at Calvary as the Blessed Mother, St. John and St. Mary Magdalene? Do you not realize that the Mass is a mystery whose depths we may never plumb ?Now this is getting just too ridiculous. How on earth is it this hymn’s fault that some parishes who sing it have “other questionable hymns, weak homilies, and various liturgical abuses”? Let alone make this hymn into “heresy”? I’m getting really, really sick of some people around here throwing the “H” word at everything that’s not exactly to their taste. There are plenty of real heresies out there to combat. There’s no need to dream up imaginary heresies in hymns you dislike. Oh, the horror! Progressive ideas! Fetch my clove of garlic, silver cross and a stake to drive through the heart of anyone with progressive ideas!
Maybe your parish is an exception, but every one of the dozen or so parishes I’ve lived in, in 4 different dioceses and 3 different states, had a mixture of old and “new” (<40 years) hymns at just about every Mass. And even if they don’t in your parish, how is it THIS hymn’s fault? As another poster mentioned earlier, this thread is about a particular question about a particular hymn. Not yet another opportunity for a thousandth thread full of crushingly boring and lengthy gripes about everything certain people dislike that’s happened in the last 40 years.
And how on earth is the singing of contemporary hymns “undermining our faith”? Our faith would be the same whether we had old hymns, new hymns or no hymns. The faith is not made up of hymns, and as long as they are not heretical (as people keep alleging of this one but have failed to show) they cannot undermine our faith. .
If it merely calls him a man, I would say it is incorrect because it is partial (even if the person is in good faith and merely did not consider the ambiguity). Muslims and Jews believe Jesus was a man. We believe He is more.
Thanks, Guitar! I was just going to respond to that. Here was my quote from the other thread, although I think I might have mentioned it in another thread. I put some words in bold and condensed some things.
Just to clarify, the Latin is the “Hail Mary” prayer, but the original was a poetic prayer to the Virgin taken from one of Schubert’s “Ellen’s Gesangs”. It was “Ellen’s Gesang III”. Schubert had no intention originally for it to be used as the actual “Hail Mary”.
Thanks for the clarification. It helps to have someone who’s very knowledgeable about music on hand to clear the muddy waters.
When looking at the Song of the Body of Christ, the problem is that, while there is some truth to it (“break the bread”, which is what St. Paul and the Didache mention-although both have immediate qualifiers after this term), to just stop at that is wrong. It is very nebulous in how it treats the Holy Mass.
As cheaply as they are made, I doubt the fire would last very long- you’d barely drop the match and they’d all go up in flames- heretical hymns (burning heretical hymns…haha), trashy modern art, cheap pages and all.I pray for the day when we get to have a massive bonfire using all of these hymnals that were produced after Vatican II.
You mean, you think I know nothing about liturgy?
And there is nothing in this hymn which states that the Mass is a meal in and of itself.
How informative.
And yet in the next breath you call **me **“condescending”.