Is this hymn heretical?

[Petergee]

Thanks for the clarification. It helps to have someone who’s very knowledgeable about music on hand to clear the muddy waters.

I thought you were talking about the lyrics, not the music. And churning up quite a bit of mud.

Regarding the issue of heresy, I think that Chesterton’s definition is quite appropos:

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.

St. Thomas Aquainas’s great Eucharistic hymn, Pangia Lingua Gloriosa, although too long to print here (you will find it in the Magnificat in the Benediction section) is very crystal clear regarding the mystery of the Holy Eucharist.

I’m sure many would find “partial” or "incomplete’ truths and “nebulosity” in there if they looked as hard as you have at this hymn.

In fact, this is the hymn that the Church sings on Holy Thursday for the procession to the altar of repose, and, once again, on the Solemnity of Corpus Christi. This particular hymn pretty much sets the bar for all other Eucharistic hymns. Song of the Body of Christ pales in comparison to this doctrinally and liturgically theologically rich hymn.

You might have **half **a point **if **a parish substituted 'Song of the Body of Christ" for the Pange Lingua during the procession. But I’ve never heard of anyone doing that. It seems you object to the hymn per se, any time, any where. Even when it is used strictly in accordance with the prionciples of Sacramentum Caritatis.

Actually I never had really striong feellings about this hymn one way or the other, but the totally over-the-top and irrational condemnation of it which you and a few others have persisted in despite all objections of the facts of the matter, have made me ponder on and appreciate it much more. I look forward to singing it with particular gusto as the entrance hymn next Holy Thursday. Just as I will sing the Pange Lingua during the procession of the Blessed Sacrament to the altar of repose.

 

[benedictgal]

I thought you were talking about the lyrics, not the music. And churning up quite a bit of mud.I’m sure many would find “partial” or “incomplete’ truths and “nebulosity” in there if they looked as hard as you have at this hymn. You might have **half **a point **if **a parish substituted 'Song of the Body of Christ” for the Pange Lingua during the procession. But I’ve never heard of anyone doing that. It seems you object to the hymn per se, any time, any where. Even when it is used strictly in accordance with the prionciples of Sacramentum Caritatis.

Actually I never had really striong feellings about this hymn one way or the other, but the totally over-the-top and irrational condemnation of it which you and a few others have persisted in despite all objections of the facts of the matter, have made me ponder on and appreciate it much more. I look forward to singing it with particular gusto as the entrance hymn next Holy Thursday. Just as I will sing the Pange Lingua during the procession of the Blessed Sacrament to the altar of repose.

First of all, I have asked you repeatedly to be as respectful to me as I have been with you. We are supposed to be having a discussion as adults and we are supposed to be doing this in fraternal charity.

You have not produced any documentation to substantiate your points. You have only made arguments for the sake of contradiction. The truth of the matter is that Song of the Body of Christ does not portray an accurate Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, let alone the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

I have posted the references to Sacramentum Caritatis throughout this thread. The Holy Father has been crystal clear on this matter. If contemporary music were free from these issues, he certainly would not have addressed this problem. In fact, in the Lineamata (the working instrument of the Synod of Bishops, which you can find at www.vatican.va)), listed the problems of contemporaryliturgical music as one of the “shadows”.

In other responses some lamented the poor quality of translations of liturgical texts and many musical texts in current languages, maintaining that they lacked beauty and were sometimes theologically unclear, thereby contributing to a weakening of Church teaching and to a misunderstanding of prayer. A few responses made particular mention of music and singing at Youth Masses. In this regard, it is important to avoid musical forms which, because of their profane use, are not conducive to prayer. Some responses note a certain eagerness in composing new songs, to the point of almost yielding to a consumer mentality, showing little concern for the quality of the music and text, and easily overlooking the artistic patrimony which has been theologically and musically effective in the Church’s liturgy.

As Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict spoke of the problems with contemporary liturgical music today. Now, as Pope, he is doing something about the situation. Now, none of us has ever said that all contemporary music is bad. In fact, he’s never said it either. However, when it contradicts Catholic doctrine and liturgical theology, then there are serious problems. Song of the Body of Christ falls under that category.

 

[Petergee]

Petergee asks, 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”?

It is just as I had said. The hymn by itself is all right. However, many here have the interpretation that it celebrates the “us” instead of “God”. Where did they get that idea from? Weak homilies, other questionable hymns, and various liturgical abuses.

Wherever they got the idea, it wasn’t from this hymn, so they should stop blaming the hymn. You’re right it is merely their interpretation of the hymn which is the problem.

Petergee: There are plenty of real heresies out there to combat.

**What is your definition of “real heresies”? **

You’ll find it in the Catechism and in the tracts on Catholic.com.

Petergee: Oh, the horror! Progressive ideas!

**Progressive ideas are horror when they promote beliefs that contradict our Creed. Examples such as denying the physical resurrection of Christ, the belief that the bread and wine are just symbols and the denial of the miracles of Christ to be supernatural are dangerous. The list can go on but this is not the point of this thread. Many of these modern hymns provided the sugar coating for such teaching. **

“Progressive” does not mean “heterodox” or “heretical”. I suggest you obtain a dictionary. Progress is a good thing. The alternatives to progress are regress or stagnation.

It seems that the basis of the objection some have to this hymn is that it would be possible for a protestant to sing it. Apparently they would ban all hymns except those which are impossible for a protestant to sing. Everything else they regard as “heretical”.

 

[benedictgal]

Wherever they got the idea, it wasn’t from this hymn, so they should stop blaming the hymn. You’re right it is merely their interpretation of the hymn which is the problem.
You’ll find it in the Catechism and in the tracts on Catholic.com.
“Progressive” does not mean “heterodox” or “heretical”. I suggest you obtain a dictionary. Progress is a good thing. The alternatives to progress are regress or stagnation.

It seems that the basis of the objection some have to this hymn is that it would be possible for a protestant to sing it. Apparently they would ban all hymns except those which are impossible for a protestant to sing. Everything else they regard as “heretical”.

No one has said that. Please be accurate in your assessment of things.

Now, I have quoted in my previous post from the Lineamata, the instrument that the Synod used as a guide during their meeting in October 2005. The Synod Fathers voiced the same concerns that many of us have raised in this thread. I would invite you to read the whole document. If hymns such as Song of the Body of Christ were as free from error as you claim they are, then why would the Synod Fathers have addressed the problem of music in their meeting? Why would the poll the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments took (when formulating this instrument) have indicated that these problems were prevelant in the Church? Why would so many bishops have expressed concerns over these type of songs?

Remember, too, that our Holy Father is also a musician and, his brother, Msgr. Georg Ratzinger, served as the choirmaster for Regensberg Cathedral. If anyone in the Vatican knows a thing or two (or more) about Sacred Music and what is appropriate for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, it is Pope Benedict. Why are you so quick to challenge him?

Again, you have not presented anything that defends your position.

 

[Petergee]

First of all, I have asked you repeatedly to be as respectful to me as I have been with you.

Where have I failed to be so?

You have not produced any documentation to substantiate your points.

“Documentation”? If you want a papal declaration stating “Song of the Body of Christ is not heretical”, it doesn’t exist. That does not mean you can presume that it is heretical.

You have only made arguments for the sake of contradiction.

ISTM that’s exactly what you are doing. You are drawing absurdly long bows to claim that the pope has condemned this hymn when he has done nothing of the kind.

The truth of the matter is that Song of the Body of Christ does not portray an accurate Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, let alone the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

I totally respect your right to hold that opinion. I merely resent your insistence that everybody else must agree with you, your refusal to countenance any evidence to the contrary, and your outlandish claimk that papal declarations condemn anyone who disagrees with you. I don’t claim that my opinions are de fide and neither should you.

I have posted the references to Sacramentum Caritatis throughout this thread. The Holy Father has been crystal clear on this matter.

According to your interpretation. It is crystal clear to me that the Holy Father sees this hymn, like any others, as perfectly acceptable when used within the directives he has issued.

If contemporary music were free from these issues, he certainly would not have addressed this problem. In fact, in the Lineamata (the working instrument of the Synod of Bishops, which you can find at www.vatican.va)), listed the problems of contemporaryliturgical music as one of the “shadows”.

As Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict spoke of the problems with contemporary liturgical music today. Now, as Pope, he is doing something about the situation. Now, none of us has ever said that all contemporary music is bad. In fact, he’s never said it either. However, when it contradicts Catholic doctrine and liturgical theology, then there are serious problems. Song of the Body of Christ falls under that category.

In your personal opinion. When asked for evidence to support this assertion, you have repeatedly produced nothing of substance. So I suggest you cease making this assertion. This hymn contradicts **no **Catholic doctrine, in fact it strongly supports several Catholic doctrines.

 

[benedictgal]

Where have I failed to be so?
“Documentation”? If you want a papal declaration stating “Song of the Body of Christ is not heretical”, it doesn’t exist. That does not mean you can presume that it is heretical. ISTM that’s exactly what you are doing. You are drawing absurdly long bows to claim that the pope has condemned this hymn when he has done nothing of the kind. I totally respect your right to hold that opinion. I merely resent your insistence that everybody else must agree with you, your refusal to countenance any evidence to the contrary, and your outlandish claimk that papal declarations condemn anyone who disagrees with you. I don’t claim that my opinions are de fide and neither should you.
According to your interpretation. It is crystal clear to me that the Holy Father sees this hymn, like any others, as perfectly acceptable when used within the directives he has issued. In your personal opinion. When asked for evidence to support this assertion, you have repeatedly produced nothing of substance. So I suggest you cease making this assertion. This hymn contradicts **no **Catholic doctrine, in fact it strongly supports several Catholic doctrines.

It does not support several doctrines of the Church. Please indicate which are the ones you think it does. You have been unable to prove your points. First of all, the meal element is emphasized over the sacrifiical. Do you not believe that the Mass is very much a sacrifice? The kingdom of God is not dependent on our dying and rising. The song places undue emphasis on us rather than on God. It is about our stories and about our coming together. It is about what we are doing; not at all about God. In fact, the Lord remains an after-thought in the hymn.

If you read what the Holy Father’s words are (and stop reading into them for a loophole), you will find that the statements he is making contradict yours.

If my claims are “outlandish”, then, you are also declaring what the Holy Fathers (after all, the Linemata was made under John Paul II’s watch) and the Synod Fathers have said as “outlandish” as well.

 

[Petergee]

No one has said that. Please be accurate in your assessment of things.

Really? It was asserted that the major “heresy” in this hymn was that it portrays the Eucharist as a meal without explicitly mentioning Christ’s sacrifice, and that since the Protestant position is that the Eucharist is merely a meal, we must not sing it. .

Now, I have quoted in my previous post from the Lineamata, the instrument that the Synod used as a guide during their meeting in October 2005. The Synod Fathers voiced the same concerns that many of us have raised in this thread. I would invite you to read the whole document. If hymns such as Song of the Body of Christ were as free from error as you claim they are, then why would the Synod Fathers have addressed the problem of music in their meeting? Why would the poll the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments took (when formulating this instrument) have indicated that these problems were prevelant in the Church? Why would so many bishops have expressed concerns over these type of songs?

Remember, too, that our Holy Father is also a musician and, his brother, Msgr. Georg Ratzinger, served as the choirmaster for Regensberg Cathedral. If anyone in the Vatican knows a thing or two (or more) about Sacred Music and what is appropriate for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, it is Pope Benedict. Why are you so quick to challenge him?

I have bent over backwards to be respectful to you. However your continual provocative and totally unfounded asssertions that I am “challenging the pope” make this extremely difficult.
The Pope and bishops wefre chieefly concerned about the use of styles of music which were intended for profane rather than liturgical use. Not about any supposed "heresy’ in the lyrics of any particular hymn. Your repeated quotes of quite unrelated tracts from the papal documents undermine rather than support your assertions, as they show that there is in fact no official church document which supports your postion and you are merely bluffing on this point.

 

[Petergee]

It does not support several doctrines of the Church. Please indicate which are the ones you think it does. You have been unable to prove your points. First of all, the meal element is emphasized over the sacrifiical. Do you not believe that the Mass is very much a sacrifice? The kingdom of God is not dependent on our dying and rising. The song places undue emphasis on us rather than on God. It is about our stories and about our coming together. It is about what we are doing; not at all about God. In fact, the Lord remains an after-thought in the hymn.

All asked and answered earlier in the thread. Not going to rehash again.

If you read what the Holy Father’s words are (and stop reading into them for a loophole), you will find that the statements he is making contradict yours.

ISTM it is you who are looking for a loophole. Please point out one statement I have made which contradicts one statement the Holy Father has made. Or withdraw this offensive assertion.

If my claims are “outlandish”, then, you are also declaring what the Holy Fathers (after all, the Linemata was made under John Paul II’s watch) and the Synod Fathers have said as “outlandish” as well.

What is outlandish is your attempt to make them say what you want them to say, rather than their plain and obvious meaning. I totally endorse the documents you referred to and I respectfully request that you cease asserting that I reject them.

 

[benedictgal]

Really? It was asserted that the major “heresy” in this hymn was that it portrays the Eucharist as a meal without explicitly mentioning Christ’s sacrifice, and that since the Protestant position is that the Eucharist is merely a meal, we must not sing it. .
I have bent over backwards to be respectful to you. However your continual provocative and totally unfounded asssertions that I am “challenging the pope” make this extremely difficult.
The Pope and bishops wefre chieefly concerned about the use of styles of music which were intended for profane rather than liturgical use. Not about any supposed "heresy’ in the lyrics of any particular hymn. Your repeated quotes of quite unrelated tracts from the papal documents undermine rather than support your assertions, as they show that there is in fact no official church document which supports your postion and you are merely bluffing on this point.

First of all, the hymn only concentrates on the meal aspect of the Mass and leaves behind the sacrifice. Let me repeat what the Lineamata says:

A few responses made particular mention of music and singing at Youth Masses. In this regard, it is important to avoid musical forms which, because of their profane use, are not conducive to prayer. Some responses note a certain eagerness in composing new songs, to the point of almost yielding to a consumer mentality, showing little concern for the quality of the music and text, and easily overlooking the artistic patrimony which has been theologically and musically effective in the Church’s liturgy.

The Linemata, in essence, makes a very direct reference to the quality of the music and text. Not only is Song of the Body of Christ problematic in its text, but, it does, in fact, overlook the essence of theology that is intrinsic to the Church’s liturgy.

In Sacramentum Caritatis, Pope Benedict takes this a step further when he writes:

Liturgical song

1. In the ars celebrandi, liturgical song has a pre-eminent place. (126) Saint Augustine rightly says in a famous sermon that “the new man sings a new song. Singing is an expression of joy and, if we consider the matter, an expression of love” (127). The People of God assembled for the liturgy sings the praises of God. In the course of her two-thousand-year history, the Church has created, and still creates, music and songs which represent a rich patrimony of faith and love. This heritage must not be lost. ***Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another. Generic improvisation or the introduction of musical genres which fail to respect the meaning of the liturgy should be avoided. As an element of the liturgy, song should be well integrated into the overall celebration (128). Consequently everything – texts, music, execution – ought to correspond to the meaning of the mystery being celebrated, the structure of the rite and the liturgical seasons (129). ***Finally, while respecting various styles and different and highly praiseworthy traditions, I desire, in accordance with the request advanced by the Synod Fathers, that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed (130) as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy (131).

The part highlighted in bold and italicized makes direct mention to the fact that music must “correspond to the mystery being celebrated”. This includes “texts, music (and) execution.”

Now, in my younger days, I managed to insert this hymn into some of the Masses I used to plan. However, a very capable and astute priest pointed out the same doctrinal and theological concerns in our discussions on sacred music. He pointed me out to the Lineamata. I read the materials he referenced from the former Cardinal Ratzinger’s writings. After study and discernment, I came to the conclusion that this hymn was not at all suitable for Mass.

You criticize my using these documents to substantiate my points and that I am twisting what they say. The wording is crystal clear. The Holy Father and the Synod Fathers make the same points. It has gone beyond a question of personal taste. The real kernel that we must hit at is whether or not these hymns are in conformity with Catholic doctrine and liturgical theology. The documents that I have presented indicate that, based on what the Holy Father and the Synod Fathers have said, “Song of the Body of Christ” does not fit into this category.

As Pope Benedict XVI so rightfully claims:

Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another.

 

[peary]

Is this hymn troubling to anyone else?

Refrain: We come to share our story,
we come to break the bread,
we come to know our rising
from the dead.

1. We come as your people,
   we come as your own,
   united with each other,
   love finds a home.
2. We are called to heal the broken,
   to be hope for the poor;
   we are called to feed
   the hungry at our door.
3. Bread of life and cup of promise,
   in this meal we all are one.
   In our dying and our rising,
   may your kingdom come.
4. You will lead and we shall follow,
   you will be the breath of life;
   living water,
   we are thirsting for your light.
5. We will live and sing your praises,
   “Alleluia” is our song.
   May we live in love and peace
   our whole life long.

It is very troubling. It’s all about ‘us’ not God. The lyrics use the ‘we’ 12 times; it uses ‘our’ 6 times; it uses ‘your’ (as in reference to God, I suppose) 3 times; it uses ‘You’ (for God) 2 times. I guess you can see where the emphasis is in this song!

 

[benedictgal]

It is very troubling. It’s all about ‘us’ not God. The lyrics use the ‘we’ 12 times; it uses ‘our’ 6 times; it uses ‘your’ (as in reference to God, I suppose) 3 times; it uses ‘You’ (for God) 2 times. I guess you can see where the emphasis is in this song!

Thank you, peary. Additional kudos go to you for actually counting how many times certain words are used.

The problem is that the song swings too far towards the “horizontal” aspect of the Mass and nearly zero towards the “vertical.” It also seems to disregard the cosmic aspect of the Mass.

 

[Joysong]

Rarely do I post or read anything in L&S forum, so I missed this thread until this morning. Maybe it is providential.

While I agree with many posters about the melody and to some extent, the words . . . there is something mystical in meaning that I’m absolutely certain the Lord wishes to impress upon ‘listening’ hearts.

From the day I first heard this hymn and almost every time thereafter that it has been used in a liturgy, there is a deep manifestation of Holy Spirit 's presence that reduces me to joyful, quiet tears. I cannot explain it, but it has occurred way too often for me to doubt the genuineness of these interior sentiments.

Most recently, although our new priest had absolutely no idea how this hymn affects me, he celebrated a liturgy the day after my husband died, and chose this hymn. Although my presence of mind was in grief beyond all telling, I was doing rather well - no tears - until the people started singing that hymn. It really opened up the floodgates and I sobbed. How could he have known this song would touch my heart out of almost 800 hymns to select? The Holy Spirit.

Our participation in Holy Communion is in reality a union with Christ … but also with one another. In this ritual, all distinctions cease: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, etc.” By participating in this ritual we are addressed by name: “The Body of Christ.” This greeting is not only an affirmation of what we receive, but an acknowledgement of whom we have become. We are one body. Our participation in Holy Communion is to affirm our collective identity.

We seldom think about the Mystical Body of Christ in whom we are intimately bound at the moment of communion. St. Paul gave a beautiful theological teaching in his epistle, formed no doubt from his awesome encounter with Christ, who revealed to Paul that he was persecuting Him in the person of His members. It was one of St. Paul’s greatest lessons, I believe. Would that we might learn it well.

The hymn may not touch us with the melody or with the words, but if we listen, we may just hear the voice of God. He is active in the liturgy, and can speak to us in spite of what some may consider to be a poor hymn.

 

[benedictgal]

Rarely do I post or read anything in L&S forum, so I missed this thread until this morning. Maybe it is providential.

While I agree with many posters about the melody and to some extent, the words . . . there is something mystical in meaning that I’m absolutely certain the Lord wishes to impress upon ‘listening’ hearts.

From the day I first heard this hymn and almost every time thereafter that it has been used in a liturgy, there is a deep manifestation of Holy Spirit 's presence that reduces me to joyful, quiet tears. I cannot explain it, but it has occurred way too often for me to doubt the genuineness of these interior sentiments.

Most recently, although our new priest had absolutely no idea how this hymn affects me, he celebrated a liturgy the day after my husband died, and chose this hymn. Although my presence of mind was in grief beyond all telling, I was doing rather well - no tears - until the people started singing that hymn. It really opened up the floodgates and I sobbed. How could he have known this song would touch my heart out of almost 800 hymns to select? The Holy Spirit.

Our participation in Holy Communion is in reality a union with Christ … but also with one another. In this ritual, all distinctions cease: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, etc.” By participating in this ritual we are addressed by name: “The Body of Christ.” This greeting is not only an affirmation of what we receive, but an acknowledgement of whom we have become. We are one body. Our participation in Holy Communion is to affirm our collective identity.

We seldom think about the Mystical Body of Christ in whom we are intimately bound at the moment of communion. St. Paul gave a beautiful theological teaching in his epistle, formed no doubt from his awesome encounter with Christ, who revealed to Paul that he was persecuting Him in the person of His members. It was one of St. Paul’s greatest lessons, I believe. Would that we might learn it well.

The hymn may not touch us with the melody or with the words, but if we listen, we may just hear the voice of God. He is active in the liturgy, and can speak to us in spite of what some may consider to be a poor hymn.

Joysong, inasmuch as this song touched you emotionally (and having planned my own beloved mother’s and grandmother’s funerals, I can certainly empathize with you), it is still not appropriate for the very reasons that you have mentioned. When we make the Mystical Body of Christ more important than the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, there are problems. Furthermore, the song doesn’t take something else into consideration (and neither have its supporters). “We” are not the only ones present in the Mass. At every Mass the ENTIRE Church comes together: Militant, Triumphant and Suffering. The veil between time and space is lifted and we receive a foretaste of heaven. We enter into God’s time. It’s not about us, anymore, it is about God.

In my younger days, I had even suggested that we use this hymn for the Mass for the erection of our diocese. In hindsight, I wish we hadn’t, as it sent a very wrong message. One of the priests was not very happy with the selection and called me to task on it. After we had a long discussion, he challeneged me to study the lyrics. That’s where I discovered that it is very deficient.

Yes, St. Paul talked about our being many parts to the one body of Christ; however, never did that overshadow the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist itself. We are here at Mass to worship and adore God and to offer him the perfect sacrifice of Jesus, his Son. We are not at Mass to celebrate ourselves and make the music driven towards us, rather than towards God. Yes, God is active in the liturgy, inspite of the abuses and the decificient hymns; however, what happes at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is so very different and so out of the ordinary, that the music needs to reflect that mystery. Using music that only emphasizes the half-truth (meal) without the sacrifice does the Mass no favors.

 

[Joysong]

Surely nobody would object to the familiar hymn, Gift of finest Wheat? In verse three we sing, “Is not the cup we bless and share the Blood of Christ outpoured? Do not one loaf, one cup declare, our oneness in the Lord?”

It teaches the truth of what takes place at communion - that we ARE INDEED one mystical body in Christ. The very words in the Eucharistic Prayer substantially proclaim the sacrificial nature of the liturgy, and effect it (whether or NOT there are hymns at that mass - they are not mandated.)
I see no need to reduntantly select every hymn in order to explain the essence of the holy sacrifice, so some folks might just ‘get it.’

We sang all Marian hymns today for the holyday, and not a single one addressed the reality of Christ’s sacrifice, nor the reality of our oneness in communion. Are they therefore, not to be used because they are deficient in theology? I think some well-meaning folks in this thread present arguments that support a debating position, but do not have much substance.

 

[benedictgal]

Surely nobody would object to the familiar hymn, Gift of finest Wheat? In verse three we sing, “Is not the cup we bless and share the Blood of Christ outpoured? Do not one loaf, one cup declare, our oneness in the Lord?”

It teaches the truth of what takes place at communion - that we ARE INDEED one mystical body in Christ. The very words in the Eucharistic Prayer substantially proclaim the sacrificial nature of the liturgy, and effect it (whether or NOT there are hymns at that mass - they are not mandated.)
I see no need to reduntantly select every hymn in order to explain the essence of the holy sacrifice, so some folks might just ‘get it.’

We sang all Marian hymns today for the holyday, and not a single one addressed the reality of Christ’s sacrifice, nor the reality of our oneness in communion. Are they therefore, not to be used because they are deficient in theology? I think some well-meaning folks in this thread present arguments that support a debating position, but do not have much substance.

Joysong, I have the lyrics to “Gift of Finest Wheat” in front of me. While they mention the phrase “do not one cup, one loaf declare…” in the hymn (and, this is a Pauline reference), they also have something that Song of the Body of Christ does not:

Is not the cup, we bless and share, the ***blood of Christ outpoured…***The mystery of your presence, Lord, no mortal tongue can tell, whom all the world cannot contain comes in our hearts to dwell.

There is nothing nebulous about Eucharistic theology in this hymn, while Song of the Body of Chirst is murky.

Furthermore, your assertion regarding the Marian hymns in the liturgy is incorrect. They are most certainly allowable for use so long as they are dogmatically and doctrinally correct in their reference to our Blessed Mother. Furthermore, they are most appropriate for Marian feasts. Read the prayers proper for each Marian feast that the Church uses in the Mass. These certainly refer directly to Mary. Hymns such as “For all the Saints”, “Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones” and “By all Your Saints Still Striving” are certainly most appropriate for feasts of saints, in particular, All Saints Day because they directly correpond to the feast the Church is celebrating.

If you have read the posts throughout these threads, you will find that the citations used from the various documents issued by the Holy See substantiate the assertions regarding Song of the Body of Christ. I invite you to read those documents. I did not post them merely to wage document warfare or to just pull them out of the air. Both the Holy Father and the Synod Father were very clear regarding liturgical music. Who are we to challenge them?

 

[Joysong]

There is nothing nebulous about Eucharistic theology in this hymn, while Song of the Body of Chirst is murky.

That is your right to hold this opinion about the latter hymn, and perhaps some clergy may feel similarly. However, I cannot dismiss the blessings that minister to me when this is used in a liturgy that I attend.

Who holds the right to tell me this hymn is not of God because of their personal dislike for the words/melody?

Or that God is unable to minister to anyone who listens to this hymn, solely because the theology is imperfectly re-presenting the sacrifice of Christ?

Furthermore, your assertion regarding the Marian hymns in the liturgy is incorrect. They are most certainly allowable for use so long as they are dogmatically and doctrinally correct in their reference to our Blessed Mother.

I did not assert anything at all, except that Immaculate Mary and other Marian hymns do not focus on the sacrifice of the mass, which seemed to be a strong point of contention with you. In fact, no hymns are required at mass whatsoever. Mass may be celebrated without them.

It is not my point to debate the worthiness of the hymn, but it is my right to find beauty in it whenever the Holy Spirit touches my heart. Not everyone holds your opinion. If it pleases Him, who’s to say it’s wrong? You may want to debate this with someone who really hates it, and then you can both be right.

 

[Joysong]

Benedictgal,

Just an afterthought regarding my experience of joy and beauty in this hymn that, on the surface, should demonstrate no apparent worthiness. I emphacize that it is not the words, not the melody, but the inner witness of the Holy Spirit who 'fills the hungry with good things." He is very active in every liturgy, and if one person hears Him in a particular hymn, whereas another does not, I can only conclude that we each hear the beat of a different drummer. I have never been spiritually affected by the ‘Eucharistic theology’ of Gift of Finest Wheat. Your logic would say that I should be moved, because of the profound words. Not so.

We all need to come to liturgy with open hearts and pure intentions, and listen for that still small voice. How often in scripture we find God confounding the wise, and surprising mankind in a manner totally unexpected. It is an error to put Him in a box and say He will minister to His people only if it meets their expectations of theological correctness.

A good preparation for advent might be a quiet reflection on the humble stable where some simple field shepherds found great peace on earth in the presence of Jesus; whereas I doubt a single person in the inn would have suspected the magnificent mystery taking place only a few yards away. It was not a theological expectation that the Messiah would be born THERE, so imperfect, so abject.

Yet, the shepherds came, and saw, and knew.

 

[peary]

The hymn may not touch us with the melody or with the words, but if we listen, we may just hear the voice of God. He is active in the liturgy, and can speak to us in spite of what some may consider to be a poor hymn.

**The voice of God is difficult to hear in lyrics which speak of “me me me me me” all the time. **

 

[benedictgal]

Benedictgal,

Just an afterthought regarding my experience of joy and beauty in this hymn that, on the surface, should demonstrate no apparent worthiness. I emphacize that it is not the words, not the melody, but the inner witness of the Holy Spirit who 'fills the hungry with good things." He is very active in every liturgy, and if one person hears Him in a particular hymn, whereas another does not, I can only conclude that we each hear the beat of a different drummer. I have never been spiritually affected by the ‘Eucharistic theology’ of Gift of Finest Wheat. Your logic would say that I should be moved, because of the profound words. Not so.

We all need to come to liturgy with open hearts and pure intentions, and listen for that still small voice. How often in scripture we find God confounding the wise, and surprising mankind in a manner totally unexpected. It is an error to put Him in a box and say He will minister to His people only if it meets their expectations of theological correctness.

A good preparation for advent might be a quiet reflection on the humble stable where some simple field shepherds found great peace on earth in the presence of Jesus; whereas I doubt a single person in the inn would have suspected the magnificent mystery taking place only a few yards away. It was not a theological expectation that the Messiah would be born THERE, so imperfect, so abject.

Yet, the shepherds came, and saw, and knew.

Joysong, I do not know what your background in liturgy is. All I do know is that the Church sets parameters regarding sacred music. Song of the Body of Christ is more of a celebration of ourselves rather than pointing out the heart of the mystery that unfolds before us at every Mass. The documents I have quoted speak very clearly to this. Perhaps if Song of the Body of
Christ were rewritten, it could better reflect what happens at Mass:

We come to you Father
with Jesus Christ your Son
in praise and thanksgiving
your Church united as one.

The sacrifice we offer
like Melchizedek of old
Jesus’ Body and His Blood
so long foretold.

He is the Lamb who saves us;
by His blood we are redeemed.
The fount of our salvation
our wounds he cleans.

This treasure that He left us
which we offer now to You,
is the pledge of your love,
holy and true.

Though we ourselves are sinners,
we beg your mercy Lord;
you offers us forgiveness
through your Eternal Word.

I do not know how to read music, but the phrases are set to the tune of Song of the Body of Christ. I thought about these (they are taken from Eucharistic Prayer I) during the homily this evening (which was in Spanish and I have a hard time sometimes keeping up).

It does take the “we”, but it puts it into the perspective of the “Thou” of God the Father.

 

[E.E.N.S]

It’s a hideous hymn with a very modernist vibe, but it doesn’t seem overtly heretical.

I pray for the day when we get to have a massive bonfire using all of these hymnals that were produced after Vatican II.

Heretical? Not really.
Awful to sing? Absolutely. (It’s on my top 10 least favorite hymn list.)

See, that’s part of the problem with the music we sing in Mass. Is it overtly heretical? No. It’s simply as banal, as "mild-as-milk"ie as it can possibly be. It doesn’t really say ANYTHING.

…my Aggie friend, don’t insult Gregorian Chant by comparing it to this. It’s like comparing fine wine to generic soda. .

Agreed.