Seek the Lord lyric change

[Digitonomy]

At mass today we sang “Seek the Lord” by Roc O’Connor, which I enjoyed, especially in comparison to the other songs which were a bit insipid and high-pitched. However, I noticed there were two options for the refrain, one with an asterisk stating “Composer’s Revised Text,” the other with two asterisks stating “Original Text.”

The lyrics are from Isaiah 55: 6-9 and verse 6 closely matches the original text, which is “Seek the Lord, where he may be found; call to him, while he is still near.”

The revised text removes the sense of urgency from the lyrics, or put another way, removes the implication that the Lord may be leaving. I don’t recall the specific words, but the last phrase is along the lines of “who is near” rather than “while he is near.”

So, a few questions:

1. 
   *]Why were the lyrics changed - is it likely that O’Connor thought the refrain misguided in suggesting the Lord possibly leaving, or is there a better explanation I’m overlooking?
   ]I’ve read various citations of say Musicam Sacram, etc. What is the rule on song lyrics - must they match their scriptural source (if they have one), or only if part of say the psalm? And must it match exactly, or is there room for minor finagling to allow the verse phrasing to match the music (“Call to him while he is still near”, rather than “Call him while he is near”?]If the lyrics are required at times to match exactly the source scripture, must it match in the locally approved translation (NAB for US and Philippines, NRSV for Canada, Jerusalem Bible for most of the rest of the anglophone world)?

 

[tee_eff_em]

At mass today we sang “Seek the Lord” by Roc O’Connor, which I enjoyed, especially in comparison to the other songs which were a bit insipid and high-pitched. However, I noticed there were two options for the refrain, one with an asterisk stating “Composer’s Revised Text,” the other with two asterisks stating “Original Text.”

The lyrics are from Isaiah 55: 6-9 and verse 6 closely matches the original text, which is “Seek the Lord, where he may be found; call to him, while he is still near.”

The revised text removes the sense of urgency from the lyrics, or put another way, removes the implication that the Lord may be leaving. I don’t recall the specific words, but the last phrase is along the lines of “who is near” rather than “while he is near.”

So, a few questions:

1. 
   *]Why were the lyrics changed - is it likely that O’Connor thought the refrain misguided in suggesting the Lord possibly leaving, or is there a better explanation I’m overlooking?

1. 
   Are these the revised lyrics (I’ve never been exposed to them, but Google knows all)?:
   Seek the Lord whose mercy abounds;
   call aloud to God who is near.
   If so, I suspect the revision was done to eliminate exclusive (so called) language. Original:
   *Seek the Lord while
   

   he

   may be found;
   call to
   

   him

   while
   

   he

   is still near.*
   If so then, as usual IMHO, the effect is stilted, sounds funny, and otherwise stoopid. Whether revised by the composer spontaneously or under pressure from publisher or others, I couldn’t say.
   
   :twocents:
   tee

 

[passus]

It most certainly looks like the text was revised to make it gender inclusive because not only are there “revised” lyrics for the refrain, but there are for the verses, too.

For example, the original fourth verse reads:
Someday we’ll live in the house of God;
gaze on his face and praise his name.
The revised wording reads:
Someday we’ll live in the house of God;
hearts full of praise for God’s gracious love.
Notice how the first line of the phrase remained unchanged because there are no references to gender but in the second phrase of the re-write, all the gender references have been removed.

This upsets me somewhat because it doesn’t seem like something OCP would do…

 

[Digitonomy]

Are these the revised lyrics (I’ve never been exposed to them, but Google knows all)?:
Seek the Lord whose mercy abounds;
call aloud to God who is near.
If so, I suspect the revision was done to eliminate exclusive (so called) language.

Ah, yes - that makes a lot of sense. We sang the original, so I wasn’t sure the exact language of the revised version, which I’d never heard before. I would agree that revisions such as these, and the ones recently revised due to the Yahweh issue, are generally more awkward.

Any thoughts on the other points that I was wondering about?

 

[benedictgal]

It most certainly looks like the text was revised to make it gender inclusive because not only are there “revised” lyrics for the refrain, but there are for the verses, too.

For example, the original fourth verse reads:
Someday we’ll live in the house of God;
gaze on his face and praise his name.
The revised wording reads:
Someday we’ll live in the house of God;
hearts full of praise for God’s gracious love.
Notice how the first line of the phrase remained unchanged because there are no references to gender but in the second phrase of the re-write, all the gender references have been removed.

This upsets me somewhat because it doesn’t seem like something OCP would do…

Surely, you jest. This is exactly the modus operendi that OCP follows. This is something that is very problematic. As I said before, it’s as though the publishing house, let alone the composer, has bothered to read Liturgiam Authenticam.

 

[passus]

Surely, you jest. This is exactly the modus operendi that OCP follows. This is something that is very problematic. As I said before, it’s as though the publishing house, let alone the composer, has bothered to read Liturgiam Authenticam.

sigh

I really like Roc O’Connor, though.

 

[benedictgal]

Of course, here is a snippet from the powerpoint that the USCCB had issued that was to have been included in Sing to the Lord:

Is there a sufficient attention to the Trinity and to the Trinitarian structure of Catholic beliefs and teachings? Do our liturgical songs fail at times to present the Trinity as the central mystery of the Christian faith? Does the language used in referring to the Persons of the Trinity contribute at times to a lack of clarity? Is there a reluctance to use “Father” for the first person of the Blessed Trinity? Is the relationship between Jesus and the Father stressed sufficiently? Are there times when the word “God” is placed in a sentence where one would expect to find “Father” or “God the Father” since the reference is precisely to the relationship between the first and second persons of the Trinity?

While this may not necessarily apply to the OP, here is what the USCCB powerpoint notes about what I call re-translations:

The Day of Pentecost Arrives
Verse 3: Our inhibitions make us die to you and to our friends.
Aren’t some inhibitions actually good, enabling us to live for God and our friends?

Let all Mortal Flesh
The first and third verses of this hymn have been altered to eliminate apparently archaic language and in inclusive the text. The original text said: Christ our God to earth decsendeth and As the Light of light descendeth—present tenses. These, however, have been changed to past tenses[descended] to eliminate the archaic language, causing the loss of the critically important notion of Christ’s continuous coming among us, especially in the Holy Eucharist.

Sing Praise to Our Creator
The original text spoke of being “baptized into his grace,” but was changed for the sake of vertical inclusively to: “baptized in living grace.” What does this mean?

Imagine, if the folks who tend to regard political correctness as more important than being faithful to the documents of the Church can change venerable hymns, what can we expect with their own songs? It’s like they are eating their own.

 

[Corki]

This upsets me somewhat because it doesn’t seem like something OCP would do…

The only part of this that is atypical for OCP is that they left the original text as an option. Did you get to experience any of their “new and improved” lyrics for traditional Christmas hymns this year?

 

[passus]

The only part of this that is atypical for OCP is that they left the original text as an option. Did you get to experience any of their “new and improved” lyrics for traditional Christmas hymns this year?

Haha, yes, actually.

We were singing harmony from Journeysongs, 2nd (they have *Breaking Bread *in the pews) and just about every other word didn’t match up.

 

[Digitonomy]

Imagine, if the folks who tend to regard political correctness as more important than being faithful to the documents of the Church can change venerable hymns, what can we expect with their own songs? It’s like they are eating their own.

Can you comment on how LA or MS apply to points 2 and 3 in my OP?

 

[benedictgal]

Can you comment on how LA or MS apply to points 2 and 3 in my OP?

Here is one section:

1. Sung texts and liturgical hymns have a particular importance and efficacy. Especially on Sunday, the “Day of the Lord”, the singing of the faithful gathered for the celebration of Holy Mass, no less than the prayers, the readings and the homily, express in an authentic way the message of the Liturgy while fostering a sense of common faith and communion in charity.78

Now, inasmuch as this speaks to liturgical texts, the same could very well apply to songs featuring scriptural texts as well:

1. With due regard for the requirements of sound exegesis, all care is to be taken to ensure that the words of the biblical passages commonly used in catechesis and in popular devotional prayers be maintained. On the other hand, great caution is to be taken to avoid a wording or style that the Catholic faithful would confuse with the manner of speech of non-Catholic ecclesial communities or of other religions, so that such a factor will not cause them confusion or discomfort.

1. The effort should be made to ensure that the translations be conformed to that understanding of biblical passages which has been handed down by liturgical use and by the tradition of the Fathers of the Church, especially as regards very important texts such as the Psalms and the readings used for the principal celebrations of the liturgical year; in these cases the greatest care is to be taken so that the translation express the traditional Christological, typological and spiritual sense, and manifest the unity and the inter-relatedness of the two Testaments.34

Of course, as the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus observed in his very astute article, Bible Babel:

It is a great pity that our churches and our culture have largely lost a common biblical vocabulary. The blame rests with academic Bible scholars and with the hustlers of the very big business of multiplying and marketing ever-more-novel versions of the biblical text. But the decay of a culture- and soul-forming tradition is also the fault of the bishops, and it is their very particular fault that the Catholic people are saddled with among the clunkiest of translations, the New American Bible. Yes, I know that there is not much to be done about it, or at least that those who could do something seem not to be interested. And yes, I know that it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. But sometimes it is necessary to curse the darkness as well, just to prevent our getting used to it.

I would suggest that what you heard was a very clunky translation of the scriptural content of the song.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I hope this isn’t off topic but why change the words of the song to exclude male pronouns when “LORD” is still used? There is a lack of consistency.

 

[Phemie]

I hope this isn’t off topic but why change the words of the song to exclude male pronouns when “LORD” is still used? There is a lack of consistency.

Ask that to those who insist on replace ‘his’ with ‘God’s’ in “Glory to God in the highest and peace to his people on earth.” That line is followed by Lord, King & Father but perish the thought we should say ‘his’.

 

[benedictgal]

Ask that to those who insist on replace ‘his’ with ‘God’s’ in “Glory to God in the highest and peace to his people on earth.” That line is followed by Lord, King & Father but perish the thought we should say ‘his’.

Liturgiam Authenticam is very clear about the translations used for the Mass. That is why it does not allow for paraphrasing or needless substitutions.

 

[Phemie]

Liturgiam Authenticam is very clear about the translations used for the Mass. That is why it does not allow for paraphrasing or needless substitutions.

I know that but don’t try to tell the feminists in my parish.

They do the same with “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of his (God’s) name, for our good, and the good of all his (God’s) Church.”

 

[Digitonomy]

"benedictgal:

I would suggest that what you heard was a very clunky translation of the scriptural content of the song.

Fortunately, what I heard actually matched the scripture very closely, it was the unsung alternative that puzzled me.

Here is one section:

Now, inasmuch as this speaks to liturgical texts, the same could very well apply to songs featuring scriptural texts as well:

Hmm… So this seems to go back to the same thing we debated on the Yahweh issue - whether LA applies to hymns during the liturgy. And while I’m not convinced that it was originally meant to, it’s pretty clear from last year’s tetragrammaton ruling that this is how it is now being understood.

There is, however, a difference between Yahweh and other scriptural translations in hymns: the Yahweh issue is black and white, explicitly spelled out in LA., it’s not clear we should take such a strict approach to the use of approved translations of scripture. Are we to chuck out or tamper with myriad old hymns whose scriptural verses don’t match the NAB approved in the US, or the NRSV in Canada? Are we to prohibit minor additions or deletions a composer makes to match the meter of the lyrics to the music, such as “Call to him while he is still near”?

I really doubt LA intended to impose on hymnody in this way, but it wouldn’t be inconsistent with how the Yahweh paragraph has been recently applied.

 

[benedictgal]

Fortunately, what I heard actually matched the scripture very closely, it was the unsung alternative that puzzled me.Hmm… So this seems to go back to the same thing we debated on the Yahweh issue - whether LA applies to hymns during the liturgy. And while I’m not convinced that it was originally meant to, it’s pretty clear from last year’s tetragrammaton ruling that this is how it is now being understood.

There is, however, a difference between Yahweh and other scriptural translations in hymns: the Yahweh issue is black and white, explicitly spelled out in LA., it’s not clear we should take such a strict approach to the use of approved translations of scripture. Are we to chuck out or tamper with myriad old hymns whose scriptural verses don’t match the NAB approved in the US, or the NRSV in Canada? Are we to prohibit minor additions or deletions a composer makes to match the meter of the lyrics to the music, such as “Call to him while he is still near”?

I really doubt LA intended to impose on hymnody in this way, but it wouldn’t be inconsistent with how the Yahweh paragraph has been recently applied.

Actually, LA was meant to be used for hymnody. Here is what the document, lifted from the USCCB powerpoint presesntation, has to say on the matter:

…Within five years from the publication of this Instruction, the Conferences of Bishops, necessarily in collaboration with the national and diocesan Commissions and with other experts, shall provide for the publication of a directory or repertory of texts intended for liturgical singing. This document shall be transmitted for the necessary recognitio to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

Unfortunately, the USCCB didn’t get to do this when they approved Sing to the Lord.

 

[Digitonomy]

Actually, LA was meant to be used for hymnody. Here is what the document, lifted from the USCCB powerpoint presesntation, has to say on the matter:

Yes, obviously paragraph 108 of LA applies to hymnody. But it also seems to distinguish between “sung texts and liturgical hymns.” That distinction, coupled with the fact that paragraph 108 sets aside separate instructions for hymns (different from the texts discussed in the rest of LA), calls into question whether the first 100+ paragraphs are meant to be binding on hymns, or only liturgical texts defined more strictly.

The Yahweh ruling would seem to suggest the former interpretation.

 

[benedictgal]

Yes, obviously paragraph 108 of LA applies to hymnody. But it also seems to distinguish between “sung texts and liturgical hymns.” That distinction, coupled with the fact that paragraph 108 sets aside separate instructions for hymns (different from the texts discussed in the rest of LA), calls into question whether the first 100+ paragraphs are meant to be binding on hymns, or only liturgical texts defined more strictly.

The Yahweh ruling would seem to suggest the former interpretation.

No, they are one in the same. When I briefly met with the Secretary to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, I explained to him my consternation with the poor quality of the songs we currently use at Mass. He told me that a document from the Holy See is forthcoming on the subject and that it should come out early in 2009.

Perhaps since LA wasn’t acted upon by the USCCB, Rome may have taken it upon itself to act on the conference’s behalf.

 

[Jimzz12]

The music at Mass should not be music. End of story. It is part of a prayer. But, hey it seems I’m preaching to choir here.

It never fully clicked for me that the song at Mass is part of a big prayer sequence until I started haning out with my breviary several times a day.

That breviary I might add had been rife with inclusive language. So I decided it was a dandy if I did all my readings out of my NAB. From what I understand a better breviary and what not are coming out. I’ve digressed again. Bad habit.

My solution at Mass is to never sing any material out of the OCP, GIA, missals and song books. I always promptly approach the priest and ask him when he’s gonna’ deep six the parish OCP and GIA contracts. Some priests look at me like a deer in the headlights, others… say things like, “Boy! thank you! It’s soooo good to here someone else who does not want that drivel around at the Mass, but the evil parishoners have our hands tied for now. Don’t worry random guy I’m working on it.” Then I walk away relieved.