Questionable theology-does it really matter when picking a song for use in the Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter benedictgal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, how are people with the actual Body of Christ inside their mouths be expected to sing? Isn’t there such a thing as meditative music that can be most sacred?
We have communion hymns all the time without issues. Those awaiting communion can sing, as well as those who have returned and said what prayers they wish to say. In any case, instrumental music would not be an option for me, unless it was canned.
 
We have communion hymns all the time without issues. Those awaiting communion can sing, as well as those who have returned and said what prayers they wish to say. In any case, instrumental music would not be an option for me, unless it was canned.
In a Mass sung in Gregorian Chant at our abbey, the schola will sing the communion antiphon, and then the first psalm verse. After the psalm verse, the schola repeats the antiphon, and then the monks in the choir, those who haven’t received or have received, can join in the second time the antiphon is sung (as well as anybody in the nave in the first pew or two who can manage Gregorian chant), after which the schola sings the next psalm verse. Then the antiphon is repeated, and more choir members can then join in.

This continues until everyone has received in the choir. Then all sit for a long moment of sacred silence, after which the presiding priest begins the closing rites.

All very reverential and nobody has to sing with their mouths full!
 
“Gather Us In” addenda:

I must have been mulling this over in my sleep. I woke up with some points that I think are pertinent.
  1. The use of the understood “you” in reference to God actually IS probably tied in with
    false theology. The song was written in 1982, just when the swinging nuns (and priests) were insisting that God should not be referred to in the masculine (although, to them, the feminine was OK), and terms such as “Lord” should not be used. Referring to God with an understood “you” is a way to fly beneath the radar, please everyone, get something published and still make some money(and not offend any future workshop hosts).
    It’s not that God isn’t addressed (as MT pointed out), it’s that this very indirect way of addressing Him can be used by people of widely varying theologies, some of which are not
    consistent w/ Catholic theology. This makes the song even more marketable.
    Most of the verses can be used at the local Carmelite monastery or the local Wicca gathering. It’s as easily used at the Cathedral or at the annual Womenchurch convention.
    What a versatile song.
  2. The text is set to a compound meter (in this case 6/8 with a measure of 3/8 thrown in in two places), which means that each pulse is divisible by 3. At my parish, the song is taken at such a clip that it swings at a rollicking speed. This affects the “chattiness” of it all by squeezing three words or syllables into each pulse instead of 1 or 2. (except at the ends of the small phrases). This is an observation of the text, but not of its theological significance, so I’ll focus primarily on the first point.
Compare “Gather Us In” w/ “Holy God We Praise Thy Name” or “Holy, Holy, Holy”. The stark contrast in text is very evident. (I’m not saying that the styles of the latter 2 are the only ones that should be used, nor am I saying that these kinds of texts are the only ones that should be used. I’m just using them to make a contrast that might reveal something about the different theologies used (or evaded).

Although Holy God WPTN uses the word “we” (which could be extracted in deconstructionist fashion to defend the “we-ness” of Gather Us In), it also makes many
references to God - “Holy God”, “Thy Name”, “Lord of all”, “thee”, “thy scepter”, etc.
In Holy, Holy, Holy we hear “Lord God Almighty”, “thee”(not “understood”, but said),
God is referred to in the second person, but He is also described in various ways, such as “God in Thre Persons, Blessed Trinity”.
I’m not saying that other types of hymns or newer hymns are not to be used, what I’m trying to get across is the huge contrast in the way that God is addressed.

Back to the 4th verse of “Gather…”, the new light is shining “here in this place”(true),
but not in “the dark of buildings confining” (false)and “not in some heaven, light years away”.(false). Compare that w/ the theology of “infinite Thy vast domain” and the
inclusiveness (haha) of both heaven and earth “all on earth Thy scepter claim” and “all in heaven above adore Thee”.
In Holy, H,H God is present in the darkness, but hidden (verse 3, “though the darkness
hide Thee”.) He is hidden because of “the eye made blind by sin”.
 
Gather Us In.

Back to the meter (a quick 6/8). Most people don’t have time to even notice the questionable theology due to the quick drive-by nature of the music. In “Holy, Holy, Holy” and “Holy God We Praise Thy Name”, the average tempo will yield about 8-9 syllables
every 5 seconds. “Gather Us In” (taken at the speed of my parish) will yield 16-19 syllables every 5 seconds.
Not so good for reflecting upon the meaning of what one is saying.

What a good marketing technique: avoid mentioning God directly, and compose your “song” in a compound meter w/ a fast tempo. The atheological roadrunner technique.
 
Not so good for reflecting upon the meaning of what one is saying.
I would imagine it would be hard for most unfamiliar with a song to keep up with the syllables and the notes and the length of the notes from the hymnal, much less try to reflect upon its meanings.

Perhaps we get can more out of it if we read to ourselves. Just saying.
 
Even if that were the case, the song still has bad theology. The action is more along the lines of what we are doing than what God is doing.
So we should exclude anything that refers to us or we?
Here are the lyrics to Bread of Life:

This is certainly not the ideal song for Holy Communion.
“Not ideal” does not equal “bad theology”. :rolleyes:
No, Mark. You are the one who has insisted, as I read your posts, in defensing what is pretty much an indefensible song. As others have indicated (which you seem to ignore), if there is even a remote petition, it certainly does not resemble one, and, even if it were, it comes at the end. The song is nebulous and is chock full of bad theology.
And you have yet to prove this as “bad theology”. 🤷
Here is the final verse, missing from the website from which I copied the lyrics:

It’s really bad theology. Here, he disregards the Church and the concept of the Mass as being a union of heaven and earth that transcends time and space. To think, many unsuspecting parishes have been singing that song for 28 years. That is 28 years too long.
:rolleyes:
That is the beginning of the fourth verse. I put the first three verses early on in the thread. Again, Marty Haugen is not Catholic. He does not understand the authentic Sensus Fidei of the Church.
You’ve dialoged with him on this, or is another one of your assumptions?
Actually, with all due respect, your surmising is not at all correct. Gather Us In reeks with poor theology. Perhaps you might want to examine the lyrics more closely and see if they match up with sound Catholic liturgical and sacramental theology. You will find that they do not. The song is a glorification of ourselves; God is an after-thought. It does not take into account that during the Mass, the veil between heaven and earth and time and space is lifted. It also discounts the Real Presence of Jesus in the Tabernacle. Read the fourth verse. It is a bad song.

As I said earlier, it is sad and lamentable that folks insist on defending the indefensible.
:rolleyes: a priori that the song is “indefensible” :rolleyes:

The problem as I see it, BG, is that you don’t understand music. Now before I explain, I will admit that there are some tunes that are problematic, on that we can agree.

However, just like in Scritpture, not every line in every song is meant to be taken literally. Like Scripture, there are different senses of music such as allegory. With all due respect, you seem to take every line of every song literally, and that is as mistaken as taking every line of Scripture literally. Music and lyrics are not always intended to be taken as such. This is something that you seem to be missing.

This may be a difficult concept for you, I understand. From you posts I gather that you have a literalist bent, which is fine, but methinks it’s a roadblock to understanding some of the music and lyrics the way they were meant to be understood.
 
There are not a few songs that, lamentably, have quite a bit of questionable theology (or, worse bad theology that is not reflective of the Catholic Faith) and have made their way into the Mass.

Among these are:

Gather Us In
We Remember
I, Myself, am the Bread of Life
Bread of Life
Here, I Am

There are others, but, since I do not have my materials with me, I have to dig up the list from memory.

Contrast the faulty theology with something that is rich in Church teaching (sacramental and liturgical) like:

Alleluia, Sing to Jesus:

There is a huge difference.
I am happy to find that you think we Anglicans write more orthodox hymns than your own writers can produce! (Admittedly, Haugen isn’t Catholic–but I think some of the authors of the other songs you mentioned are.)

Edwin
 
So we should exclude anything that refers to us or we?

And you have yet to prove this as “bad theology”. 🤷

The problem as I see it, BG, is that you don’t understand music. Now before I explain, I will admit that there are some tunes that are problematic, on that we can agree.

However, just like in Scritpture, not every line in every song is meant to be taken literally. Like Scripture, there are different senses of music such as allegory.
Of course she didn’t mean that we should exclude anything that refers to “us” or “we”.
This is quite evident. The song is full of references to “us”, “we”, “our”, with absolutely
no DIRECT references to God (only inferred, in the second person, and never named).

As far as theology goes, one might ask “What theology?”. Besides the questionable aspects of it mentioned in my last few posts, there isn’t much anyone can say because
it is so generic, and kind of “neither here nor there”. The “songs” are supposed to represent Catholic theology. The references to bread and wine can be taken many different
ways. The rest of the song either exhibits questionable theology, or nothing at all.Just a big chat session w/ the God of your choice. We might as well not even bother singing it.

It seems that you also don’t understand music. “There are different senses of music such as allegory.” What does that mean? You must be referring to the text. The music here doesn’t represent an allegory.
 
I am happy to find that you think we Anglicans write more orthodox hymns than your own writers can produce! (Admittedly, Haugen isn’t Catholic–but I think some of the authors of the other songs you mentioned are.)

Edwin
That seems true, at least as far as published works are concerned. Of course, it goes farther (further?)than that. Even if the works were available (and they probably are), our pastoral musicians wouldn’t allow them.

Can we gather you in?
 
That seems true, at least as far as published works are concerned. Of course, it goes farther (further?)than that. Even if the works were available (and they probably are), our pastoral musicians wouldn’t allow them.

Can we gather you in?
I don’t understand why pastoral musicians have such a hold on what they allow. Since bishops dictate which versions of the bible Catholics must read at mass, perhaps they ultimately are the dictators of musical sources too. I believe they even decide on architectural design of new churches and remodelling (vandalization) of sanctuaries.
 
In leafing through some of the other songs, it seems that they are rather one-sided as
far as theology goes… almost exclusively “horizontal”. This can “form” people incorrectly.
There has to be a balance. These selections emphasize the “theology du jour” of the
70s and 80s, a theology that has been corrected by JPII and our present Pope. Many are
“meal-oriented” and have other reductionist tendencies. Many seem to be “fixated” on
“us” and “me”. That might be Ok for recreational singing, but doesn’t fully exhibit the
truth of the Mass.

Although the theologies need to be evaluated, this needs to be be done by thoroughly qualified people, preferably well formed theologians with special knowledge of the requirements of the liturgy. Hopefully they will do their job.

Does theology matter when selecting songs for Mass? Definitely. It is essential. After that, there are very many musical considerations, some of which might even make a
theologically sound piece unusable.
 
I don’t understand why pastoral musicians have such a hold on what they allow. Since bishops dictate which versions of the bible Catholics must read at mass, perhaps they ultimately are the dictators of musical sources too. I believe they even decide on architectural design of new churches and remodelling (vandalization) of sanctuaries.
Liturgiam Authenticam, the authoritative document of the Holy See that governs liturgical translations, has a provision mandating that the national episcopal conferences submit a directory of hymns for use in the Mass to Rome for recognitio. The USCCB did manage to submit such a directory back in 2006, but, Rome is still reviewing it. Perhaps they have found some questionable items.
 
Liturgiam Authenticam, the authoritative document of the Holy See that governs liturgical translations, has a provision mandating that the national episcopal conferences submit a directory of hymns for use in the Mass to Rome for recognitio. The USCCB did manage to submit such a directory back in 2006, but, Rome is still reviewing it. Perhaps they have found some questionable items.
We should “gather us in” an entire volume of these tunes specifically in one volume. Then the entire thing can hopefully be declared “not usable”. No need to list songs. Just the whole schmear.

I just p(name removed by moderator)ointed another thing that I think bothers me about the phrase “gather us in”.
It reminds me of the 80s phrase “Color me-----------”(fill in the blank w/ any adjective).
 
We should “gather us in” an entire volume of these tunes specifically in one volume. Then the entire thing can hopefully be declared “not usable”. No need to list songs. Just the whole schmear.

I just p(name removed by moderator)ointed another thing that I think bothers me about the phrase “gather us in”.
It reminds me of the 80s phrase “Color me-----------”(fill in the blank w/ any adjective).
When I hear “gather us in” I think of the movie “Babe.” I’m expecting a border Collie to gather the sheep and watch out for w-o-o-o-o-o-olf! Lots of delicious metaphors here.
 
In interpreting the parable of the King, it’s important to note (as I’ve been informed by biblical scholars) that in those days the HOST of the wedding actually provided the special festive clothing for guests to wear. Thus a garment would’ve been offered, at the King’s own expense, to the guest and the guest would’ve committed a calculated and conscious insult by not accepting the gift. It’s about us wanting to get to heaven yet refusing the help (the gifts) God freely offers us to get us there.

It’s nothing to do with literally dressing up.
Lily has a great point. I remember a priest I greatly respect making basically the same point at one of our EF Masses. Thank you for reminding me. Lily.
 
Re: Gather Us In.

I think one of the big problems here are the words “us”, "we"and “our”. Instead of “Lord, gather in the lost and forsaken” or “give all a heart”, or “all shall arise at the sound of their name”. The ubiquitous use of “us”, “we” and “our” does make it seem rather narcissistic in a groupie sort of way.
It’s also the most hippy-drippy song I’ve ever heard, lyrically, in Mass. Straight from the 70s, 60s maybe. I can’t stand how dated it sounds.
 
Of course she didn’t mean that we should exclude anything that refers to “us” or “we”.
This is quite evident. The song is full of references to “us”, “we”, “our”, with absolutely
no DIRECT references to God (only inferred, in the second person, and never named).

As far as theology goes, one might ask “What theology?”. Besides the questionable aspects of it mentioned in my last few posts, there isn’t much anyone can say because
it is so generic, and kind of “neither here nor there”.** The “songs” are supposed to represent Catholic theology.** The references to bread and wine can be taken many different
ways. The rest of the song either exhibits questionable theology, or nothing at all.Just a big chat session w/ the God of your choice. We might as well not even bother singing it.

It seems that you also don’t understand music. “There are different senses of music such as allegory.” What does that mean? You must be referring to the text. The music here doesn’t represent an allegory.
Which song are we referring to? I don’t recall mentioning one in specific.

What I mean by allegory is that not all lyrics are meant to be literal, similar to Scriptural text. Yes, you are correct, the musical notes are not allegorical, they cannot be allegorical as I understand the meaning of the term.

And yes, I am a musician, although the Great Highland Pipes are not a great liturgical instrument. Perhaps the Uilleann pipes, though. 😉 I am a student of both.
 
We should “gather us in” an entire volume of these tunes specifically in one volume. Then the entire thing can hopefully be declared “not usable”. No need to list songs. Just the whole schmear.

I just p(name removed by moderator)ointed another thing that I think bothers me about the phrase “gather us in”.
It reminds me of the 80s phrase “Color me-----------”(fill in the blank w/ any adjective).
Funny. When I hear “Gather Us In,” I think of Matthew 23: 37- “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.”

Or Isaiah 41:11–“Like a shepherd He will tend His flock, In His arm, He will gather the lambs, and carry them in His bosom; He will gently lead the nursing ewes.”

I guess it just depends on where your mind is set.

Oh, BTW, when Jesus uses the words “hen” and “chicks,” and when Isaiah uses the words “flock,” “lambs,” and “ewes,” they are using poetical terms. They do not literally mean that we will all turn into chickens and sheep.

Kind of like some of the phrases in “Gather Us In.” They’re poetry, and as those of you who are theology students know, you can’t use poetry to teach theology. Poetry is meant to appeal to a different part of the human being, the heart.

As many of you know, my husband and I were kicked out of our Protestant church. We were so hurt by this that I cried out, “I will never go back to a church unless I am wooed in.”

The first time I ever heard the song, “Gather Us In,” I sat there and cried, and then I found a napkin in my purse and copied all the words down so that I could read them during the lonely, sad days. This song gave me great comfort as a displaced child of God. The very idea that God would gather us all in and find a place for us was immensely comforting to me.

At that time, I didn’t NEED theology, I needed a strong arm to “gather me in” and carry me along for a while.

Yes, eventually I needed the theology of the Catholic Church. And I got it, from three years of study, and an excellent RCIA program.

But at the very beginning of my journey home, I needed to be “gathered in” first, then taught.

I agree that theology is important, but I think there is a place for some very personal and heartfelt poetry, especially as an Processional Song in the Mass. I would not want to see an entire Mass of poetry and “feelings” songs, but they definitely have a place. Singing and music is an act of the emotions. Sometimes those of us who play or sing forget this as we work for technical acumen. But music appeals to the emotions, not the mind.

Oh, by the way, I knew “Holy Holy Holy” by heart, because it was one of the first songs tht I ever learned as a PROTESTANT. Same for “Holy God, We Praise Thy Name.” To me, these songs were PROTESTANT because that’s where I sang them all my life. I already knew all about theology.

But Gather Us In–I had never heard that song before coming to Mass, and I love it and I’m glad that our bishop uses an instrumental version of it for his weekly radio show.

Up until a few years ago, BTW, I had never heard “The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.” I frankly don’t see the resemblance between Gather Us In and The Wreck song.

I also love “Here I Am, Lord,” because it was the song played at the Mass where the Bishop welcomed all of us catechumens and candidates into the Church. We were crying all the way through it. Again, this is a POETRY song, not a theological teaching tool.

I don’t see the point of this thread other than to rant about something that you can do nothing about. Why not think about more wholesome things that will edify the Church?
 
I don’t see the point of this thread other than to rant about something that you can do nothing about.
Never say can’t. I never thought I’d live to see (or hear) the day when “for you and for all” would be changed back to its scriptural translation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top