Since the Creed is professed using the personal pronoun "I", any criticism of songs because their lyrics are in the first person singular should be put to rest. The pronoun "I" in liturgy is understood to be a corporate "I", and liturgical texts that use "I" in a sense that can be understood both corporately and personally can have fruitful multivalent meanings for people in an assembly.

"Be Thou My Vision" is also a "me" song, but there's nothing wrong with it. Much preferable to "All Are Welcome," which uses plural pronouns. Then there's "I Heard the Voice of Jesus Say," "I Know that My Redeemer Lives," and numerous psalms written in a first person singular point of view. Even the "Dies Irae" is written from a first person singular point of view.

If anyone is going to say a song isn't fit for liturgy, he needs to have reasons other than its use of first person singular pronouns. The notion that a song written in first person singular is by that fact alone unfit for liturgical use is preposterous.

Well, not exactly 'preposterous' - but...

Mark has made an astute case for a class of texts exhibiting first person pronouns and has given some sterling examples to back it up. It should not, though, be seen to excuse wholesale that class of me-, I-, we-, and us-centred texts which fill our hymnals and which fail to elucidate theological substance, simply doting on me, we, and us. He might have added the sterling example of 'Praise, My Soul, the King of Heaven', which, while it actually addresses 'my soul' is really not about me, but the steadfast love of God. When deciding to allow or dis-allow texts of this sort one would do well to ask what theological substance they do or do not express. One also would do well to observe that the real hymnody of the mass, namely the propers, mentions or is concerned only rarely with I, me, us, and so forth. Taking the propers as exemplary when choosing hymns to fit a given day's lectionary would be good advice for anyone.

One also is aware that the Church, after forty or so years of a shamelessly poor translation of the mass, finally took note that the Latin creed begins credo, not credamus. I would suggest that there is a deliberatly conceived emphasis in this usage.

M. Jackson Osborn, I agree that the substance of a text is what should be considered when evaluating it for liturgical use, not the person in which the text is written nor the pronouns it uses. As Andrew affirmed with me, the psalms, which are the original source for liturgical texts, employ frequent use of the first person singular point of view, as well as all possible others.

"Forever I will sing the goodness of the Lord," (Psalm 89) and I won't be ashamed nor reluctant to sing "I" instead of "we"!

Regarding credo, the first person plural active indicative is credimus; credam is first person singular active subjunctive.

Kyrie:
addressed to: God;
speaking as: first person plural (implied)

Gloria:
addressed to: first generally, then the Father, then the Son;
speaking as: first person plural

Credo:
addressed to: this is a general affirmation made before the Church;
speaking as first person singular in the word "credo";
references to "us" and "our"; hence this is the individual appropriation of the Church's profession of faith

Sanctus:
addressed: partly to God, partly a general proclamation;
speaking as: first person, unspecific about number

Pater noster:
addressed to: the Father;
speaking as: first person plural;
references to: "our", "give us", "forgive us"

Agnus Dei:
addressed to the Son;
speaking as: first person plural

So the Mass ordinary, the part of the Mass with relatively fixed text, the part most apt for congregational singing, seems to have no mention of "me".

Surely the Sanctus is second person, unless the preface is meant.