BCL on texts for singing

[Gabriel]

The US Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy [BCL] presentation on music texts has placed on its website a PowerPoint presentation on their proposals for the directory of texts for singing required by the Congregation for Divine Worship in Liturgicam Authenticam. http://www.nccbuscc.org/liturgy/

I find the proposal interesting. The suggestion of a Directory offering foundations for practice is useful.

I am less convinced by the theological aspects where it seems to me that more thought about history/theology and liturgical practice. Crudely just because hymns in the past, even in the tradition have been Trinitarian in structure or through a doxology at the end does not mean that hymn that isn't is deficient and outside the tradition.

The suggestions about publications in effect demands a 'nihil obstat' but in some ways pushing beyond that. A 'nihil obstat' is a 'positive-negative' - the text contains nothing contrary to the faith. This seems to require that the text encompasses the faith.

I for one will watch the space with interest.

Gabriel

[docmattc]

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

As this was published 28th March 2001, I reckon our bishops have exactly 31 days to get this done. What's happening in the UK?

The implication in the powerpoint is that a hymn will be rejected if it doesn't fulfill any (or all?) of the criteria listed, is this reasonable? I suspect that if one took any given section of scripture (or liturgical text), it might well fail the US bishops' test if set to music!

As the bad practice of the four hymn sandwich Mass is still more common than we would like to think nearly forty years after Musicam Sacram, how on earth is anyone going to enforce this?



[/quote]

[docmattc]

"Hark the Herald Angels Sing" should be out on theological grounds (docetism in V2), it will be interesting to see if it makes it due to its 'much loved' status

[musicus]

It would be interesting to hear of other hymns and songs that would fail the theological test. (Ideally, I suppose only those with theological training should reply!)

This, of course, is only one of several interesting points that arise from the BCL document, so let's not lose sight of the other questions that Gabriel and others have already raised. (I will spin off some new threads if necessary.)

[gwyn]

Musicus:

. . . other hymns and songs that would fail the theological test

"Jesus. Name above all names" may be in the frame.

[presbyter]

Musicus:

. . . other hymns and songs that would fail the theological test

"Jesus. Name above all names" may be in the frame.

Jesus, Name above all names!
Beautiful Savior, glorious Lord!
Emmanuel, God is with us!
Blessed Redeemer, Living Word!


Why? These are all attributes of Christ, are they not? The first line is based on Phil 2:9 - sung in the Divine Office and before the Passion of St John on Good Friday.

[VML]

Before the less educated readers of this forum, like me, give up, please could you explain the meaning of 'docetism'?
Thanks,
V

[musicus]

The Docetae were 'a heretical sect dating back to Apostolic times. Their name is derived from dokesis, "appearance" or "semblance", because they taught that Christ only "appeared" or "seemed to be a man, to have been born, to have lived and suffered.'

That's from the Catholic Encyclopedia, courtesy of Google. Search for and read the full article for more than you ever wanted to know about this.

[Merseysider]

please could you explain the meaning of 'docetism'?

It's the belief that Christ only appeared to be born of a woman, only appeared to suffer on the cross – ie, he wasn't fully human.

Hark the Herald Angels Sing should be out on theological grounds (docetism in V2)

Don't quite follow your thinking here, Docmattc.

[presbyter]

Don't quite follow your thinking here, Docmattc.

Veiled in flesh the Godhead see,
hail the incarnate Deity!

It's that bit that is "iffy" about the two natures of Christ but please don't go on to discuss the hypostatic union here.

[gwyn]

Why? These are all attributes of Christ, are they not? The first line is based on Phil 2:9

I'm open to correction on this, but It was once explained to me that:

"Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father

Thus the Name that is above all names is "LORD".
Paternal (and fraternal) correction welcome and encouraged. I do a very good line in getting things horribly wrong.

[presbyter]

Thus the Name that is above all names is "LORD".

Now there's a point - scurries off (but sleeps first) to find commentaries - for LORD is a Divine Name (Adonai)

[contrabordun]

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father

Thus the Name that is above all names is "LORD"

Maybe. You can read it (in English) the other way, that "that at the name of Jesus..." meant that "Jesus" is the NTIAAN and that "Lord" is a title. But after Presbyter's post, I suppose it depends on what the word was in the original.

[presbyter]

Maybe. You can read it (in English) the other way, that "that at the name of Jesus..." meant that "Jesus" is the NTIAAN and that "Lord" is a title. But after Presbyter's post, I suppose it depends on what the word was in the original.

Here's Brendan Byrne SJ in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Chapman 1990)

"....... the name that is above every other name Explicit attention is held back until after the climax (v 11) but the name is clearly Kyrios, "Lord", which came to be substituted for the ineffable yhwh in Christian copies of the LXX. If God himself has graciously bestowed the name kyriosupon him, Jesus bears it without any cost to strict monotheism. at the name of Jesus - Mention of Jesus now inextricably connotes also the title and authority of universal Lord. every knee should bow Alluding to Is 45:23, the hymn transfers to the exalted Christ the universal eschatalogical homage given to God alone (cf Rom 14:11). in heaven, on earth and under the earth; - The threefold enumeration emphasised the universality of the homage. that Jesus Christ is Lord; The climax of the hymn encapsulates an early Christian confession (cf 1Cor 12:3. Rom 10:9). He who in selfless obedience took on the powerlessness of a slave now through divine commission and investiture holds universal lordship (I Cor 3:21-23, Rom 14:9), to the glory of God the Father: The ultimate goal of the entire sequence is the reclaiming of the universe to God's sovereignty and glory. Christ's role and dignity are instrumental and subordinate to this ( cf I Cor 15:28, Rom 6:10-11)...."

Given that -

The names (title) Jesus and Lord appear to be inseparably bound together

and

Our Good Friday liturgy quotes the hymn only as far as "name which is above all names"

I still cannot see anything theologically wrong with the text


PS. Adonai = Kyrios = Lord

[docmattc]

As this was published 28th March 2001, I reckon our bishops have exactly 31 days to get this done. What's happening in the UK?

perhaps it was my fault for sending this thread off on a deeply theological note, but my original question still remains, but now with 28 days to go. And will this list amount to the entire allowed repertoire or a core of common material that all will be expected to know?

Ps have just noticed the spell checker suggests docmattc is dogmatic. Make your own jokes!