Lord of the Dance

[Cat]

Cat, no one ever said that this was a Protestant hymn. Even if some church had this particular song, there are several hundred different Protestant ecclesial communities, some you and I perhaps have never even heard of, that might be out there.

Now, OCP has no authority, ecclesial, liturgical or otherwise. Nor does GIA. Just because these publishing houses have the names “Catholic” and “Gregorian” doesn’t necessarily mean anything. We have to look beyond the label and really see what is there. Just because a song is included in the hymnals these publishing houses release doesn’t necessarily make it suitable for liturgical use. OCP was corrected when it had Christopher Walker’s Gloria removed from the service music section to the regular hymns because it was nowhere near the official translation of the prayer. In fact, it was a horrid paraphrase. His version of the Lamb of God will probably be the next to go.

Now, you mention authority. The Church tells us that we have the right to have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass celebrated in the manner which the Church prescribes. This includes music. If there is a hymn that is questionable, if such music goes against what the Church teaches, then, we, as the faithful, do have the right to petition that such music be removed. OCP and GIA are not the Church nor do they speak with any legitimate authority. They are not a part of the Holy See. It is a shame that the Nihl Obstat and the Imprimatur are no longer required because half of the music in these hymnals would have been gone. The Nihl Obstat and the Imprimatur are the Church’s seals of approval that indicate that nothing in these books is contrary to the Faith.

The last time I saw the Imprimatur was in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the signature on that one was from the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

I am aware that a publishing house is not an “authority” in the Catholic Church.

I am aware that the Catholic faithful have the right to a properly-celebrated Mass.

If you read my post, you will observe that I did NOT say that the OCP or any publishing house has authority. I said that the BISHOPS have authority, and that they are the ones who are approving (or disapproving) the various hymnals and hymns.

I said that we need to show respect for their decisions, even if they are not our personal preference.

And I agree, if a hymn seems to be questionable, by all means we should contact the proper people and ask for a review of the hymn, and removal of the hymn if it does not gel with Catholic theology or standards.

But don’t you think that in the last forty years, Catholics like yourself have asked for a review of “Lord of the Dance?” I suspet that the hymn has probably been questioned many times, and yet, it remains in the hymnal, along with many other hymns that some of you call “heretical.” Go ahead and try again, but I think that you will find that those in authority (not the OCP! I’m referring to the bishops!) will probably allow the hymn to be used in Mass. If not, well, I will trust the wisdom of my bishop.

 

[Phemie]

Thank you. I’m glad to see a friendly face in this section of the Forum.

I’m glad that so many of you are intellectual and can comprehend the Gospel without the help of allegory. But I’m not like that. I’ve always been the one to see the story in the flower, hear the animals talk, and see the pictures in the clouds.

The hymn is not what it appears to be. If you read it literally, like soem Christians read the book of Genesis, you will miss the whole point of the words.

However, poetry and symbolism is lost on me, for whom a tree is always a tree and never a symbol of something else. The symbols I ‘get’ have been explained to me. A song like “Lord of the Dance” is absolute gibberish to me.

 

[benedictgal]

I am aware that a publishing house is not an “authority” in the Catholic Church.

I am aware that the Catholic faithful have the right to a properly-celebrated Mass.

If you read my post, you will observe that I did NOT say that the OCP or any publishing house has authority. I said that the BISHOPS have authority, and that they are the ones who are approving (or disapproving) the various hymnals and hymns.

I said that we need to show respect for their decisions, even if they are not our personal preference.

And I agree, if a hymn seems to be questionable, by all means we should contact the proper people and ask for a review of the hymn, and removal of the hymn if it does not gel with Catholic theology or standards.

But don’t you think that in the last forty years, Catholics like yourself have asked for a review of “Lord of the Dance?” I suspet that the hymn has probably been questioned many times, and yet, it remains in the hymnal, along with many other hymns that some of you call “heretical.” Go ahead and try again, but I think that you will find that those in authority (not the OCP! I’m referring to the bishops!) will probably allow the hymn to be used in Mass. If not, well, I will trust the wisdom of my bishop.

Unfortunately, not many of them will actually take the time to read what is contained in those hymnals. It is not a lack of respecting authority that I am addressing. In fact, no one has ever said that (if you read and re-read the posts).

We are addressing the heresies contained in this song, which have been repeatedly pointed out. Sometimes, bishops need to have this stuff pointed out to them, especially when this particular song is based on a heresy that has been condemned by the Church for almost 2,000 years.

As I said earlier, I wish that the Church had never removed the requirements for an Imprimatur and a Nihl Obstat. Such would have ensured that what we are using is in line with the Church. As it stands, you and I could put together a hymnal filled with very questionable music, slap the name “Catholic” on the cover and some parish in this country would wind up using it. That’s what is already happening with OCP. But, if the bishops don’t go over this material with a fine-tooth comb, a bunch of weird and questionable stuff winds up within the pages.

OCP does not have any competent episcopal authority overseeing what goes into their hymnals. I looked through Spirit and Song and did not find anyone bearing the title Most Reverend in the credits. The only one who even has anything to say is the Metropolitan Archbishop of Portland (or bishop, I don’t recall) who has an opening letter in Flor y Canto. But, even that does not necessarily ensure that what is in Flor Y Canto is scott free. The Spanish Glorias are paraphrased and those that do have the words have some chunks of the prayer missing. The Agnus Dei from Bob Hurd’s Missa del Pueblo Immigrante is not even allowed because it strings everything together (does not follow the proper format).

 

[benedictgal]

Remember the words of Our Lord–“Unless you are converted and become like children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”

Here is how my “child’s mind” understands the hymn, Lord of the Dance:

The “dance” is not a dance at all, it is creation, and Jesus, of course, is the Lord of creation.

The “dance” also refers to the Work of Our Lord, who has always been, is now, and ever will be. He created the universe, the stars, the moon, and the sun–the “dance” or “the creation.”

He is the Author of the plan of Salvation, which He knew and pre-ordained from all eternity. Our first glimpse of God–True God and True Man–was in His incarnation in Bethlehem–the first time human beings ever held God in their arms. Up until then, the only human who spoke with God face to face was Moses. Now a woman held God and fed Him from her human breasts.

The “dance” or Work of Our Lord continued in His short life here on earth. The scribes and pharisees rejected Him, but the working people (fisherman) followed Him. He made it clear that God was not interested so much in adherence to a Code of Rules as He is in our showing love to one another. Jesus healed people on the Sabbath, a violation of the Law. He demonstrated for us the “Greater Way” of I Corinthians 13.

The “holy people” does not refer to true holy people or to Jews, but rather, to those who thought that they were holy. These people crucified Our Lord, little realizing that by doing so, they were carrying out His plan of salvation. He was in charge throughout it all–the mocking, the crown of thorns, the agony, the nails–Jesus was still God of the Universe–the “Lord of the Dance.”

But “the dance” wasn’t easy or painless. The “devil” was “on His back,” constantly tempting Him to end His Work and come down from the cross. When did Satan actually realize that Jesus had “tricked” him? Jesus wasn’t losing the game at all, he was winning! He was the Passover Lamb that would save the world from sin. And Satan thought he was actually killing God for all time!

They cut Jesus down and buried Him. But, as our Sunday School teachers used to say, “You can’t keep a good man down!” Jesus rose from the dead–He “leapt” up. What an apt description! Next time you see a ballet, watch the men leap–the strength and beauty of their leaps! Jesus’s human body had been laid to rest covered with sores and bruises and scars from His scourging. But when He arose, His Body, still human, was glorious, even as our bodies will be glorious. Now flesh could enter heaven! Oh, what hope for weary mankind!

Nice story. But what does it mean to us?

Jesus will lead–if we will let Him. And even if we don’t let Him lead us, He is still in charge of the Universe–the Lord of the Dance. We can choose to “dance” with Him, or walk away. We have the free will. But we’re kidding ourselves if we believe that we can “dance” without Jesus.

There is nothing “sentimental” about my love for this song. I don’t find anything “heretical” about any of the words in Lord of the Dance. The Incarnation of Christ, His Life, His Death, His Resurrection, and His Work in us–it’s all right there in the hymn for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

Look harder.

Cat, we are not all intellectuals. However, if the Gospels, on their own, do not impact you, then even the allegorical stories can’t do much, either.

Your defense indicates that you do have a very strong attachment to this banal song. Perhaps you don’t fully understand that it is based on a heresy that was condemned by the early Church. This condemnation of gnosticism dates back to the second century. Gnosticism denies the humanity of Jesus and only stresses the divinit and it claims that Jesus imparted secret teachings that were not meant for everyone. This is, in part, the basis for the so-called Gospel of Mary Magdalene, the Acts of Peter and the Acts of John (on which the Lord of the Dance is based).

The Passion of Jesus is not something to be taken lightly. Jesus did not float through the Passion, as this song would suggest. He didn’t waltz through the agony. He didn’t promenade throughout the beatings, the scourgings and the humiliation. The Blessed Mother wasn’t dancing around in front of the Cross, nor were Sts. John and Mary Magdalene for that matter. You speak of using non-scriptural means for understanding things. What about Mel Gibson’s movie, The Passion of the Christ. You can’t get a more clearer picture of what really happened than that. Although it is based on the Gospels, Gibson’s film also takes points from the writings of Blessed Katherine Emerich.

The Lord of the Dance is based on some heretical and alleged gospel, but, it is not the true Gospel. As St. Paul tells us, he is not preaching to us some cleverly concocted myth. He preaches to us Christ crucified. Crucifixion means suffering and wounds, not some tip-toe through the proverbial tulips.

To reduce the Passion, Crucifixion, Death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ to some prancing and dancing is to entirely miss the point of everything He endured for us. It is to make a mockery of his sufferings.

One last point: In today’s Gospel, Jesus, although appearing in his glorified Body, bears the wounds and the marks of His Passion and Death. If the Passion and Death were merely reduced to some dalliance, why were the surviving members of the Apostolic band fearful and then full of joy after seeing Him? Why did St. Thomas doubt that Jesus came back after that horrible death?

Perhaps it would help if you look at this song for its face-value and then read the material on which this song is based. It is not as simple as your child-like interpretation would make it seem.

 

[Formosus]

I think you guys are way over analayzing this song. Its a good song (IMO ) for outside of Liturgy . It has no place in the Mass but its a catchy (shaker) tune and sounds great when the Dubliners are playing it haha. I think we can all agree that this is a good drinking song, but a horrible liturgical song.

 

[Guitar]

It is a shame that the Nihl Obstat and the Imprimatur are no longer required because half of the music in these hymnals would have been gone. The Nihl Obstat and the Imprimatur are the Church’s seals of approval that indicate that nothing in these books is contrary to the Faith.

FWIW, and noting that I do not programme this hymn myself, I have checked a back-of-the-mind recollection and find that I have not one but two different hymnals containing Lord of the Dance that have the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. The earlier edition of one of them also had this song and the same approvals.

 

[strngrnrth]

I’ve never heard it, but I’ve seen it in books. I didn’t realize it was to the “Simple Gifts” tune. I think of a New Age professional bodyworker and a Unitarian service my mom took me to as a teenager when i think of this tune. To me, those are unhappy associations. I also always thought it was an annoying tune. For some reason, though, when I saw the lyrics of Lord of the Dance I imagined the tune of the George Fox song, which is also a little annoying to me. Well, I just assumed the words were about the creation and continuing life. It doesn’t seem inappropriate to me. I’d kind of like to hear it and find out if it works with that tune or not.

 

[patches]

I don’t expect everyone to agree or suddenly start loving the hymn. There are certain hymns and songs that I don’t like (although very few). But I don’t call them heretical or claim that they make me want to throw up. We’re all different, made so by God, and of course what appeals to the heart and soul of one person will fall flat for another person.

This is true. Still, “Row, Row, Row Your Boat” may be a great allegory about the mystery of life, but it’s best programmed for long bus rides for kids. Myself, I don’t “hate” the song, but just think it’s a terrible fit for the profound feast of Easter.

The important thing is authority. As long as the bishops are allowing these hymnals and hymns in their dioceses, and the priests are allowing the hymns to be sung in their parishes, we, the faithful, should show respect for their decisions.

I find that a very reasonable point of view. But we should also consider that what is permissible is not necessarily what is appropriate, and try to think with the mind of the church.

Assuming that people have complained over the years, why is the hymn still available in Catholic hymnals? Some of you hint at vast conspiracy of publishing companies that is holding the U.S. bishops captive.

I agree with you here, there’s no conspiracy. However, there is movement at the present time to address that very issue. I believe each diocese will soon be issuing a list of hymns and songs deemed appropriate by it’s respective bishop. So it does appear the bishops will be doing some “stepping in” to make clearer what is and isn’t appropriate. This is very good news indeed. Well, at least depending on your neck of the woods…

I think it must be horrible to be a bishop or priest and have everyone picking your every decision apart and even accusing your choices of being heretical. No wonder we have a shortage of vocations.

If a priest or bishop is expected to face martyrdom if necessary, you’d think he could handle a grievance committee or two. If he fades under this kind of thing, he’s not really being true to his vocation in the first place, and may not be made of the right “stuff.” If a bishop understands his office, and we in turn understand the bishop’s authority, things will be properly ordered. He will not be reticent to lead for fear of criticism, and we won’t be reluctant to follow, even when we think we have reason to be critical. The church’s structure is not democratic like our government, and obedience isn’t the same kind of issue. Just like parental authority, we don’t have to like it, we just have to follow it. We need to understand our respective roles, and then step up to the plate. This is often difficult, because kind of “citizenship” we are asked to practice in the church runs counter to our egalitarian instincts. But then again, it’s hard for me to complain too much when the Savior of the world saw it fit to set up that way . . . .

 

[Cat]

However, poetry and symbolism is lost on me, for whom a tree is always a tree and never a symbol of something else. The symbols I ‘get’ have been explained to me. A song like “Lord of the Dance” is absolute gibberish to me.

I understand, and I am glad that there are people like you in the world! You’re the Scully, while I’m the Mulder! (Do you get that symbolism?) We need all kinds of people, and we should appreciate each other, not cut each other down.

BTW, those “bubbles” in your pizza crust–those are “troll houses.”

 

[Cat]

Cat, we are not all intellectuals. However, if the Gospels, on their own, do not impact you, then even the allegorical stories can’t do much, either.

Your defense indicates that you do have a very strong attachment to this banal song. Perhaps you don’t fully understand that it is based on a heresy that was condemned by the early Church. This condemnation of gnosticism dates back to the second century. Gnosticism denies the humanity of Jesus and only stresses the divinit and it claims that Jesus imparted secret teachings that were not meant for everyone. This is, in part, the basis for the so-called Gospel of Mary Magdalene, the Acts of Peter and the Acts of John (on which the Lord of the Dance is based).

The Passion of Jesus is not something to be taken lightly. Jesus did not float through the Passion, as this song would suggest. He didn’t waltz through the agony. He didn’t promenade throughout the beatings, the scourgings and the humiliation. The Blessed Mother wasn’t dancing around in front of the Cross, nor were Sts. John and Mary Magdalene for that matter. You speak of using non-scriptural means for understanding things. What about Mel Gibson’s movie, The Passion of the Christ. You can’t get a more clearer picture of what really happened than that. Although it is based on the Gospels, Gibson’s film also takes points from the writings of Blessed Katherine Emerich.

The Lord of the Dance is based on some heretical and alleged gospel, but, it is not the true Gospel. As St. Paul tells us, he is not preaching to us some cleverly concocted myth. He preaches to us Christ crucified. Crucifixion means suffering and wounds, not some tip-toe through the proverbial tulips.

To reduce the Passion, Crucifixion, Death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ to some prancing and dancing is to entirely miss the point of everything He endured for us. It is to make a mockery of his sufferings.

One last point: In today’s Gospel, Jesus, although appearing in his glorified Body, bears the wounds and the marks of His Passion and Death. If the Passion and Death were merely reduced to some dalliance, why were the surviving members of the Apostolic band fearful and then full of joy after seeing Him? Why did St. Thomas doubt that Jesus came back after that horrible death?

Perhaps it would help if you look at this song for its face-value and then read the material on which this song is based. It is not as simple as your child-like interpretation would make it seem.

I don’t think you know very much about dance.

It is not all waltz and prance and floating and happy-clappy. In fact, most of it isn’t. Dance is merely “choreographed life.”

And isn’t that what the Passion was? Jesus KNEW before the universe was ever created what would happen during Holy Week. It was “choreographed” or “pre-destined” long before the worlds came into existence. There’s a portion of the Exsultet that says O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer."

 

[benedictgal]

I don’t think you know very much about dance.

It is not all waltz and prance and floating and happy-clappy. In fact, most of it isn’t. Dance is merely “choreographed life.”

And isn’t that what the Passion was? Jesus KNEW before the universe was ever created what would happen during Holy Week. It was “choreographed” or “pre-destined” long before the worlds came into existence. There’s a portion of the Exsultet that says O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer."

Actually, had you read the entirety of my posts, you would have seen that I quoted that portion of the exultet. However, this refers only to the sin of Adam, not to what happened on Calvary.

Cat, the problem is that this song is very superficial. I may not know about dance; however, I do know what the legitimate Scripture says and what the Church teaches. This song contains neither legitimate Scripture nor authentic Church teaching.

While you like artistry and the like, that does not make for legitimate theology. You can throw all of the artistic, poetic and allegorical arguments you want, but, at the end of the day, the song is still based on a heretical gospel that is contrary to what the Church teaches. Just because it is found in a hymnal doesn’t make it legitimate.

There are some Spanish songs in Flor Y Canto, another of OCP’s gems, that are contrary to Church teaching and find their basis on liberation theology. One (which I have mentioned) originally went by the name of “Hombres Nuevos” and then, to appease the inclusive language crowd, it was changed to “Danos un Corazon.” The song is about fighting for one’s rights and for creating a new civilization. There is no mention of God in any of this. A Polish priest who served in Brazil during the beginning of the liberation theology movement read the lyrics of the song and told us that the piece was very much in line with something that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Fatih and Pope John Paul II resoundly condemned. After reading the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement on liberation theology, we opted to not use that song again.

While you may have attachment to the song, you need to examine the “backstory” of it. All of the pretty warm and fuzzy feelings do not and will not change the fact that this song is not suitable at all for inclusion in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This is something that goes beyond interpretive dance. This is an issue of doctrine and dogma, something this song goes completely against.

 

[Cat]

For those who question whether allegory can help understand the Gospel, read post 19 in the Popular Media Section, the thread about “books other than the Bible that have had an impact on you.”

The poster explains beautifully how Madeleine L’Engle’s juvenile novel * Wrinkle In Time* made the consecration clear to her.

 

[benedictgal]

For those who question whether allegory can help understand the Gospel, read post 19 in the Popular Media Section, the thread about “books other than the Bible that have had an impact on you.”

The poster explains beautifully how Madeleine L’Engle’s juvenile novel * Wrinkle In Time* made the consecration clear to her.

However, while that is all well and good, that analogy does not work at all with the Lord of the Dance. It may be using allegory, but, it’s directed towards a heretical, gnostic gospel and not the True Gospel of Jesus Christ. You can take the allegorical argument only so far.

Allegory can help people understand the Gospel (although, it should actually be pretty self-explanatory on some levels because we do have the gift and the benefit of the Church’s 2,000+ years of hindsight); however, it should not replace Church teaching. My parochial vicar will sometimes use a quote from Romeo and Juliet when preaching about the love of God; however, he will also refer to and quote Pope Benedict on the matter as well as the Church Fathers. Allegory shouldn’t stand on its own, but should be used in conjunction with authentic Church teaching, something that the song in question does not do at all. In fact, it is very far from Church teaching.

Furthermore, allegory, as I have repeated throughout this thread, should be true to the Gospel and not serve to promote hersesy, as in the case of the Lord of the Dance.

 

[Guitar]

However, while that is all well and good, that analogy does not work at all with the Lord of the Dance. It may be using allegory, but, it’s directed towards a heretical, gnostic gospel and not the True Gospel of Jesus Christ. You can take the allegorical argument only so far.

Allegory can help people understand the Gospel (although, it should actually be pretty self-explanatory on some levels because we do have the gift and the benefit of the Church’s 2,000+ years of hindsight); however, it should not replace Church teaching. My parochial vicar will sometimes use a quote from Romeo and Juliet when preaching about the love of God; however, he will also refer to and quote Pope Benedict on the matter as well as the Church Fathers. Allegory shouldn’t stand on its own, but should be used in conjunction with authentic Church teaching, something that the song in question does not do at all. In fact, it is very far from Church teaching.

Furthermore, allegory, as I have repeated throughout this thread, should be true to the Gospel and not serve to promote hersesy, as in the case of the Lord of the Dance.

Benedictgal, perhaps you missed my earlier post. I have at least two hymnals (three if you count the previous edition of one of them) with this song that have the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. I know one of the four men who gave these approvals and he has never been criticised for unorthodoxy.

I do not program this hymn myself, as I have said before, but there are hymnals around with the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur that contain it.

 

[benedictgal]

Benedictgal, perhaps you missed my earlier post. I have at least two hymnals (three if you count the previous edition of one of them) with this song that have the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. I know one of the four men who gave these approvals and he has never been criticised for unorthodoxy.

I do not program this hymn myself, as I have said before, but there are hymnals around with the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur that contain it.

I did read your post. Inasmuch as the hymnals do contain the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur, that still doesn’t take away the fact that this song is very problematic.

The Flor y Canto hymnal that I referred to in my earlier post actually has a presentation letter by the Portland diocese (or archdiocese; I don’t remember) extolling this wonderful collection of songs. However, it has the questionable song “Danos Un Corazon”, which smacks of liberation theology. It also has very questionable Mass settings that are missing chunks of the prayers and/or severely paraphrase them.

Of course, if you get right down to it, the Roman Missal also has the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur and the English translations are faulty. Furthermore, the RNAB, which is used for the Lectionary, also has these same “seals of approval”, if you will, but, the translations are also not up to snuff.

But, I suspect that if our bishops conference ever gets a round to going beyond lip service when it comes to Liturgicam Authenticam, then these problems will be taken care of in the appropriate manner. Recall that Liturgicam Authenticam also has some say over liturgical music.

 

[Guitar]

I did read your post. Inasmuch as the hymnals do contain the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur, that still doesn’t take away the fact that this song is very problematic.

Noting, one more time, that I do not use this hymn myself, and that many may indeed consider it problematic, I myself would not use the word “heretical” to describe it, on the basis of more than one imprimatur and nihil obstat. Controversial, unsuitable, I-think-it-stinksville, whatever, but not “heretical”.

The point appeared to be stated earlier that this song was heretical and if imprimaturs and nihil obstats were still required, this song wouldn’t be printed in Catholic hymnals. It has been printed under both at least three times to my certain knowledge. I haven’t been right through my collection and frankly its not worth it for a song I don’t use, but having found an imprimatur by a soon-to-be or perhaps even then-cardinal (my memory is a little hazy there) I personally consider the heresy issue as “put to bed”.

 

[benedictgal]

Noting, one more time, that I do not use this hymn myself, and that many may indeed consider it problematic, I myself would not use the word “heretical” to describe it, on the basis of more than one imprimatur and nihil obstat. Controversial, unsuitable, I-think-it-stinksville, whatever, but not “heretical”.

The point appeared to be stated earlier that this song was heretical and if imprimaturs and nihil obstats were still required, this song wouldn’t be printed in Catholic hymnals. It has been printed under both at least three times to my certain knowledge. I haven’t been right through my collection and frankly its not worth it for a song I don’t use, but having found an imprimatur by a soon-to-be or perhaps even then-cardinal (my memory is a little hazy there) I personally consider the heresy issue as “put to bed”.

But, the fact that this hymn is based on the Acts of John, which is a heretical, gnostic gospel is very problematic, Guitar. On the surface, the song is innocuous and insipid. Perhaps no one dug deeper and just looked at the song, glanced over the words and went on to the next one.

The gnostic gospels were thought to be forgotten until a whole cache of them were discovered. Look at all of the ballyhoo about the alleged gospels of Thomas, Mary Magdalene and others. They are all over the internet. We didn’t have such a free flow of information back then. Also, remember, too, that this song was written at a time when experimentation was all of the rage as a result of the alleged Spirit of Vatican II. Everyone was so caught up in the new and the now that common sense went out the door. Even Pope Benedict says as much in his book, Milestones.

Like I said, hopefully, when the U.S. Bishops Conference decides to take Liturgical Authenticam seriously, hopefully all of this stuff will be corrected.

 

[Guitar]

But, the fact that this hymn is based on the Acts of John, which is a heretical, gnostic gospel is very problematic, Guitar. On the surface, the song is innocuous and insipid. Perhaps no one dug deeper and just looked at the song, glanced over the words and went on to the next one.

Note once more that I am not arguing whether or not the song is problematic.

I do not use it.

I am pointing out that either the song is not heretical, or, if it is, we then cannot say …

benedictgal:

I wish that the Church had never removed the requirements for an Imprimatur and a Nihl Obstat. Such would have ensured that what we are using is in line with the Church.

 

[muffinmojo]

Heh…it’s nice to not have this problem. We had a baroque…setting(is that the right word?) for our Easter Mass, with the Hallelujah Chorus from ‘Messiah’ for the preparation of the gifts and ‘Miserere Mei Deus’ for post-Communion.

I’ve never actually hear this song sung…anyone got a youtube video/dogpile link?

 

[Sarabande]

Heh…it’s nice to not have this problem. We had a baroque…setting(is that the right word?) for our Easter Mass, with the Hallelujah Chorus from ‘Messiah’ for the preparation of the gifts and ‘Miserere Mei Deus’ for post-Communion.

I’ve never actually hear this song sung…anyone got a youtube video/dogpile link?

Go to my post #66. I have three versions of the melody. First one is set orchestrally for recitals and never sung at mass. It is the original “Simple Gifts” one.

The second version looks like is some sort of praise night (not sure what denomination). This is how I remember it being performed at mass minus the beer and the clapping. At mass they would usually do it with an organ and with guitar.

The third version was just a folk/Irish style that you would hear at a pub.

We also did not have this problem for our Easter mass either, and as I said, I thought this hymn was long dead. I had no idea that people were still using it as I haven’t heard it at a mass since the 1980s when I was a child.