Questionable song lyrics

[ibkc]

Also, I am not an intellectual like you are.

Attitudes like this erect barriers between Catholics.

We have a rich tradition going back thousands of years. This should not be discarded because of the whims of a single generation.

 

[jmcrae]

I think a lot of people are like me–that’s probably why you see so many “dumbed down” songs and practices in parishes.

“Dumbed down” can be interpreted in at least two different ways - the way I think you mean is where the song is easy for people to understand - this is actually a good thing, and I’m in favour of it. The more people understand, the better educated they will become.

However, there is a second possible meaning, which is that the song itself is “dumb” - that is, it actually conveys incorrect information. This is the sense in which “See Us, Lord, About Your Altar” is dumbed down - in that the theology conveyed in it is not Catholic theology, or even anybody’s theology (although I am thinking that it might appeal best to the Methodist world-view) - it has been oversimplified to the point of inaccuracy and confusion.

The song I referenced by Dana is also a very simple song, but it conveys the correct information, “Jesus, we see bread and wine, but we bow down and worship (and worship!) because we know it’s really You. Jesus in the Eucharist, we love you!”

 

[benedictgal]

benedictgal, I always read the quotes and links to documents that you post, and because I am a musician who plays at Mass, I read whatever documents that pertain to music WHEN I BECOME AWARE OF THEM.

But I don’t interpret them the same way you do. Just because I read them doesn’t mean that I will interpret them the same way you do.

Since I was not raised a Catholic, and you were, I freely admit that you know more than I do and this is probably the reason that I do not interpret documents the same way. I am reading them through 40 years of evangelical Protestantism, while you are reading them through years of Catholicism.

Also, I am not an intellectual like you are. I am merely a pianist who plays at Mass when I am needed. I will do whatever the Church tells me to do. That’s one of the main reasons I became a Catholic–I believe totally in the Authority of the Holy Catholic Church. I do not wish to assume ANY authority myself.

I think a lot of people are like me–that’s probably why you see so many “dumbed down” songs and practices in parishes. There are a lot more people like me than like you, even though I think that you and others see it differently. Perhaps the friends that you associate with are all intelligent and appreciative of the finer things, and that’s why you assume that so many people are like that. The truth is, most of us are more like “Cops” than Joseph Ratzinger’s writings (which I do not comprehend at all–I may as read them in German as English!).

I hope that when the “higher language” is established and there are no more Haugen and Haas songs, that your predictions and those of others on this thread will come true–that people will flock to Mass, enjoy the beauty of the restored liturgy, and have a better understanding of Catholic theology. But what I suspect will happen–and it saddens me, it truly does–is that many people will leave, just like they did after Vatican II, and some who stay will be even more confused about what their Church actually teaches. I hope not, but I fear so. I do not think that the U.S. is ready for this. JMO.

Cat, I don’t think that you have fully carefully read any of what I have written. St. John Marie Vianney and St. Maximilian Kolbe were not intellectuals. In fact, St. Catherine of Sienna, was a nun whom many considered at the low spectrum (when it came to being learned), yet, she managed to have the gumption to compel the pope to move back to Rome from Avignon. She never had a problem with Mass in Latin or praying to God in the words that the Church uses. In fact, this elevated language brings us to a higher level because we are rising to a different standard when we pray as the Church.

No one is telling you that you can’t use everyday speak in your private prayer. But, when you make statements, as I read them, without first taking the time to read the Church’s stance on things, then you really can’t make a valid argument.

Incidentally, former Protestants like the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, Dr. Scott Hahn, GK Chesterton and others were attracted to the Church, in part, because of the beauty of Her Faith, as expressed through her prayers. Although, when Fr. Neuhaus read the lectionary, he was dismayed at the lack of beauty in the problematic translation of the text.

Have you ever taken the time to sit down and read any of the writings of Pope Benedict XVI? If you were to read his homilies, you would realize that his words are not as lofty as you would lead people to believe. I would invite you to watch the next Papal telecast on EWTN. Vatican Radio provides the English translation of the homilies. They are easy to understand, if you are open to receiving what he says.

You mention Haugen and Haas. Haugen and Haas have faulty theology. Haugen is not even Catholic and Haas has actually written a lot of stuff that will sometimes run contrary to the Church’s understanding of the liturgy. In fact, both have taken excessive liberties with the texts of the prayers of the Church, especially Haugen.

As for the negative assertions that you make about the changes to the texts of the prayers of the Mass, they do not, with all due respect, hold water. What we do at the Mass is vastly different from what we do in our secular time. When we are at Mass, we enter God’s time and we are in His presence. That is why things need to be different. The manner in which we greet the celebrant is not your typical, “hi, how are you” that we use for each other. We need to get into a different frame of mind. That also applies to the music. Ambiguous texts have no place in the Mass. Such breed confusion, misundertanding and even heresy.

 

[benedictgal]

#3 is so grossly ambiguous, as is obvious from the opposing views on this thread, that it should be discarded on those grounds alone.

#4 is obviously not describing transubstantiation and therefore is erroneous, which only lends credence that #3 is not to be taken within a Catholic context either.

Are the lack of capitalization of “He” “His” etc., in referring to Christ, in the original? That’s a little troubling as well although if someone typed it by hand it was probably just accidental.

I am reminded of what GK Chesterton once said, “Heresy is a truth run wild.” That is why ambuguity in the songs that are supposed to be used for Mass should not be happening. We need to be clear and direct.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

#3 is so grossly ambiguous, as is obvious from the opposing views on this thread, that it should be discarded on those grounds alone.

#4 is obviously not describing transubstantiation and therefore is erroneous, which only lends credence that #3 is not to be taken within a Catholic context either.

Are the lack of capitalization of “He” “His” etc., in referring to Christ, in the original? That’s a little troubling as well although if someone typed it by hand it was probably just accidental.

This was not accidental on my part. I accurately transcribed the original. I have never seen an OCP publication that capitalizes pronouns referring to God. As a matter of fact, even the Liturgy of the Hours published by Catholic Book Publishing Company, the breviary used by most priests and religious in the U.S., does not capitalize pronouns referring to God. A shame, isn’t it? I think that, unfortunately, that reverent practice is going the way of the dinosaurs. (Of course, we still capitalize the pronoun “I”; do we think more highly of ourselves than of God?)

 

[tee_eff_em]

As a matter of fact, even the Liturgy of the Hours published by Catholic Book Publishing Company, the breviary used by most priests and religious in the U.S., does not capitalize pronouns referring to God. A shame, isn’t it? I think that, unfortunately, that reverent practice is going the way of the dinosaurs. (Of course, we still capitalize the pronoun “I”; do we think more highly of ourselves than of God?)

Neither does the *Liturgia Horarum *whence it is translated. (Latin neither commonly capitalizes I/ego)

tee

 

[Cat]

Cat, I don’t think that you have fully carefully read any of what I have written. St. John Marie Vianney and St. Maximilian Kolbe were not intellectuals. In fact, St. Catherine of Sienna, was a nun whom many considered at the low spectrum (when it came to being learned), yet, she managed to have the gumption to compel the pope to move back to Rome from Avignon. She never had a problem with Mass in Latin or praying to God in the words that the Church uses. In fact, this elevated language brings us to a higher level because we are rising to a different standard when we pray as the Church.

No one is telling you that you can’t use everyday speak in your private prayer. But, when you make statements, as I read them, without first taking the time to read the Church’s stance on things, then you really can’t make a valid argument.

Incidentally, former Protestants like the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, Dr. Scott Hahn, GK Chesterton and others were attracted to the Church, in part, because of the beauty of Her Faith, as expressed through her prayers. Although, when Fr. Neuhaus read the lectionary, he was dismayed at the lack of beauty in the problematic translation of the text.

Have you ever taken the time to sit down and read any of the writings of Pope Benedict XVI? If you were to read his homilies, you would realize that his words are not as lofty as you would lead people to believe. I would invite you to watch the next Papal telecast on EWTN. Vatican Radio provides the English translation of the homilies. They are easy to understand, if you are open to receiving what he says.

You mention Haugen and Haas. Haugen and Haas have faulty theology. Haugen is not even Catholic and Haas has actually written a lot of stuff that will sometimes run contrary to the Church’s understanding of the liturgy. In fact, both have taken excessive liberties with the texts of the prayers of the Church, especially Haugen.

As for the negative assertions that you make about the changes to the texts of the prayers of the Mass, they do not, with all due respect, hold water. What we do at the Mass is vastly different from what we do in our secular time. When we are at Mass, we enter God’s time and we are in His presence. That is why things need to be different. The manner in which we greet the celebrant is not your typical, “hi, how are you” that we use for each other. We need to get into a different frame of mind. That also applies to the music. Ambiguous texts have no place in the Mass. Such breed confusion, misundertanding and even heresy.

benedictgal, you expect people to read things and glean the exact same things that you glean.

It’s not going to happen that way. Surely you understand that?

If you and I both watch a figure skating program, unless you are knowledgeable (as I am), you will probably come away with a totally different impression than me. You might say, “It’s beautiful! Ethereal! She deserves to win!” while I might say, “She was skating on her flats, and the knees were as stiff as boards.”

I have attempted several times to read the encyclicals of Pope Benedict XVI. Sorry, they’re very convoluted–to me, that is. God bless you if you understand them. I find them very difficult reading. I’ve attempted a few times to read some of his books, but gave up. Again, I’m glad that you and others understand them, but I need a “modern translation,” or at least, shorter sentences.

You simply can’t expect everyone to share your comprehension. And that means that others will disagree with you.

 

[benedictgal]

benedictgal, you expect people to read things and glean the exact same things that you glean.

It’s not going to happen that way. Surely you understand that?

If you and I both watch a figure skating program, unless you are knowledgeable (as I am), you will probably come away with a totally different impression than me. You might say, “It’s beautiful! Ethereal! She deserves to win!” while I might say, “She was skating on her flats, and the knees were as stiff as boards.”

I have attempted several times to read the encyclicals of Pope Benedict XVI. Sorry, they’re very convoluted–to me, that is. God bless you if you understand them. I find them very difficult reading. I’ve attempted a few times to read some of his books, but gave up. Again, I’m glad that you and others understand them, but I need a “modern translation,” or at least, shorter sentences.

You simply can’t expect everyone to share your comprehension. And that means that others will disagree with you.

Cat, the figure skating scenario does not quite work here. We are talking about doctrines of the Church and how they should be expressed, not figure 8 patters.

I am not necessarily asking that you read the encyclicals, which are not that high-level in their language. Rather, read the Holy Father’s homilies, which are pretty clear-cut and easy to understand.

But, going back to the problem presented by the OP, the language used in music that is to be played during the Mass needs to be theologically precise, not watered down to the point of gross ambiguity. The texts of these songs need to be compatible with what we believe as the Church. There needs to be clarity.

Now, one of the posters, if I read Earnest Bunberry correctly, tried to justify using these questionable lyrics through St. Thomas Aquinas’ writings. Inasmuch as we understand how the Angelic Doctor uses the word, the usage of the word “sign” is not quite compatible with the way St. Thomas uses it. The song in question is so ambiguous at this point that it almost sounds Protestant in the way it uses the word “sign”. That is also the problem with a lot of the compositions by Haugen and Haas. Haugen is not Catholic so he probably does not have a clear understanding of Catholic theology. Haas is supposed to be Catholic, but, that does not necessarily mean that he gets what the Church teaches.

The bottom line is that composers need to be up to par with what the Church teaches and not water down the faith to the point that it causes confusion. In the end, that does more harm than good.

 

[Cat]

Cat, the figure skating scenario does not quite work here. We are talking about doctrines of the Church and how they should be expressed, not figure 8 patters.

I am not necessarily asking that you read the encyclicals, which are not that high-level in their language. Rather, read the Holy Father’s homilies, which are pretty clear-cut and easy to understand.

But, going back to the problem presented by the OP, the language used in music that is to be played during the Mass needs to be theologically precise, not watered down to the point of gross ambiguity. The texts of these songs need to be compatible with what we believe as the Church. There needs to be clarity.

Now, one of the posters, if I read Earnest Bunberry correctly, tried to justify using these questionable lyrics through St. Thomas Aquinas’ writings. Inasmuch as we understand how the Angelic Doctor uses the word, the usage of the word “sign” is not quite compatible with the way St. Thomas uses it. The song in question is so ambiguous at this point that it almost sounds Protestant in the way it uses the word “sign”. That is also the problem with a lot of the compositions by Haugen and Haas. Haugen is not Catholic so he probably does not have a clear understanding of Catholic theology. Haas is supposed to be Catholic, but, that does not necessarily mean that he gets what the Church teaches.

The bottom line is that composers need to be up to par with what the Church teaches and not water down the faith to the point that it causes confusion. In the end, that does more harm than good.

I have no problem with anything you are saying in this post. I agree, I believe that we need hymns that clearly and correctly explain the Truths of the Catholic Church, with melodies that are glorious.

I just happen to believe that modern language (vernacular) can be used to do this, and still remain beautiful and dignified.

 

[diggerdomer]

benedictgal, I always read the quotes and links to documents that you post, and because I am a musician who plays at Mass, I read whatever documents that pertain to music WHEN I BECOME AWARE OF THEM.

But I don’t interpret them the same way you do. Just because I read them doesn’t mean that I will interpret them the same way you do.

Since I was not raised a Catholic, and you were, I freely admit that you know more than I do and this is probably the reason that I do not interpret documents the same way. I am reading them through 40 years of evangelical Protestantism, while you are reading them through years of Catholicism.

Also, I am not an intellectual like you are. I am merely a pianist who plays at Mass when I am needed. I will do whatever the Church tells me to do. That’s one of the main reasons I became a Catholic–I believe totally in the Authority of the Holy Catholic Church. I do not wish to assume ANY authority myself.

I think a lot of people are like me–that’s probably why you see so many “dumbed down” songs and practices in parishes. There are a lot more people like me than like you, even though I think that you and others see it differently. Perhaps the friends that you associate with are all intelligent and appreciative of the finer things, and that’s why you assume that so many people are like that. The truth is, most of us are more like “Cops” than Joseph Ratzinger’s writings (which I do not comprehend at all–I may as read them in German as English!).

I hope that when the “higher language” is established and there are no more Haugen and Haas songs, that your predictions and those of others on this thread will come true–that people will flock to Mass, enjoy the beauty of the restored liturgy, and have a better understanding of Catholic theology. But what I suspect will happen–and it saddens me, it truly does–is that many people will leave, just like they did after Vatican II, and some who stay will be even more confused about what their Church actually teaches. I hope not, but I fear so. I do not think that the U.S. is ready for this. JMO.

Thanks, I think you capture well the truth that God is awesome and mysterious. Not always clear and direct, though it would seem simpler and easier to many of us if God was. So, too, our liturgy and language.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Maybe Protestantism is so popular because it simplifies Christianity to the point where people who don’t like study or convoluted encyclicals can just live their life in simplicity of “Faith Alone”.

 

[Cat]

Maybe Protestantism is so popular because it simplifies Christianity to the point where people who don’t like study or convoluted encyclicals can just live their life in simplicity of “Faith Alone”.

You’ve got it. You’ve figured out the appeal of Protestantism. It’s simple, as many of us are.

People really DO get weary of trying to figure out poetic references and analogies, angelic language or a foreign language, Scriptural references to ancient history, symbolism, polyphony, gestures, vestments, etc.

I know that people who love this stuff can’t understand why anyone would want to trash it for a “simple country gospel.” Well, what can I say?! As much as I appreciate modern conveniences (especially air conditioning!), I get tired of living in the U.S. in the Twenty-First Century. It’s complicated and always something new is coming up and I still haven’t figured out how to work my cell phone yet. Heck, half the time, I can’t figure out how to watch my TV (TiVO)–I yearn for a time when we pushed a button on the set and got only three channels.

It’s a scary, complex world. There is just so much going on, is it really that hard to understand why so many people WANT simplicity in their religion?

Yes, the Catholic Church is glorious, but IMO, a simple building with no fancy stuff is more peaceful to the soul. I don’t need the stained glass windows to teach me the Gospel like they did in the Middle Ages–I know how to read and watch television and Google and call people on the phone and drive to a conference–you see, I have information overload, and sometimes, all the windows and statues really does get overwhelming.

(Don’t get me wrong–I do think the old churches are beautiful and I appreciate our heritage very much.)

In the Christian and Missionary Alliance (an evangelical Protestant denomination), one of the most popular hymns by the founder (A.B. Simpson) is “Jesus Only.” I really happen to like this song. You can tell from the title that it reduces Christianity to a Person and that’s it. IMO, this is an example of how modern language can be “beautiful” and “dignified.”

I haven’t studied this hymn carefully to see if all the theology is Catholic–probably not, since the C and MA is not friendly with the Catholic Church. But you get the idea–Catholic hymns would not have to use flowery ancient language to get a correct message across and still be pleasing and poetic. (This hymn was written in the early 20th Century, BTW, so it’s still pretty old-fashioned.)

Jesus only is our message,
Jesus all our theme shall be;
We will lift up Jesus ever,
Jesus only will we see.

Jesus only, Jesus ever,
Jesus all in all we sing,
Savior, Sanctifier, and Healer,
Glorious Lord and coming King.

Jesus only is our Savior,
All our guilt He bore away,
He, our righteousness forever,
All our strength from day to day.

Jesus is our Sanctifier,
Saving us from self and sin,
And with all His Spirit’s fulness,
Filling all our hearts within.

Jesus only is our Healer,
All our sicknesses He bare,
And His risen life and fulness,
All His members still may share.

Jesus only is our Power,
He the gift of Pentecost;
Jesus, breathe Thy pow’r upon us,
Fill us with the Holy Ghost.

And for Jesus we are waiting,
List’ning for the Advent Call;
But 'twill still be Jesus only,
Jesus ever, all in all.

 

[benedictgal]

You’ve got it. You’ve figured out the appeal of Protestantism. It’s simple, as many of us are.

People really DO get weary of trying to figure out poetic references and analogies, angelic language or a foreign language, Scriptural references to ancient history, symbolism, polyphony, gestures, vestments, etc.

I know that people who love this stuff can’t understand why anyone would want to trash it for a “simple country gospel.” Well, what can I say?! As much as I appreciate modern conveniences (especially air conditioning!), I get tired of living in the U.S. in the Twenty-First Century. It’s complicated and always something new is coming up and I still haven’t figured out how to work my cell phone yet. Heck, half the time, I can’t figure out how to watch my TV (TiVO)–I yearn for a time when we pushed a button on the set and got only three channels.

It’s a scary, complex world. There is just so much going on, is it really that hard to understand why so many people WANT simplicity in their religion?

Yes, the Catholic Church is glorious, but IMO, a simple building with no fancy stuff is more peaceful to the soul. I don’t need the stained glass windows to teach me the Gospel like they did in the Middle Ages–I know how to read and watch television and Google and call people on the phone and drive to a conference–you see, I have information overload, and sometimes, all the windows and statues really does get overwhelming.

(Don’t get me wrong–I do think the old churches are beautiful and I appreciate our heritage very much.)

In the Christian and Missionary Alliance (an evangelical Protestant denomination), one of the most popular hymns by the founder (A.B. Simpson) is “Jesus Only.” I really happen to like this song. You can tell from the title that it reduces Christianity to a Person and that’s it. IMO, this is an example of how modern language can be “beautiful” and “dignified.”

I haven’t studied this hymn carefully to see if all the theology is Catholic–probably not, since the C and MA is not friendly with the Catholic Church. But you get the idea–Catholic hymns would not have to use flowery ancient language to get a correct message across and still be pleasing and poetic. (This hymn was written in the early 20th Century, BTW, so it’s still pretty old-fashioned.)

Jesus only is our message,
Jesus all our theme shall be;
We will lift up Jesus ever,
Jesus only will we see.

Jesus only, Jesus ever,
Jesus all in all we sing,
Savior, Sanctifier, and Healer,
Glorious Lord and coming King.

Jesus only is our Savior,
All our guilt He bore away,
He, our righteousness forever,
All our strength from day to day.

Jesus is our Sanctifier,
Saving us from self and sin,
And with all His Spirit’s fulness,
Filling all our hearts within.

Jesus only is our Healer,
All our sicknesses He bare,
And His risen life and fulness,
All His members still may share.

Jesus only is our Power,
He the gift of Pentecost;
Jesus, breathe Thy pow’r upon us,
Fill us with the Holy Ghost.

And for Jesus we are waiting,
List’ning for the Advent Call;
But 'twill still be Jesus only,
Jesus ever, all in all.

However, this is not necessarily how the Church looks at this, especially where the Liturgy is concerned. We should not have have to water down and dumb down the basic Tenents of Our Faith.

Whatever is to be used at the Mass is supposed to be different than the ordinary things that we do in our day-to-day lives. The minute we step inside the Church for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we are entering an entirely different realm and an entirely different dimension. We are in God’s presence. We should not begin the Mass with “Good morning” or some secular sort of greeting. We begin the Mass with the sign of the Cross and a greeting whose response will soon return to the more correct “and with your spirit”.

Perhaps instead of criticizing the more elevated form of language, you might actually want to read the prayers as they will soon appear and look at some of the older hymns. Inasmuch as I believe we agree that the lyrics should not be ambiguous, there is no reason to put down a more solemn form of language when it comes to the Liturgy. At some point, we need to move on past what we learned either at CCD or RCIA and read what the Church teaches and why She does what She does, especially when it comes to the Mass.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

Whatever is to be used at the Mass is supposed to be different than the ordinary things that we do in our day-to-day lives. The minute we step inside the Church for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we are entering an entirely different realm and an entirely different dimension. We are in God’s presence …

Inasmuch as I believe we agree that the lyrics should not be ambiguous, there is no reason to put down a more solemn form of language when it comes to the Liturgy.

I totally agree. The Liturgy is “other-worldly.” When we are at Mass, we have one foot on earth and the other on heaven. The Mass is like a window or portal to heaven.

At some point, we need to move on past what we learned either at CCD or RCIA and read what the Church teaches and why She does what She does, especially when it comes to the Mass.

I hope people are learning these things at CCD and RCIA. I teach both, and I try to convey to my catecehumens, candidates, and CCD students the beautiful mystery of the Mass, to the extent that they are able to appreciate it.

 

[diggerdomer]

Whatever is to be used at the Mass is supposed to be different than the ordinary things that we do in our day-to-day lives.

Like bread, wine, water, candles, oil, music, Scripture? And so on? Sorry, those are part of my ordinary life.

 

[benedictgal]

Like bread, wine, water, candles, oil, music, Scripture? And so on? Sorry, those are part of my ordinary life.

there is no need for sarcasm here. I doubt that you eat and drink out of gold vessels and I also doubt that the bread that you use for your “every day” life is unleavened.

The fact is that what happens at the Mass is not your everyday secular experience. As another poster noted, this is the moment where Heaven and earth unite. It is, as my parochial vicar noted in his homily today, when the Glory Cloud of God descends upon the church and fills the sanctuary with His presence.

Actually, Ancient Israel had a great understanding of the solemnity and dignity of the cultic worship it was to offer God because it was spelled out by God, Himself. Even though they continued to stray from it (and that is why they got into so much trouble), they knew what they were supposed to be doing.

The Church is the New Israel. She takes her Liturgy very seriously. That is why there should be a great deal of solemnity, dignity and beauty within the Mass. Using songs with ambiguous and innocuous wording should not be happening, especially if it is inconsistent with what the Church teaches and believes.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Well, as I tried to show in my first post in this thread, the philosophical language of sign and meaning are not the definitions of these words. The author of the song may not know the terms and may use them inappropriately but not incorrectly. Dumbing down language to meet a lowest common denominator of philosophical knowledge is to avoid the true need for serious study in philosophy. Making a song conform to a doctrinal policing is too much especially in the light of people lacking in the very same policing and the police lacking in philosophical basics.

Mysterium Fidei:

As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new meaning and a new finality, for they no longer remain ordinary bread and ordinary wine, but become the sign of something sacred, the sign of a spiritual food. However, the reason they take on this new significance and this new finality is simply because they contain a new “reality” which we may justly term ontological. Not that there lies under those species what was already there before, but something quite different; and that not only because of the faith of the Church, but in objective reality, since after the change of the substance or nature of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and wine but the appearances, under which Christ, whole and entire, in His physical “reality” is bodily present, although not in the same way that bodies are present in a given place.

The Eucharist is a creation, a new reality that is not based in “change” from one to another but a new metaphysical reality. This is a mystery, like God is to our finite minds. In the end, the song may be pleasing to God.

 

[diggerdomer]

there is no need for sarcasm here. I doubt that you eat and drink out of gold vessels and I also doubt that the bread that you use for your “every day” life is unleavened.

The fact is that what happens at the Mass is not your everyday secular experience. As another poster noted, this is the moment where Heaven and earth unite. It is, as my parochial vicar noted in his homily today, when the Glory Cloud of God descends upon the church and fills the sanctuary with His presence.

Actually, Ancient Israel had a great understanding of the solemnity and dignity of the cultic worship it was to offer God because it was spelled out by God, Himself. Even though they continued to stray from it (and that is why they got into so much trouble), they knew what they were supposed to be doing.

The Church is the New Israel. She takes her Liturgy very seriously. That is why there should be a great deal of solemnity, dignity and beauty within the Mass. Using songs with ambiguous and innocuous wording should not be happening, especially if it is inconsistent with what the Church teaches and believes.

I didn’t intend sarcasm, sorry if it came across that way.

 

[benedictgal]

Here is what LIturgiam Authenticam notes about the kind of language that should be used in the Mass:

1. Even if expressions should be avoided which hinder comprehension because of their excessively unusual or awkward nature, the liturgical texts should be considered as the voice of the Church at prayer, rather than of only particular congregations or individuals; thus, they should be free of an overly servile adherence to prevailing modes of expression. If indeed, in the liturgical texts, words or expressions are sometimes employed which differ somewhat from usual and everyday speech, it is often enough by virtue of this very fact that the texts become truly memorable and capable of expressing heavenly realities. Indeed, it will be seen that the observance of the principles set forth in this Instruction will contribute to the gradual development, in each vernacular, of a sacred style that will come to be recognized as proper to liturgical language. Thus it may happen that a certain manner of speech which has come to be considered somewhat obsolete in daily usage may continue to be maintained in the liturgical context. In translating biblical passages where seemingly inelegant words or expressions are used, a hasty tendency to sanitize this characteristic is likewise to be avoided. These principles, in fact, should free the Liturgy from the necessity of frequent revisions when modes of expression may have passed out of popular usage.

This is another reason why we should avoid everyday speech in the liturgy.