Hymns that conflict with Catholic doctrine.

[Southern Comfort]

I think that the people who insist on referring only to the Body of Christ and the Precious Blood (which indeed they are) and not to bread and wine are forgetting that in one sense those elements retain the characteristics of bread and wine — indeed, they have to be bread and wine for us humans, because otherwise we cannot consume them by eating and drinking. In other words, if they are not bread and wine they cannot be the Body and Blood of Christ.

The best article I know of that makes all this sort of thing clearer is by the late and great Dominican Herbert McCabe on Eucharistic Change. I will attempt to upload it as an attachment.

[Peter Jones]

Do you, or any other readers, have any thoughts on the hymn my PP objected to (below)?

Well, I think it's toe-curlingly twee, exacerbated by an instinctive propensity to adapt it to "Hail glorious Saint Patrick". May I file it under "These I have loathed"?

[Peter Jones]

What about some funeral hymns that canonise the deceased? Bell/Maule's Go silent friend springs to mind.

[alan29]

I thought that we were specifically enjoined to "do this in remembrance of me." I would have thought that a hymn that repeats that would be particularly apt on Holy Thursday when we are precisely remembering what was done for us. Surely Corpus Christi (or wahtever its called this month) is for more theological reflection.
Does every hymn at every celebration have to echo the whole of the Summa?
My objection to that particular hymn would be that it verges on doggerel.

[JW]

SC, Is not transubstantiation still the teaching of the Magisterium? And is not the Scholastic view of transubstantion a very handy way of grasping just a little of the great mystery of what happens at Mass? I can vouch that as recently as the 1960's what McCabe describes as a "caricature" was actually being taught in seminaries - I have no idea what they teach nowadays, but given the younger generation of priests, I hardly think they deviate much from traditional theology in matters of the Eucharist? Certainly, Paul VI's 1965 encyclical 'Mysterium Fidei' condemns the opinions of those like McCabe: see for example paragraphs 10 & 11.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium_en.html

Talking of Catholic hymns and the view that we Catholics have of ourselves: one of the hymns suggested in the Planner for the fifth Sunday Year C is "Lord, you have come to the seashore (/lakeside)", found in Laudate and Celebration for Everyone.

The second verse starts: "Lord, see my goods, my possessions; in my boat you find no power, no wealth." Now, I feel quite unable to sing these words as they aren't true for me! The beginning of the hymn "neither searching for the rich and the wise" will also alienate quite a few Catholics, including possibly some clergy. I may not be wise but compared to most in the African, Asian and South American continents I'm definitely rich. I believe that everyone is welcome to the heavenly banquet: if Jesus isn't searching for me, I might as well give up!

I suspect this applies to many Catholics, and I'm not just thinking of the likes of Tony Blair, Ian Duncan-Smith, Danny Boyle, Delia Smith, Wayne Rooney etc. etc. In most Catholic congregations you will find doctors, head teachers, bankers, businessmen, councillors, journalists et al, none of whom could sing these words with a clear conscience.

At the very least, perhaps verse 2 should not appear in future UK reprints of this hymn?

[Southern Comfort]

SC, Is not transubstantiation still the teaching of the Magisterium? And is not the Scholastic view of transubstantion a very handy way of grasping just a little of the great mystery of what happens at Mass? I can vouch that as recently as the 1960's what McCabe describes as a "caricature" was actually being taught in seminaries - I have no idea what they teach nowadays, but given the younger generation of priests, I hardly think they deviate much from traditional theology in matters of the Eucharist? Certainly, Paul VI's 1965 encyclical 'Mysterium Fidei' condemns the opinions of those like McCabe: see for example paragraphs 10 & 11.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium_en.html

JW, I did not say that transubstantiation is out, and neither does McCabe. What McCabe shows is how many people misunderstand what transubstantiation actually is, and that would include some old-style seminary professors and maybe even some current ones.

I don't believe that Mysterium Fidei 10 and 11 are condemning people like McCabe at all — quite the reverse. They are condemning the old-style professors who lead their students astray through a facile and inaccurate understanding of Aquinas. For what it's worth, McCabe is required reading in liturgical theology courses in a number of seminaries that I am aware of.

[alan29]

Maybe we should take our lead from the liturgy itself where directly after the words of institution we say "When we eat this Bread and drink this Cup......."

[High Peak]

Still trawling my way through past threads.......

Several come to mind that are not in conformity with what we believe, and others that are just confused.

The one that is probably sung more often than any other is "Christ, be our light", whose composer has a theology diploma.... The last two lines of verse 5 run:

Let us be servants to one another,
making your kingdom come.

I have not seen the revised Laudate, so don't know if this has been amended, but as it stands it is heretical. We cannot make God's kingdom come. Only God can do that. We can try to create the condtions for the coming of the kingdom, but we ourselves cannot effect it. That is why for many years I have changed the final line to read:

helping your kingdom come

which is not quite ideal ("to come" would be better English but doesn't fit) but better than "making".

Taking up JW's first point, different censors say different things. The principal problem appears to be that there is no possibility of dialogue with the censor actually deputed to do the work in a particular instance, even if another theologian provides you with a different opinion.

It would appear that McCrimmons agrees with you as that is exactly how they have verse 5.

Can anyone tell me why the latest Celebration Hymnal for Everone has deleted the fourth verse to "Here in this place"/"Gather us in"? The verse that is missing is as follows:

Not in the dark of buildings confining,
not in some heaven, lightyears away,
but here in this place, the new light is shining,
now is the Kingdom, now is the day.
Gather us in and hold us for ever,
gather us in and make us your own;
gather us in all peoples together,
fire of love in our flesh and our home.

I always foud the "lightyears" bit a little........scientific for a hymn but not sure wehter that justifies removing the verse.

Anyone know?

[Ian Coleman]

On the main thrust of the thread, I had an interesting experience transcribing and arranging a song by the Christian Rock band 'Caedmon's Call' for my junior choir. It's called 'We delight in the law of your word'' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEtYb_XDqjY) and I found I had to 're-orientate' the lyrics quite a bit. Without treading on too many intellectual-property toes, I took out the (rather prominent) references to the Second Coming, substituting them with references to the Real Presence in the Mass. This may sound somewhat bizarre, but it was actually spiritually very enlightening, in that it highlighted to me the way in which the expectation of the Second Coming (not to say 'Rapture') in Evangelical Christian spirituality occupies the same space as the focus on the Real Presence in Catholic spirituality. I'm glad to say that the exercise made me, once again, glad to be a Catholic. And my kids love singing it!

[Southern Comfort]

Can anyone tell me why the latest Celebration Hymnal for Everone has deleted the fourth verse to "Here in this place"/"Gather us in"? The verse that is missing is as follows:

Not in the dark of buildings confining,
not in some heaven, lightyears away,
but here in this place, the new light is shining,
now is the Kingdom, now is the day.
Gather us in and hold us for ever,
gather us in and make us your own;
gather us in all peoples together,
fire of love in our flesh and our home.

I always foud the "lightyears" bit a little........scientific for a hymn but not sure wehter that justifies removing the verse.

Anyone know?

The phrase that caused the US authorities to request that this verse be deleted was "now is the Kingdom, now is the day". Apparently the particular theologian who was the censor was unhappy with the notion, accepted by other theologians, that although we work for the coming of the Kingdom in fact in a sense the Kingdom of God is already here in our midst. Whether a censor of similar bent requested the deletion in this country, I do not know.

BTW, the last word of this verse is not "home" but "bone".

[High Peak]

The phrase that caused the US authorities to request that this verse be deleted was "now is the Kingdom, now is the day". Apparently the particular theologian who was the censor was unhappy with the notion, accepted by other theologians, that although we work for the coming of the Kingdom in fact in a sense the Kingdom of God is already here in our midst. Whether a censor of similar bent requested the deletion in this country, I do not know.

BTW, the last word of this verse is not "home" but "bone".

Indeed - and not the only spelling mistake I made in that post, I see!

Thanks for that, SC. If that is indeed the reason then it is poor; the Kingdom of God is surely present, though not fully realised, wherever and whenever people love God and do His will in the world.

I had heard that there had been disquiet with the third verse ("Here we will take the wine and the water") but was (and am) surprised by the fourth getting the chop.

[High Peak]

I have found another, which baffles me.

"Seek the Lord while he may be found" (thinking of using it for 25th Sunday) by Roc O'Connor of the St. Louis Jesuits. The original chorus "Seek the Lord while he may be found, call to him while he is stil near" has been taken from Is 55:6, pretty much word for word, but in all copies now available this has been 'softened' to "Seek the Lord whose mercy abounds, call aloud to God who is near."

Why has this been changed? I know the Isaiah passage is tough but it IS Scripture!!!

[Southern Comfort]

I have found another, which baffles me.

"Seek the Lord while he may be found" (thinking of using it for 25th Sunday) by Roc O'Connor of the St. Louis Jesuits. The original chorus "Seek the Lord while he may be found, call to him while he is stil near" has been taken from Is 55:6, pretty much word for word, but in all copies now available this has been 'softened' to "Seek the Lord whose mercy abounds, call aloud to God who is near."

Why has this been changed? I know the Isaiah passage is tough but it IS Scripture!!!

The reason is very simple: a certain brand of inclusive-language adherent doesn't like the fact that the Lord is male, despite the fact that "Lord" is a masculine noun. So — the problem for these people is "he" and "him" in this particular case.

The same kind of misguided editing has been done to all the Taizé chants, as was pointed out in this article: http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2014/03/11/words-can-change-us-can-we-change-them/
Thus, "Wait for the Lord, his Day is near" has become, if you accept the changes, "Wait for the Lord whose Day is near".

This is the difference between horizontal inclusive language which is about us: not using "man" when you mean all humankind; if anyone loves me, they (not he) will keep my word, etc, etc, and vertical inclusive language which is about God: not using masculine pronouns at all, and preferably substituting "God" for "Lord" at every possible opportunity. I am perfectly happy with horizontal inclusivity, but not with vertical inclusivity, and so I tend to ignore vertical changes and keep to the original text.

[High Peak]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Well, on 20th September in our little parish, we most certainly will be using the original words.

[HallamPhil]

What about some funeral hymns that canonise the deceased? Bell/Maule's Go silent friend springs to mind.

Welcome back, Peter, but isn't this a tad literal? Are we also to question being baptised 'priest, prophet and king' (or queen?) or is my brief escape to the USA making me too liberal?