Lamb of God wording

[jps23430]

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).

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 many, many, many more.

And they call themselves Catholic Publishing Houses? Deplorable.
Truly deplorable.

I have lost all trust in the publishing houses.

\ RANT ]

I will respectfully disagree yet again. What happens at the Mass or what is allowed to happen I should say lies with the Pastor. We do not look to composers and publishing houses to be the experts on the missal, the catechism or the mass. We look to our spiritual leaders, who are the Priests. The majority of churches I have attended in my life have used the version with the altered tropes in Lamb of God. If I were a composer, and wanted to make a different version, I wouldn’t think twice about it, I would assume if it was wrong, the church wouldn’t be allowing it.
This is not about avoiding responsibility, but you are assuming too much. Very few Catholics would know that this is not proper, and even fewer would ever even think to ask. (why should they have to?)

 

[YoungTradCath]

I will respectfully disagree yet again. What happens at the Mass or what is allowed to happen I should say lies with the Pastor. We do not look to composers and publishing houses to be the experts on the missal, the catechism or the mass. We look to our spiritual leaders, who are the Priests. The majority of churches I have attended in my life have used the version with the altered tropes in Lamb of God. If I were a composer, and wanted to make a different version, I wouldn’t think twice about it, I would assume if it was wrong, the church wouldn’t be allowing it.
This is not about avoiding responsibility, but you are assuming too much. Very few Catholics would know that this is not proper, and even fewer would ever even think to ask. (why should they have to?)

While what you have said is right, does this make it okay to mess with the order of mass? You might be disagreeing with TheMC’s sentiment, but his argument is still sound. Changing the order of mass is wrong. Even the word “order” commands an air of unchangeable perfection. Whether or not the majority of Catholics will pick up on the incorrectness of the tropes, the ones who do should not just sit around and bear with it when they know they have a right and a duty to see to it that it is changed. One abuse leads to another, regardless of if they are intentional or not.

If people just put up with it, who knows what amount of bravery it’ll give (poor) composers to mess with the words of the mass in other parts?

 

[Philotheatoo]

I agree with jps23430. Until this thread got into full swing I had no idea whatsoever this ‘new’ style was not proper. I attend a very, very traditional Roman Catholic church and I can assure you, if the priest and parishoners thought this was not authorized; we would not ever have used it. (We don’t anymore however; we did awhile ago.)

 

[promethius]

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.

Yes, but we must also realize that the USCCB and the CCCB both approved of this notion, and therefore the composer was operating under a teaching (whether or not it was accurate) that he believed was valid. If he was operating under the (possibly mislead) understanding that this was TRULY a valid option, then it isn’t his fault.

 

[jps23430]

While what you have said is right, does this make it okay to mess with the order of mass? You might be disagreeing with TheMC’s sentiment, but his argument is still sound. Changing the order of mass is wrong. Even the word “order” commands an air of unchangeable perfection. Whether or not the majority of Catholics will pick up on the incorrectness of the tropes, the ones who do should not just sit around and bear with it when they know they have a right and a duty to see to it that it is changed. One abuse leads to another, regardless of if they are intentional or not.

If people just put up with it, who knows what amount of bravery it’ll give (poor) composers to mess with the words of the mass in other parts?

My argument was toward TheMC statement about composers and thier “illicit music”. You are correct. If you notice something that is incorrect, then you should say something… after mass to your Priest, in private. If he doesn’t agree with you and it is something that you feel strongly enough about, than talk to your bishop. Throwing tantrums and cursing those mean old sacriligious composers is not the way to go about anything was my point.

The majority of the time people get upset or even angry about something, is when they assume that the people doing it have the same knowledge and understanding that they do. Based on that logic, how could this go on? But that is rarely the case, and if people would just remember that they themselve were most likely ignorant at some poin about it, than they would take an approach of teaching rather than scolding and things may actually change.

 

[Corki]

Yes, but we must also realize that the USCCB and the CCCB both approved of this notion, and therefore the composer was operating under a teaching (whether or not it was accurate) that he believed was valid. If he was operating under the (possibly mislead) understanding that this was TRULY a valid option, then it isn’t his fault.

I agree that there is plenty of blame to go around. But I don’t think the composers should get some kind of “free pass” just because they are artistic. They knew full well that they were operating in a grey area and took advantage of it to make money.

It’s not as if they couldn’t have written equally good songs that were true to the texts of the Mass.

 

[Usige]

Plus many of them were writing the altered tropes at a time that the Vatican specifically said that the Agnus Dei could not changed.

The USCCB didn’t allow the litany form until the late 90’s, but many of the altered mass settings were written in the 70’s and 80’s. The Vatican wrote that the Agnus Dei could not be altered back in 1975 if I remeber. So those composers were operating in direct contravention to the express statements of the Vatican.

 

[promethius]

I agree that there is plenty of blame to go around. But I don’t think the composers should get some kind of “free pass” just because they are artistic. They knew full well that they were operating in a grey area and took advantage of it to make money.

It’s not as if they couldn’t have written equally good songs that were true to the texts of the Mass.

I’m sorry, can you clarify how you are magically aware of their knowledge as regards the “greyness” of the area the composer was working in?

If you ask most catholics about whether or not the USCCB is a hierarchal authority, they will say yes. They will follow the teachings of the USCCB without asking whether or not those teachings are correct (except, for some reason, the voter guide:shrug. That is because they are ignorant of the fact that the USCCB is NOT an official hierarchal authority in the church… not because they WANT to operate in some grey area.

It seems to me like you’re engaging in rash judgement by presuming an evil motive rather than a good one. The catechism forbids this practice…

 

[Corki]

I’m sorry, can you clarify how you are magically aware of their knowledge as regards the “greyness” of the area the composer was working in?

If you ask most catholics about whether or not the USCCB is a hierarchal authority, they will say yes. They will follow the teachings of the USCCB without asking whether or not those teachings are correct. That is because they are ignorant of the fact that the USCCB is NOT an official hierarchal authority in the church… not because they WANT to operate in some grey area.

No magic involved. As noted above, there were many directives from the Vatican about keeping musical settings true to the language of the Mass. They would have had to have been living under rocks to not be aware of all the controversy surrounding many of those settings - especially the Lamb of God.

The “big three” composors of contemporary Mass settings are not just average Catholics in the pews. In fact, only one of the three is even a practicing Catholic at all. If somehow they didn’t know that the Vatican’s directives outranked unapproved guidelines from the USCCB, then shame on them. You don’t enter into a business relationship without understanding the rules under which you are supposed to operate.

 

[jps23430]

Plus many of them were writing the altered tropes at a time that the Vatican specifically said that the Agnus Dei could not changed.

The USCCB didn’t allow the litany form until the late 90’s, but many of the altered mass settings were written in the 70’s and 80’s. The Vatican wrote that the Agnus Dei could not be altered back in 1975 if I remeber. So those composers were operating in direct contravention to the express statements of the Vatican.

Please go back and read my post about assuming knowledge and understanding of other people. If I was poorly catechized (which I was), but wanted to be and believed I was a good practicing Catholic and I went after mass and suggested to my priest that we should change words to the apostles creed because I thought it would enhance the mass, am I at any fault… I’ll save you the wait…no. If I am not conscious of wrong-doing than how can i be held liable… The priest, at that point would explain to me that that is not something we can do, and then hopefully explain why. This situation is no different. these composers are not Catholic Apologists, whether you think they should be or not. When was the last time you wrote one of them a letter to explain to them that what they were writing was not IAW the Missal. Maybe you should do that.

 

[jps23430]

No magic involved. As noted above, there were many directives from the Vatican about keeping musical settings true to the language of the Mass. They would have had to have been living under rocks to not be aware of all the controversy surrounding many of those settings - especially the Lamb of God.

The “big three” composors of contemporary Mass settings are not just average Catholics in the pews. In fact, only one of the three is even a practicing Catholic at all. If somehow they didn’t know that the Vatican’s directives outranked unapproved guidelines from the USCCB, then shame on them. You don’t enter into a business relationship without understanding the rules under which you are supposed to operate.

The fact that they were not practicing Catholics makes you point even more unreasonable. If Catholics aren’t even aware that its wrong, why would you expect non-Catholics to. You mention a business relationship. Well in a business you deliver a product to your customer. As long as THEY are happy, you stay in business. If THEY say you are not providing them with a quality product, than I’m sure you would change it to meet their needs. THEY references the customer… in this case the Church. If i want my house painted and a painter comes and paints it red but I wanted it painted white but I say “great, here’s your money.” Than the painter will and should assume that i am happy with red paint and will continue to provide it until i tell him otherwise. it is not his job to tell me…“I know i painted your house red, but I really think you should have white.”

 

[Corki]

The fact that they were not practicing Catholics makes you point even more unreasonable. If Catholics aren’t even aware that its wrong, why would you expect non-Catholics to. You mention a business relationship. Well in a business you deliver a product to your customer. As long as THEY are happy, you stay in business. If THEY say you are not providing them with a quality product, than I’m sure you would change it to meet their needs. THEY references the customer… in this case the Church. If i want my house painted and a painter comes and paints it red but I wanted it painted white but I say “great, here’s your money.” Than the painter will and should assume that i am happy with red paint and will continue to provide it until i tell him otherwise. it is not his job to tell me…“I know i painted your house red, but I really think you should have white.”

That’s not the way business works. If you hire a painter and he comes and paints your house using lead based paint knowing it is illegal, the fault is his. It doesn’t matter if his customer is happy; he’ll still find himself out of business when he gets caught. By virtue of his profession, he is expected to know the current law about paints. Same with someone who is writing music for Catholic Masses. He should be expected to know the current liturgical law about wording. It’s part of his job.

 

[jps23430]

That’s not the way business works. If you hire a painter and he comes and paints your house using lead based paint knowing it is illegal, the fault is his. It doesn’t matter if his customer is happy; he’ll still find himself out of business when he gets caught. By virtue of his profession, he is expected to know the current law about paints. Same with someone who is writing music for Catholic Masses. He should be expected to know the current liturgical law about wording. It’s part of his job.

I hope you are as diligent and scrupulous in your profession. Your rebuttal cannot be equated. Not using lead based paint is a law applied by the goverment to everybody. The rule in this situation is applied to Catholics and no non-Catholic is bound to it nor bound to understand it. We will have to agree to disagree. You must be very successful in your profession if you take the time to learn everybody elses job as well as yours. I am not trying to be smug, but I just can’t see how you can fault somebody when the CHURCH has accepted his product. In your world, he should go tell his customer, whose beliefs he does not share and is not bound by, that the product they are asking for goes against thier own rules. Are you serious?

 

[promethius]

I hope you are as diligent and scrupulous in your profession. Your rebuttal cannot be equated. Not using lead based paint is a law applied by the goverment to everybody. The rule in this situation is applied to Catholics and no non-Catholic is bound to it nor bound to understand it. We will have to agree to disagree. You must be very successful in your profession if you take the time to learn everybody elses job as well as yours. I am not trying to be smug, but I just can’t see how you can fault somebody when the CHURCH has accepted his product. In your world, he should go tell his customer, whose beliefs he does not share and is not bound by, that the product they are asking for goes against thier own rules. Are you serious?

An equivalent example would be as follows:

The USofA passes a law against using lead based paint. (the Vatican)
[Perhaps] Inappropriately, the state of Arkansas passes a law saying you CAN use lead based paint. (the USCCB/CCCB)
The State of Arkansas asks someone to paint the capitol building.
A foreign paint company is hired (Haugen, etc).
The foreign painter is unaware that federal law trumps state law, and probably unaware of federal law that lead paint cannot be used.
The foreign painter looks at the laws of the state of Arkansas which say that lead based paint can be used when you paint the capitol building.
The foreign painter paints the capitol with lead based paint
The State Government is happy with the paintjob and pays the painter.

As we can see, the state government which passed the illicit law is at fault for hiring a painter who was unaware of the laws and then giving them information based on an illicit ruling… not the painter’s fault, really.

 

[Corki]

An equivalent example would be as follows:

The USofA passes a law against using lead based paint. (the Vatican)
[Perhaps] Inappropriately, the state of Arkansas passes a law saying you CAN use lead based paint. (the USCCB/CCCB)
The State of Arkansas asks someone to paint the capitol building.
A foreign paint company is hired (Haugen, etc).
The foreign painter is unaware that federal law trumps state law, and probably unaware of federal law that lead paint cannot be used.
The foreign painter looks at the laws of the state of Arkansas which say that lead based paint can be used when you paint the capitol building.
The foreign painter paints the capitol with lead based paint
The State Government is happy with the paintjob and pays the painter.

As we can see, the state government which passed the illicit law is at fault for hiring a painter who was unaware of the laws and then giving them information based on an illicit ruling… not the painter’s fault, really.

That’s actually a good analogy but don’t stop there.

Next, you would have the federal government issuing a ruling clarifying that the federal law is the ruling law.

This clarifying document is delivered to the department in charge of contracts for the State of Arkansas.

The contracts division (OCP and the like) solicits a contract for more buildings to be painted.

This would bring us current in terms of the Liturgy.

If the painter received the bid specifications which included the prohibition of lead paint and still submitted a bid for a paint job using lead paint, he would be at fault.

The contracts department would still be at fault as well.

jps23430:

 I hope you are as diligent and scrupulous in your profession. Your rebuttal cannot be equated. Not using lead based paint is a law applied by the goverment to everybody. The rule in this situation is applied to Catholics and no non-Catholic is bound to it nor bound to understand it. We will have to agree to disagree. You must be very successful in your profession if you take the time to learn everybody elses job as well as yours.

Yes, I am. I do consulting work. It is my responsibility to be familiar with the employee policies and legal requirements for every company that contracts me to work for them. Part of what I get paid for is understanding those laws and making sure that the companies’ policies and the law are in harmony. I don’t have to learn everyone else’s job, I just have to understand how their job is regulated. And yes, I am very successful at it.

We can definately disagree. My contention is that if someone is seting themselves up as a professional in the field of Liturgical Music, they have a duty to understand the environment in which they work, including regulations that may apply.

 

[promethius]

That’s actually a good analogy but don’t stop there.

Next, you would have the federal government issuing a ruling clarifying that the federal law is the ruling law.

This clarifying document is delivered to the department in charge of contracts for the State of Arkansas.

The contracts division (OCP and the like) solicits a contract for more buildings to be painted.

This would bring us current in terms of the Liturgy.

If the painter received the bid specifications which included the prohibition of lead paint and still submitted a bid for a paint job using lead paint, he would be at fault.

The contracts department would still be at fault as well.

I have highlighted the portion which is an assumption on your part. It is entirely possible that Haugen was unaware whether or not you could change the tropes, asked the USCCB, and got clarification that yes, he could change the tropes provided there were more than 3 iterations. Haugen, a non-catholic who doesn’t understand the hierarchy of the church or the fact that the USCCB is not in and of itself an authority in that hierarchy, would have no reason to question that response and therefore would not be at fault. Ergo, we can’t NECESSARILY blame him on this one.

 

[jmjconder]

**I began this post seeking an answer to a question.

Do not mean to derail my OP = however I have family that are all over the place with their Catholic faith…guess that is part of being universal. I will pray for unity. If we cannot agree on a simple liturgical question = no wonder we cannot agree on the huge issues.**

 

[Warrenton]

“Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us,” can be sung more than two times, as necessary, before the last line, “Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world, grant us peace,” is sung. But it must be sung at least twice.

My parish is not particularly precise about the Agnus Dei, either.

Someone posted a thread a month or two back linking to an interesting article from the Britain, asking why the new mass translations did not correct the Agnus Dei also.

The Latin does not say “you take away,” it says “You who takes away…” .

By way of comparison, the Anglican translation was “O Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world…”

Curious.

 

[PacoG]

That’s actually a good analogy but don’t stop there.

Next, you would have the federal government issuing a ruling clarifying that the federal law is the ruling law.

This clarifying document is delivered to the department in charge of contracts for the State of Arkansas.

There isn’t a need for a clarifying document. The Interstate Commerce and the Supremacy clauses of the United States Constitution do that for the Federal Government.

All 50 state governments would be advised by their attorneys general that they would have to conform their bidding specifications to the new law. The 50 state governments have officials who do that for them–attorneys general. Counties have county and district attorneys who keep up with that stuff (they go to seminars where they are advised of changes in the law) and inform them accordingly. Cities and towns have counsel also as do the various special purpose districts.

 

[MarkThompson]

The Latin does not say “you take away,” it says “You who takes away…” .

No, not quite. It says “who take away” (or “who takest away,” if you prefer). The verb is second-person, and the subject “you” is understood: qui is the relative pronoun who-which-what, not “you” or “you who.”

I was very disappointed that this was not fixed in the new translation.