SPLIT: Song: Amazing Grace--theologically unsound.

[Aramis]

When entering areas of “awful worship song” its all about taste. Not everyone will always agree on what is considered “good music.” The issue in this case appears to be not that the song “isn’t Catholic” but whether its more of a secular music setting.

Sorry, Rev. Father, but wrong. The version referenced dips into heretical verses.

Amazing Grace, as a whole, has a problematic verse theologically. Given the “standard” verses:
Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.

T’was Grace that taught my heart to fear.
And Grace, my fears relieved.
How precious did that Grace appear
The hour I first believed.

Through many dangers, toils and snares
I have already come;
'Tis Grace that brought me safe thus far
and Grace will lead me home.

The Lord has promised good to me.
His word my hope secures.
He will my shield and portion be,
As long as life endures.

Yea, when this flesh and heart shall fail,
And mortal life shall cease,
I shall possess within the veil,
A life of joy and peace.

When we’ve been here ten thousand years
Bright shining as the sun.
We’ve no less days to sing God’s praise
Than when we’ve first begun.
constitution.org/col/amazing_grace.htm

Verse 2 is heretical; Saved by belief alone is explicitly heretical. Baptism is required for salvation, albeit baptism of desire borders on salvation by belief alone.

Verse 3 is less troublesome, but can be interpreted to support OSAS.

Verse 5 mentions the heart failing; given the era it was written in, it’s likely figurative; it can be seen to deny personal culpability should one’s “heart fail,” that could mean that belief alone, not even orthodoxis, is sufficient. Not many people look at that one hard; it’s a stretch, but it’s still problematic.

Verses 1, 4 and 6 are theologically sound; Verse 2 is heretical, verses 3 and 5 are misinterpretable.

The interludes added in the referenced version, according to ___
Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone) lyrics
Songwriters: Traditional; Giglio, Louie; Tomlin, Chris;

Amazing grace how sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me
I once was lost, but now I’m found
Was blind, but now I see

'Twas grace that taught my heart to fear
And grace my fears relieved
How precious did that grace appear
The hour I first believed

My chains are gone, I’ve been set free
My God, my Savior has ransomed me
And like a flood His mercy reigns
Unending love, amazing grace

The Lord has promised good to me
His word my hope secures
He will my shield and portion be
As long as life endures

My chains are gone, I’ve been set free
My God, my Savior has ransomed me
And like a flood His mercy reigns
Unending love, amazing grace

My chains are gone, I’ve been set free
My God, my Savior has ransomed me
And like a flood His mercy reigns
Unending love, amazing grace

The earth shall soon dissolve like snow
The sun forbear to shine
But God who called me here below
Will be forever mine, will be forever mine
You are forever mine
elyrics.net/read/c/chris-tomlin-lyrics/amazing-grace-%28My-chains-are-gone%29-lyrics.html

The final verse is problematic; we do not “own” God, but he us.
It retains the heretical 2nd verse.

The interlude is not per se heretical, but it’s definitely not the kind of line one would expect in a Catholic service, since God’s Mercy does have a price to us: obedience, orthopraxis and orthodoxis.

Bad music includes any music which teaches heresy, no matter how pretty it might be. And that’s not a matter of taste.

 

[MarkThompson]

T’was Grace that taught my heart to fear.
And Grace, my fears relieved.
How precious did that Grace appear
The hour I first believed.

No, Aramis, there’s nothing whatsoever heretical about this verse, which says nothing whatsoever about justification. Exercise a little caution before you start slinging about slurs and accusations, could you, please? Something must have really gotten under your skin about this hymn, I guess.

 

[Aramis]

T’was Grace that taught my heart to fear.
And Grace, my fears relieved.
How precious did that Grace appear
The hour I first believed.

No, Aramis, there’s nothing whatsoever heretical about this verse, which says nothing whatsoever about justification. Exercise a little caution before you start slinging about slurs and accusations, could you, please? Something must have really gotten under your skin about this hymn, I guess.

A theologian of my acquaintance banning the second verse. Also, reading the explication by several protestants, who do use it to teach justification.

If one is saved the hour one first believes, then there is no need for baptism. It’s anabaptist heresy.

 

[paperwight]

.

Yea, when this flesh and heart shall fail,
And mortal life shall cease,
I shall possess within the veil,
A life of joy and peace.

Verse 5 mentions the heart failing; given the era it was written in, it’s likely figurative; it can be seen to deny personal culpability should one’s “heart fail,” that could mean that belief alone, not even orthodoxis, is sufficient. Not many people look at that one hard; it’s a stretch, but it’s still problematic.

The earth shall soon dissolve like snow
The sun forbear to shine
But God who called me here below
Will be forever mine, will be forever mine
You are forever mine

[/indent]elyrics.net/read/c/chris-tomlin-lyrics/amazing-grace-%28My-chains-are-gone%29-lyrics.html

The final verse is problematic; we do not “own” God, but he us.

Oh, my goodness, Aramis. Surely the line about heart and flesh failing goes with the next one, ‘and mortal life shall cease’? In other words, it is referring to death?

And no, we don’t ‘own’ God. But Jesus said ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God’. John 20 v.17.

 

[Cat]

A theologian of my acquaintance banning the second verse. Also, reading the explication by several protestants, who do use it to teach justification.

If one is saved the hour one first believes, then there is no need for baptism. It’s anabaptist heresy.

As you know, there are a few thousand denominations of Protestants, along with many non-denominational Protestants, and they disagree on major and minor issues.

And they’re not always right.

I agree with Mark Thompson–I see nothing in v.2 about salvation or justification. I see a Christian who has been relieved of fears by coming to a realization of the reality of their faith in Jesus Christ and the Sanctifying Grace that He offers to those who follow Him.

Yes, Catholics have been saved through their baptism, but they are being saved currently, and they hope to be saved in the future. To a Catholic Christian, conversion or “being saved” is something that is continuous, happening constantly. The song Amazing Grace is talking about a Catholic Christian who “is being saved” or “converted,” and as you know, this happens through the Sanctifying Grace of God.

Every Catholic I know has told me that there came a time in their lives when, for the first time, they realized in a mature way, what following Christ really means, and at that time, they made a conscious decision to truly follow Christ and be His disciple. In the Bible, it is obvious that Jesus knew many of His disciples for years and they were friends or at least acquaintances. But there was a specific, historical earth time when He actually asked each man individually to “follow Him.” And there was a specific time when they agreed to follow Him.

Throughout our lives, we experience moments of conviction and truth and decision. Peter, e.g., at one specific, historic moment in earthly time, testified before his fellow men that “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” This was a pivotal moment in St. Peter’s life, the point where Jesus gave Him the leadership of the Church on earth.

The song Amazing Grace can easily describe our daily “conversion,” and call to our mind those moments of mature realization and decision when we become acutely aware of the Grace of God.

 

[paperwight]

The song Amazing Grace can easily describe our daily “conversion,” and call to our mind those moments of mature realization and decision when we become acutely aware of the Grace of God.

So well put, Cat.

Daily conversion, yes, when we start the day with a prayer, or look back over our day in the evening.

And more formally, every year at the Easter Vigil, when we renew our Baptismal promises.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m going to have to side somewhat with Aramis on this one.

Paraphrasing Cardinal Arinze, we come to Mass to adore God, to thank Him, to ask pardon for our sins, and to ask for other things we need.

It would be a stretch to see any of these in Amazing Grace lyrics which are overloaded with the first person.

That said, they might have some therapeutic value in meditative sessions, but it’s hard to see where they could be part of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

A theologian of my acquaintance banning the second verse. Also, reading the explication by several protestants, who do use it to teach justification.

If one is saved the hour one first believes, then there is no need for baptism. It’s anabaptist heresy.

Think of it this way: from the hour one first believes, if one were to die before one gets the chance to be baptized, one would receive baptism of desire.

That aside, I agree with those who say that the second verse doesn’t say anything about justification anyway. The author is talking about becoming aware of his own sinfulness as well as the power of God’s forgiveness. The bit about “the hour I first believed” I think refers more to the sheer emotional power of the author’s realization than to salvation.

 

[MarkThompson]

I’m going to have to side somewhat with Aramis on this one.

Aramis did not say the problem was that the lyrics were somewhat too focused on the individual, he said the problem was out-and-out heretical theology.

It really just does to show how if you don’t like a hymn for whatever personal reasons, there’s absolutely no hope of defending it. For you, it’s too focused on oneself, and too little on God. For Aramis, it attributes too much to God and too little to human agency. You say, “God taught my heart? God eased my fears? Egad, too self-centered!” He says, “God taught my heart, God eased my fears? Oh noez, blasphemy!” You really can’t win, can you.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Verse 2 is heretical; Saved by belief alone is explicitly heretical. Baptism is required for salvation, albeit baptism of desire borders on salvation by belief alone.

T’was Grace that taught my heart to fear.
And Grace, my fears relieved.
How precious did that Grace appear
The hour I first believed.

Technically speaking the verse does not say what you claim it does. It merely states that when the subject first believed he realized how precious God’s grace is. Its not heretical to say that at point X in time I saw how precious God’s grace is.

Verse 3 is less troublesome, but can be interpreted to support OSAS.

Through many dangers, toils and snares
I have already come;
'Tis Grace that brought me safe thus far
and Grace will lead me home.

Once again, not technically. It speaks of grace. Grace is received at baptism, no?

Verse 5 mentions the heart failing; given the era it was written in, it’s likely figurative; it can be seen to deny personal culpability should one’s “heart fail,” that could mean that belief alone, not even orthodoxis, is sufficient. Not many people look at that one hard; it’s a stretch, but it’s still problematic.

Yea, when this flesh and heart shall fail,
And mortal life shall cease,
I shall possess within the veil,
A life of joy and peace.

I’m missing completely what you’re objecting to. We’re all gonna die one day.

Verses 1, 4 and 6 are theologically sound; Verse 2 is heretical, verses 3 and 5 are misinterpretable.

Anything can be “misinterpretable.”

The final verse is problematic; we do not “own” God, but he us.

The earth shall soon dissolve like snow
The sun forbear to shine
But God who called me here below
Will be forever mine, will be forever mine
You are forever mine

Was Jesus heretical when he said, “My God and your God”??? Was Jesus implying we own God?
Or Rev 21:7 when God says, “I shall be your God.” Is God implying that we own Him? I think you’re reading into this something that is simply not there at all.

Bad music includes any music which teaches heresy, no matter how pretty it might be. And that’s not a matter of taste.

There is no heresy in the music. It can be interpreted in a heretical manner, but then again so can almost anything. However, one’s personal taste in music can’t be enforced upon all…

 

[Jean_Anthony]

aaa

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please don’t go off topic to discuss side issues. It’s not fair to the OP. Start a new thread or join an exisitng one on the topic. Thank you all.

 

[Timothysis]

One must ask the question;

Was Amazing Grace written as a discourse on Catholic theology, or is it just a hymn written as a means of expounding upon the goodness of God?

 

[ProVobis]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazing_Grace

Noteworthy is this comment:

Jonathan Aitken calls Newton, specifically referring to “Amazing Grace”, an “unashamedly middlebrow lyricist writing for a lowbrow congregation”, noting that only twenty-one of the words used in all six verses have more than one syllable.[29]

 

[benedictgal]

One must ask the question;

Was Amazing Grace written as a discourse on Catholic theology, or is it just a hymn written as a means of expounding upon the goodness of God?

The song was written by a Protestant. The reason that I do not believe this song is appropriate for use in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is because it contradicts basic Catholic theology, the same reasons that Aramis outlined. The problem, as I see it, is that over the course of some 40 years, we have been so conditioned with theologically bad music (used at Mass) that we cannot recognize problematic songs because we are so used to hearing them week in and week out.

Maybe for those who come from Protestant backgrounds, this song may not be problematic, but, Amazing Grace alludes to the heresy of once saved, always saved. “The hour I first believed” is also very problematic because, as I see it, it denies infant baptism.

 

[Newbie2]

The song was written by a Protestant. The reason that I do not believe this song is appropriate for use in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is because it contradicts basic Catholic theology, the same reasons that Aramis outlined. The problem, as I see it, is that over the course of some 40 years, we have been so conditioned with theologically bad music (used at Mass) that we cannot recognize problematic songs because we are so used to hearing them week in and week out.

Maybe for those who come from Protestant backgrounds, this song may not be problematic, but, Amazing Grace alludes to the heresy of once saved, always saved. “The hour I first believed” is also very problematic because, as I see it, it denies infant baptism.

Methinks that’s a real stretch. A reeeaaaaalllll stretch.

How precious did that Grace appear
The hour I first believed.

An infant wouldn’t be able to discern whether or not the grace they received is precious or not, nor would an infant “believe”.

Note also that the song does not say that the grace does not still appear to be precious, which I take to be implied.

My interpretation is that the song is about the revelation of Grace. Once you “get it” (the Grace), i.e. how incredibly wonderful Grace really is, it’s quite a revelation. Such is perfectly consistant with Catholic Theology.

So, may I ask, how many CAF forumites have complained to their Priest and Bishop about the continued use of this song in Catholic mass?

 

[Bob_Aliano]

I don’t care about all this theological nit-picking, I love the old hymn and it has yet to draw me away from my faith, not even a bit in the hundreds of times I’ve heard it, played it or sang it. Secondly, if it’s so terribly anti-Catholic why is it allowed by the bishops to be an approved music selection for the liturgy? If I parsed and analyzed every hymn I ever heard I’d never internalize the spiritual emotion the hymn intended. Hymns should draw us closer to Jesus not replace the catechism.

 

[baltobetsy]

“The hour I first believed” is also very problematic because, as I see it, it denies infant baptism.

When an infant is baptized, he receives grace, but he not yet able to believe or appreciate what has happened. At some point, he will be taught about the grace of Baptism, and, one hopes, he will appreciate just how precious that grace is. He already has Baptismal grace; he is taught; he begins to believe; the grace appears precious to him in that hour - a sequence of events.

The verse does not say that his believing is the cause of his receiving the grace.

Betsy

 

[benedictgal]

When an infant is baptized, he receives grace, but he not yet able to believe or appreciate what has happened. At some point, he will be taught about the grace of Baptism, and, one hopes, he will appreciate just how precious that grace is. He already has Baptismal grace; he is taught; he begins to believe; the grace appears precious to him in that hour - a sequence of events.

The verse does not say that his believing is the cause of his receiving the grace.

Betsy

Actually, it does:

How precious did that grace appear, the hour I first believed.

It’s quite clear.

 

[benedictgal]

I don’t care about all this theological nit-picking, I love the old hymn and it has yet to draw me away from my faith, not even a bit in the hundreds of times I’ve heard it, played it or sang it. Secondly, if it’s so terribly anti-Catholic why is it allowed by the bishops to be an approved music selection for the liturgy? If I parsed and analyzed every hymn I ever heard I’d never internalize the spiritual emotion the hymn intended. Hymns should draw us closer to Jesus not replace the catechism.

Hymms should be based on Catholic theology, sacramental, liturgical and catechetical. Song books do not go through a process for approval. When I contacted the USCCB about some questionable items in the OCP arsenal, I was told that the liturgy office was a two-person operation that does not have the time nor the resources to pour through everything. Just because something appears in a song book, that does not necessarily mean that it is appropriate.

In 2001, Liturgiam Authenticam mandated that national episcopal conferences submit a repertoire/directory of hymns for use in their respective countries. Rome is still scrutinizing the US submissions.