The credal restoration of the first person is just that: a restoration, not a change.

The creed as we have received it says credo in unum Deum... not credamus...

Notwithstanding, Noel, your point, generally, is very well made and taken; particularly as it concerns other things (note that I said 'other things') that we sing in the mass.

"I" couldn't agree with you more Andrew. I had a nice discussion about this the other day.
although there are antiphons that do not add "Says the Lord" or similar, I can not bring myself to speak in the person of Christ. I am not the Lord, and I shouldn't play one at Mass, that is the priests role.

However, we are ministers of the Word so there will be times when it is called for (in an Antiphon) that I will sing it that way.

However, the point are hymns and songs that use the do this like the aforementioned "I am the Bread of Life"... I would never program this song for a lot of reasons.
Or "We are One Body" for a communion song. It simply will never happen for me.

There are so many more options to sing during the Mass: The Proper Antiphon; A hymn of praise or thanksgiving; or some other piece related to the readings or theme of the Mass.

Singing in the voice of God has a venerable tradition in the liturgy.

Yes.

Want to use the voice of God in a song or hymn? Go right ahead. Quite frequently, the propers do exactly this. There's obviously nothing wrong with it, otherwise the music of the liturgy itself wouldn't do it.

But don't put words into God's mouth. Either you should be quoting directly from scripture, or not singing in the voice of God at all.

That's one reason I would program "I am the bread of life" before programming "I received the living God," because of the verses

Just my 2¢

Ben,

Quote from Scripture, and keep the original context. Else: "Cain killed his brother Abel; Go thou and do likewise".

The music must be suited for the liturgy, and for the text which it presents. Take On Eagle's Wings as Exhibit A in the massive evidence of how the Devil can quote Holy Writ. The composer does exactly what the Devil does with the text when he quotes the Psalm in the Gospel.

Quote from Scripture, and keep the original context. Else: "Cain killed his brother Abel; Go thou and do likewise".

Yup, agreed.

But there are some, which means there must be nothing wrong with the concept.

Ah, come on, Ben.

There is huge (insert your expletive here) difference between Leopold songwriter sitting at the Marina, chugging a cold one and getting a really great idea for a song with an I text out of his sodden brain, and one from Scripture, which has a different source.

It's not the concept, it's the source.

When I come across these [with the voice of God in the proper chant], I usually just have the choir sing them without congregation joining in.

Don, the church has never required (or even suggested this). It's simply something you are doing. Not that there's anything wrong with it, but don't think that you have any sort of obligation to do so.

I will not presume to speak for God unless he (or his Church) tells me its Ok to do so.

I'm not sure what your hangup about this is, Don. Nothing official in the church has ever forbade it, because it's clearly allowed by the church.

Look at the Lent II communion, Visionem. Direct quotation of christ on the mountaintop. Or how about the introit for lent III, Dum sanctificatus fuero. Another direct quotation of the Lord. Or the Communion Qui mihi ministrat. Or Oportet te and Simile est regnum cælorum (if you include christ speaking the parable as words he spoke, which they are). Or very directly in Nemo te condemnavit. Or even on palm sunday, with Pater, si non potest. Or Pater, cum essem? Postula a me? Amen dico vobis: Quod uni? Amen dico vobis, quidquid?

Not all of those are in lent (not that this really matters). All of these propers use the voice of God. None of these propers follow it with "says the Lord."

It's simple logic:

1) The congregation and choir can sing the propers.
2) Some of the propers speak in the voice of God.
3) Therefore: It is not wrong for them to sing the voice of God.

Again, of course, many songs using God's voice shouldn't be used. But that's not a condemnation of using the voice of God, that's a condemnation of using stupid hymns.

Like I said, all of these examples are explicitly scriptural. Once you depart from that and still try and use the voice of God, I agree there's problems. But if you are using scripture, there's clearly no problem using it, congregation, choir, cantor, anyone.

Also, what about the old testament readings where the Lord speaks? Are lay readers not allowed to proclaim those? Of course they are.

I understand your sentiment, but your logic is flawed.

Even if that is the case, Don still believes that even the choir should be wary about speaking in the voice of God:

I can not bring myself to speak in the person of Christ. I am not the Lord, and I shouldn't play one at Mass, that is the priests role.

And that's a problem? I'd prefer his approach to yours...it never harms to be very conservative when fooling with God-stuff.

My approach is simply to look at what the church has clearly and explicitly allowed, and do that. What's to dislike about my approach?

By his standard, he wouldn't sing some proper chants out of the Graduale Romanum or Liber Usualis because they supposedly aren't suitable for Mass. Say that out loud and think about how silly that sounds: not all gregorian propers are suitable for Mass?

Well, as shown above, there's clearly no problem with the choir singing the voice of God. I just showed you a dozen proper chants above where it happens, with complete approval of the Church. And that's not an exhaustive list, that's just what I found in 10 minutes.

If you're not quoting scripture, I'm as cautious as anyone about it. I'm fully with you there. That's why I said above that I'm uncomfortable with the verses of "I received the Living God." They use the voice of God without being strictly scriptural.

But as for quoting scripture directly, clearly the church has seen absolutely nothing wrong with the practice, so neither do I. Not sure what is questionable about this practice.

If you disagree, try and show me just one document that hints at anything negative toward it. Just one document. It's a thought rooted in piety, but that doesn't make it a sound liturgical principle.

I think Ben is onto it. Speaking first person as prescribed by the official texts is fine. Noel is also right. When you start making up hymns and songs that speak in the first person, that is just wrong. No one can speak for God, or make up words that he 'might' say, unless of course, you are a prophet sent by God himself.

Here is what the GIRM has to say about the reading of the Gospel ("The actual words of the Lord").

60. T he reading of the Gospel constitutes the high point of the Liturgy of the Word. The Liturgy itself teaches the great reverence that is to be shown to this reading by setting it off from the other readings with special marks of honor, by the fact of which minister is appointed to proclaim it and by the blessing or prayer with which he prepares himself; and also by the fact that through their acclamations the faithful acknowledge and confess that Christ is present and is speaking to them and stand as they listen to the reading; and by the mere fact of the marks of reverence that are given to the Book of
the Gospels.

So again why (besides where the church asks us to sing it: ie antiphons) would we sing as Christ himself.

I don't think its right IMHO.

But to each his own there is no teaching on this, its just my opinion.

PGA said:

But when the text says "Jesus said 'I am the bread, kneaded long to give you life,'" there should be no opposition.

Plenty of opposition there. Here is why. Jesus never said, nor intended to mean that the Eucharist was to focus SOLELY on the fact that it is bread to the theological downplay of it being his flesh and blood. It is precisely this kind of errant (ambiguous) theology that is promoted by protestantism and winds up distorting and ultimately departing from the faith. This is the very thing (correct me if I am wrong Noel) that Noel is addressing. Jesus is not the bread 'kneaded long'. Sorry.

In yet another comment, he addressed an old controversy about the role of "voice of God" music at Mass, pointing out that ordinary chants are directed toward addressing God whereas the chants of the propers do in fact use the voice of God - and this has implications for whether the congregation ought to be singing propers rather than the chants assigned to them in the ritual structure. This was the first new thought on this topic in twenty years, and it absolutely blew me away.

http://www.chantcafe.com/2011/03/faculty-profile-william-mahrt.html

yes, that's a good point regarding the restoration, where "I" makes the text a more personal accountability, "I confess," "I believe." Thank you.

Oh, I agree with that, Melo francis, and I wasn't even debating the merits of "I Received..." per se. I just want to point out that pointing out a single line, or a single verse, or even a whole hymn, and saying that it doesn't contain the sum of all Eucharistic theology isn't necessarily a fair criterion. There are many things a hymn can focus on without denying an essential truth.

That said, I hear you when it comes to the general emphasis of most new Eucharistic hymnody. Taken as a whole, the repertoire is lacking.

Francis, whether you're speaking for Melo or not, I agree with you.

StephenMatthew

You are right... we probably don't want them wondering OR wandering around.