T
TheMc
Guest
No, he’s wrong. It should never be changed. The Missal, nor any other binding documents make any mention of it.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
TheMc
Guest
No.Can you still change the tropes to “grant them rest” in funeral Masses like they do in the EF? Is there any provision for it in the OF?
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world,
grant them rest.
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world,
grant them rest.
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world,
grant them eternal rest.
T
TheMc
Guest
Yes, but the USCCB document is not binding. It has no authority. Not to mention that most other liturgical documents mention that the text should never be changed. Including during the lamb of God. It’s in direct contradiction to those documents, and should not be obeyed.I’ve never heard that particular take on it, but here’s where things get confusing.
The Missal seems pretty clear that the only trope should be “Lamb of God.” But, in a document on the liturgy from the USCCB, we read that other Christological tropes are permitted. I don’t have either of those documents in front of me, but they do exist.
From my perspective as a composer, using “Lamb of God” as the only trope makes the music easier to write and to sing.
J
jmjconder
Guest
I began this post with the sincerest of hearts. Not sure what your post means. Please explain.Let’s humbly save our insults for the evil that deserve them.
T
TheMc
Guest
This is someone who doesn’t care about the liturgy, yet still wants to be involved.I began this post with the sincerest of hearts. Not sure what your post means. Please explain.
P
promethius
Guest
Meh, no. I agree with the person who made that comment that we can discuss issues like this in a sense of charity rather than insults.This is someone who doesn’t care about the liturgy, yet still wants to be involved.
If we allow absuses to cause us to treat fellow catholics with contempt rather than charity and respect, then it is US who are sinning as well.
Might I remind you, as well, that the catechism specifies that we are to avoid rash judgement by assuming the best possible motive or by asking clarification rather than causing calumny or false witness by speaking out on an assumed negative interpretation?
T
TheMc
Guest
Look at the first 8 posts: I saw no insults, other than calling liturgical abuse vomit-worthy (which it is). Changing the text of the Mass is a serious issue.Meh, no. I agree with the person who made that comment that we can discuss issues like this in a sense of charity rather than insults.
If we allow absuses to cause us to treat fellow catholics with contempt rather than charity and respect, then it is US who are sinning as well.
Might I remind you, as well, that the catechism specifies that we are to avoid rash judgement by assuming the best possible motive or by asking clarification rather than causing calumny or false witness by speaking out on an assumed negative interpretation?
Again I echo: The only reason that person said what they said is because they don’t care about the liturgy. If they did, they’d be putting blame where blame is due: on those who change the texts of the Mass, such as Marty Haugen, and those who use his illicit music.
P
Phemie
Guest
It doesn’t help when things like Haugen’s Lamb of God are found in official Catholic hymnals such as Canada’s Catholic Book of Worship III, published by the CCCB.Look at the first 8 posts: I saw no insults, other than calling liturgical abuse vomit-worthy (which it is). Changing the text of the Mass is a serious issue.
Again I echo: The only reason that person said what they said is because they don’t care about the liturgy. If they did, they’d be putting blame where blame is due: on those who change the texts of the Mass, such as Marty Haugen, and those who use his illicit music.
P
promethius
Guest
That’s not exactly what was said, was it?Look at the first 8 posts: I saw no insults, other than calling liturgical abuse vomit-worthy (which it is). Changing the text of the Mass is a serious issue.
If we’re being honest about it, what was said was that it was “absolutely,** horrifically**, vomit-worthy”, that said person has “never had to sit through something like that”, and that “That is a supreme liturgical abuse and the anathema hammer needs to rain down upon it”.
Let’s deal with those three statements:
- There are a lot of things that provoke horror or vomit. Generally, following a teaching of the USCCB without knowing that the teaching MAY be in error, is not enough to cause one to vomit. In fact, I sincerely doubt that YoungTradCath was being anything but hyperbolic… (and to caveat, yes, I am aware of your position on the USCCB, I do not exactly agree with you or disagree, and neither does Marty Haugen, so we can skip derailing the thread in that direction)
- YoungTradCath should sit through the youtube video of Judge William Adams beating his mentally handicapped daughter with a belt if he’s never experienced anything more horrific and vomit-worthy than singing mistaken lyrics out of ignorance whilst following teaching by the USCCB and CCCB.
- Changing the words of the Agnus Dei through ignorance is hardly in the category of supreme liturgical abuse. I would call the priest giving the annunciation, setting the Eucharist on the Altar, and then spitting on it “supreme liturgical abuse”. Again, this sort of hyperbolic exremism is not productive in a discussion. It looks unhinged, and therefore REDUCES the credibility of (the user giving) the very valid statement that the changing of the words of the Agnus Dei is not allowed.
- I would hardly find following the USCCB teaching, even if said teaching is in error, out of blind faith in that teaching to be anathema worthy. Here are other things a person can do, which probably SHOULD result in anathemas (before mistakenly changing the words of the Agnus Dei) and don’t:
- Molest a child
- Murder someone
- Perjure someone so that they unjustly go to jail
- Rob a house
- Torture someone
- Rape someone
- Defraud people out of their retirement money
- Usury
- Own slaves
The point the person is trying to make is that hyperbolic, extremist speech does nothing to help the case of those who support a good liturgy.
So you do not believe it is possible to assert that one can be loyal to the vatican and should have charity at the same time? Loyalty to the vatican means no charity?Again I echo: The only reason that person said what they said is because they don’t care about the liturgy. If they did, they’d be putting blame where blame is due: on those who change the texts of the Mass, such as Marty Haugen, and those who use his illicit music.
Is it not possible to be against changing the words of the Agnus Dei while at the same time being against hyperbolic and extremist speech like calling that “the Supreme liturgical abuse”?
And where did you determine that Philotheatoo doesn’t care about the liturgy? The only thing he said was that we should treat the subject with less insults (I think what he meant was less use of hyperbole). That doesn’t REMOTELY support the idea that liturgical abuse is okay.
T
TheMc
Guest
It’s unfortunate, but it is still illicit to use.It doesn’t help when things like Haugen’s Lamb of God are found in official Catholic hymnals such as Canada’s Catholic Book of Worship III, published by the CCCB.
P
Philotheatoo
Guest
and, aren’t we supposed to be thumping our chest? Why do I do that habitually and everyone around me thinks I’m crazy?
J
jps23430
Guest
If you are against the unauthorized changes at mass than the fault should lie with the priest. There is no fault in somebody who’s “illicit music” is used. You make it sound like this guy is terrible and is coming up with things to ruin the church.Look at the first 8 posts: I saw no insults, other than calling liturgical abuse vomit-worthy (which it is). Changing the text of the Mass is a serious issue.
Again I echo: The only reason that person said what they said is because they don’t care about the liturgy. If they did, they’d be putting blame where blame is due: on those who change the texts of the Mass, such as Marty Haugen, and those who use his illicit music.
C
Corki
Guest
The only place in the OF Mass where it is directed to strike your breast is during the Confetior.and, aren’t we supposed to be thumping our chest? Why do I do that habitually and everyone around me thinks I’m crazy?
It’s not a problem if you do, but it’s not something we are expected to do during the Lamb of God.
P
Philotheatoo
Guest
Thank you for correcting me on that. Is the Confetior when I am kneeling saying the Act of Confession, examining my conscience and waiting to get in line for Communion? (Sorry for derailing a bit, please forgive me…)
C
Corki
Guest
No, the confiteor is the prayer near the beginning of Mass that starts "I confess to Almighty God, to you my brothers and sisters that I have sinned through my own fault (here is where the directive is to strike one’s breast).Thank you for correcting me on that. Is the Confetior when I am kneeling saying the Act of Confession, examining my conscience and waiting to get in line for Communion? (Sorry for derailing a bit, please forgive me…)
Those are the current words; they will be changing slightly on the First Sunday of Advent (in the US).
T
TheMc
Guest
There is fault in the composer when he is writing it specifically for the Mass, and changes the texts of the Mass. He is composing it, marketing it, and assuming it will be used in the Mass. Yet he refused to follow the texts of the Mass. That is a problem.There is no fault in somebody who’s “illicit music” is used. You make it sound like this guy is terrible and is coming up with things to ruin the church.
P
Philotheatoo
Guest
It is doubtful the singer/s in question were the composers or the authority who asked them to sing. It is safe to assume they were directed to sing the song and were singing it to glorify God. How cruel it is for us to personally insult their attempt to do so. Or, am I wrong to think so? I like to do things ‘correctly’ at Mass so that I am properly glorifying God however; I do not feel the need to attack someone who doesn’t do as I do. I would probably attack someone who was intentionally disrespectful or knowingly irreverent but, not someone who was sincere in their attempt to Glorify Him but was ignorantly committing an error.
C
Corki
Guest
This is my thinking as well. When a composer writes the settings for a Mass and submits them all together as a “set” for publishing, he should assume the responsibility for making sure that the Mass he writes is true to the actual Mass.There is fault in the composer when he is writing it specifically for the Mass, and changes the texts of the Mass. He is composing it, marketing it, and assuming it will be used in the Mass. Yet he refused to follow the texts of the Mass. That is a problem.
T
TheMc
Guest
The publishing house should also be involved in this, since they are the ones propagating it nationally, but they seem to be some of the worst offenders, allowing all of this trash through (If they didn’t, we’d never know about it).This is my thinking as well. When a composer writes the settings for a Mass and submits them all together as a “set” for publishing, he should assume the responsibility for making sure that the Mass he writes is true to the actual Mass.
Seriously: OCP recommends and sells “Lean on Me” for anointing of the sick (listen to the sample performance!!), and GIA sells a piece for a children’s choir called “I am special” for First Communions (again, listen and weep). There’s many more like this from both houses.
And I’m not even bringing up those songs that actually attempt to be religiou, and end up heretical, like All are Welcome, As a Fire is Meant for Burning, Gather us In, and many more.
And they call themselves Catholic Publishing Houses.
I have lost all trust in the publishing houses.
T
TheMc
Guest
The publishing house should also be involved in this, since they are the ones propagating it nationally, but they seem to be some of the worst offenders, allowing all of this trash through (If they didn’t, we’d never know about it).This is my thinking as well. When a composer writes the settings for a Mass and submits them all together as a “set” for publishing, he should assume the responsibility for making sure that the Mass he writes is true to the actual Mass.
Seriously: OCP recommends and sells “Lean on Me” for anointing of the sick (listen to the sample performance!!), and GIA sells a piece for a children’s choir called “I am special” for First Communions (again, listen and weep). There’s many more like this from both houses.
And I’m not even bringing up those songs that actually attempt to be religiou, and end up heretical, including:
- All are Welcome (All aren’t welcome. Some, through their actions, exclude themselves.)
- As a Fire is Meant for Burning (“Not to spread our creeds and customs, but to build a bridge of care…” !!!)
- Gather us In (“Not in the dark of buildings confining” and the ever present “Us Us We We” syndrome)
- Mary, Did you Know (Duh, she knew. Remember that thing called the incarnation?)
- City of God (We don’t build the city of God, Christ does.)
- For the Healing of the Nations (“Dogmas that obscure your plan…” WTF?)
- “Ashes” (We don’t raise ourselves “anew.” Silly rabbit, God does the raising.)
- Lord of the Dance (ugh…where to even start…Are you seriously going to put those words into God’s mouth? People were struck dead in the old testament for disrespecting God. And BTW, I doubt he danced on Good Friday. He was in chains much of the time anyways.)
And they call themselves Catholic Publishing Houses? Deplorable.
Truly deplorable.
I have lost all trust in the publishing houses.
\ RANT ]
- Status
- Not open for further replies.