USCCB Committee: ‘All Are Welcome’ Not a Welcome Hymn at Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter Weserthy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
What I am dying to know is: who is on this committee, are they all bishops or priests, deacons, lay people too? I am personally shocked, shocked, that they stood up to OCP/GIA/WLP to tell them that some of their songs might not be valid. This may well have an economic impact on their ability to sell certain “hymnals”.
 
I cannot find the actual document anywhere. My guess is that it will not be released until after full approval.

This will be the best story going forward we will no be able to discuss. It seems a fitting end for me though. My first “controversial” thread at CAF was one that involved, of all people, Karl Keating over whether or not Amazing Grace should be sung in Church. He was on the side that it should not. I was on the side of, “Maybe.” The issue is the exact same issue that this article (again, I have not read the source document) suggests. So, here is my 15 year old rehash of my POV. Remember, I actually do get to pick the music.

A song with heretical lyrics should never be used. These are rare. A song that presents with clarity Church teaching without room for misunderstanding can always be used. These too are rare, though not as rare. Most songs lie in between. Sing a New Church has always been too close to the heretical for my us. Amazing Grace never came close except in one verse that might be misunderstood (though not in my parish).

So, taking the title song, All Are Welcome, how inappropriate is that? I would say it would be down right nuts to use the song in communion, as all are not welcome at the Eucharistic table, again, sort of. All are welcome to join the Church. As an entrance, I do not see the issue, as no one is forbidden from attending Mass, again, at my parish. However, I can see a serious issue if this is used in a parish where there was a heresy of universalism present.

Likewise, Eucharistic hymns that say We Are the Body of Christ I would never use during the Eucharist. I probably could though. The real presence of Christ is preached often. Yet I know that some struggle with this, so I like to keep those hymns which reiterate the presence of Jesus as the Eucharist primary. I will use those others on Corpus Christ as an exit. For that too is Church teaching.

I think the Church is wise to use subsidiarity in matters like this. Having a priest that always hammers on the basic doctrines of the Church and a orthodox parish gives me a very narrow perspective, but it is the only parish I need concern myself with. As always, I will go with whatever the Church decides. Few hymns would make my life easier anyway.
 
“Regarding Eucharistic doctrine, the bishops warned that ‘Catholics nurtured on a steady diet of certain hymns will learn from them that at Mass we come together to share bread and wine, which remain bread and wine, a common meal, even if under special circumstances … A steady diet of these hymns would erode Catholic sensibility regarding the fullness of Eucharistic teaching, on the Mass as sacrifice, and eventually on the Church, as formed by that sacrifice.’”

This, THIS, THIS!!!
 
Okay, now I will get controversial. Upon reflection, I can make the argument for All Are Welcome, though and academic one. Protestants tell us that Mary must have sinned because the Bible teaches all have sinned. If anyone has heard the Catholic understanding of this verse, or understands the grammar, you will know that use of the word “all” is always determined by context. In Romans, the word is used in the context of different nations and beliefs, so it is used in a distributive sense, that of all races and nations sin.

In this song, the word is seen in the same light. It is all categories that are welcome, saints and children. It is used in a distributive, not a universal sense. Obviously our shepherds know that this would not be the way most people thing, which is why the are warning us of this issue. I am just glad I do not have to argue with Mr. Keating again.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
So, taking the title song, All Are Welcome, how inappropriate is that? I would say it would be down right nuts to use the song in communion, as all are not welcome at the Eucharistic table, again, sort of.
Click to expand...
From what I gather from the article, the offending lyrics of “All are welcome” is the following for saying the wine and wheat build up the Church, rather than the Body and Blood of the Lord:
Let us build a house where love is found
In water, wine and wheat
A banquet hall on holy ground
Where peace and justice meet
Click to expand...
The actual statement that “all are welcome in this place” is true (if self-referential)–especially since we don’t use the kind excommunications that require shunning anymore.

I found it interesting that Lord of the Dance got docked for indiscriminately blaming Jews for the crucifixion (that song seems wrong on many levels, and the ideas of its creator are even more problematic–he even though most churches would consider it heretical). This one was a classic of my youth…This is the offending lyrics in that one:
I danced on the Sabbath and I cured the lame:
The holy people said it was a shame.
They whipped and they stripped and they hung me on high,
And they left me there on a cross to die:
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Genesis315 said:
The actual statement that “all are welcome in this place” is true (if self-referential)–especially since we don’t use the kind excommunications that require shunning anymore.
Click to expand...
I guess I see where this is the case, like Lord of the Dance. But in all cases one has to spin it one way or another, which I know people do, so I think the USCCB document will be very useful, if it is released.

Peter wrote, “Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”
God does no want anyone to go to Hell.
He is omnipotent.
Therefore, no one wants to go to Hell.

This is as faulty syllogism, but ironically, it is the same fault that is used to condemn some of these songs. I think the point the USCCB committee is making (again, we do not have the document yet) is not that these hymns are heretical, but that people use faulty logic all the time, and as many people fill in the spaces between the words in these hymns, they will arrive at some terribly wrong conclusions.

I like to always bear in mind that bishops are shepherds, not overlords and…
snarflemike said:
A steady diet of these hymns would erode Catholic sensibility regarding the fullness of Eucharistic teaching, on the Mass as sacrifice, and eventually on the Church, as formed by that sacrifice.’”
Click to expand...
…a shepherd will feed the sheep a healthy diet.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
This will be the best story going forward we will no be able to discuss. It seems a fitting end for me though. My first “controversial” thread at CAF was one that involved, of all people, Karl Keating over whether or not Amazing Grace should be sung in Church. He was on the side that it should not. I was on the side of, “Maybe.” The issue is the exact same issue that this article (again, I have not read the source document) suggests. So, here is my 15 year old rehash of my POV. Remember, I actually do get to pick the music.
Click to expand...
My pastor once dedicated a significant portion of his homily to why Amazing Grace is heretical and has no business in a Catholic liturgy. He is actually one of my favorite priests.
 
Go Make a Difference should incur excommunication and banishment to Siberia.
 
I’ve played many of these songs before. The music is usually good. The lyrics need help. I believe they can be rehabilitated.

Let There Be Peace On Earth 🎶
 
That song is almost completely taken from Matthew 5. I do not see that would apply to anything the USCCB has said in the article.

This committee did not address musical tastes, melodies, or style. I only addressed they lyrics, the words, and whether they might be harmful to Catholics.
 
Last edited:
I don’t understand what seems to be a celebration of exclusion that is implied by the title of the article. Does the USCCB document mention any particular song like the one mentioned in the title?
 
Sorry for stepping on your musical tastes, but it remains true that one need not:
  1. Read all posts
  2. Take umbrage
  3. Respond.
If you are the trier of fact, then I am guilty. If not, this post makes good pipe tobacco. The song strikes me as conceited, arrogant, condescending and prideful if not actually insipid.

PLEASE: do not conflate this with anything our Lord commanded. He taught such words to others. He did not say to proudly proclaim oneself to be so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top