I must confess, everytime I hear of the Anglican Use I turn a deep shade of green and start cursing in Shakespearean English. I say we fix the EF vs. OF problem and just abolish them both for the Anglican Use, eh? :P
We sang WGOFW today at Mass. During the singing of the hymn, I was quietly asking God for some insight as to why this hymn could be an issue. As I sat reading the words, here is what occurred to me. I am not saying this is God's insight, I am just saying I ASKED. Again, the problem with a LOT of our music is in the music, yes, but MORESO in the theology. This is where the REAL danger lies.
While this piece has no blatant heresy like many others, it has within it a cloaked (insidious) double meaning in much of its phraseology. This is played out in the two-fold aspect of the Liturgy as a SACRIFICE and a MEAL. This is tangentially presented to us in terms of Catholic Christian as opposed to Protestant Christian theology. Only in the Catholic church is the fullness of the faith and truth.
First I will present the entire text and then the comments with supporting documentation.
_______________________________
music and lyrics: Robert E. Kreutz
refrain
You satisfy the hungry heart with gift of finest wheat,
come give to us o saving Lord, the bread of life to eat.
verse 1
as when the shepherd calls his sheep, they know and heed his voice;
so when You call Your family Lord, we follow and rejoice.
(refrain)
verse 2
with joyful lips we sing to You, our praise and gratitude,
that You should count us worthy Lord, to share this heavenly food.
(refrain)
verse 3
the mystery of Your presence Lord, no mortal tongue can tell;
whom all the world cannot contain comes in our hearts to dwell.
(refrain)
verse 4
You give yourself to us o Lord, then selfless let us be,
to serve each other in Your name in truth and charity.
(refrain)
___________________________
Comments:
refrain
You satisfy the hungry heart with gift of finest wheat,
come give to us o saving Lord, the bread of life to eat.
This is sung over and over meaning it is the part of the hymn that is 'drilled' into us. There are basic theological problems that assault (notice I did not say are in opposition to) the very truths of Catholic Doctrine in the Blessed Sacrament. Again, the double-meaning makes this a subtle assertion that leads one away from the solid foundation of Doctrine.
When we are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, it's NOT wheat or wine anymore. It actually is the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ at this point in time but has the 'appearance of bread and wine'. We do not eat bread and wine, we eat flesh and blood, each fully present in each of the species. In Protestant doctrine, it is ONLY wheat and wine (or juice), before and after. (1)
_____________________
verse 1
as when the shepherd calls his sheep, they know and heed his voice;
so when You call Your family Lord, we follow and rejoice.
Again, Jesus says, It is not those who say, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophecy in your name?..." But those who did the will of my Father. Unless you eat of the FLESH and of the Son of Man and drink his BLOOD you will NOT have life within you. ALL Christians are not the ONE big happy family proported here. Jesus made it clear that we MUST eat his flesh and blood. That only happens in the Catholic Church.
_____________________
verse 2
with joyful lips we sing to You, our praise and gratitude,
that You should count us worthy Lord, to share this heavenly food.
Basically, this verse connotes a double meaning that because we are singing God's praise and gratitude, He SHOULD find us worthy to eat the 'heavenly food'. It is not manna, such as that which was found in the Old Testament. It is again, FLESH and BLOOD.
As for the importance of our singing, truth be told, if we sang NOTHING at all, it would make no difference to the saving act of the Sacrfice of the Mass.
We have nothing to 'add' to the Mass to make ourselves worthy. Christ has done it all in offering his Body and Blood for us. All we can do is accept it as He 'represents' himself to the Father in the application of his sacrifice for our sin in an ongoing way. (2) This is where the whole notion of vocal 'participation' doesn't hold a drop of water. Our participation in the Mass adds nothing to its value or our redemption, and our lack of vocal 'participation' takes nothing away from its efficacy.
_____________________
verse 3
the mystery of Your presence Lord, no mortal tongue can tell;
whom all the world cannot contain comes in our hearts to dwell.
Actually, we tell the mystery plain and clear. God dwells in the tabernacle and in the very species of bread and wine in His very FLESH and BLOOD. The mystery remains in the fact that ALL OF GOD IS contained right there! This verse practically goes in direct opposition to the very truth of Thomas Aquinas most famous hymn:
PANGE, lingua, gloriosi
Corporis mysterium,
Sanguinisque pretiosi,
quem in mundi pretium
fructus ventris generosi
Rex effudit Gentium.
SING, my tongue, the Savior's glory,
of His flesh the mystery sing;
of the Blood, all price exceeding,
shed by our immortal King,
destined, for the world's redemption,
from a noble womb to spring.
But it's even more insidious still. It is ONLY the very TONGUE OF THE PRIEST that makes the mystery complete in SPEAKING the words of transubstantiation.
______
verse 4
You give yourself to us o Lord, then selfless let us be,
to serve each other in Your name in truth and charity.
This one is almost completely air tight. However, Christ ONLY gives Himself to us through the hands and actions of the priest THROUGH the Sacrfice of the Mass and through the sacraments which impart grace. This one is somewhat referring back to the preceding verses in a very vague and undefined way. In other words, if this hymn was sung by a Catholic in a Protestant church service, it would seem completely and unequivocally true in that setting!
I would definitely prefer to SING, my tongue, the Savior's glory, and of His flesh the mystery sing in place of GOFW every time. Other than that, I don't see anything wrong with this hymn at all!
As communion music, I'd say it trumps "Panis Angelicus", with the Lambilotte tune which makes use of romanticized chromaticism to get effect
This was a thread about hymns... you're not suggesting using the Franck Panis Angelicus as a congregational hymn, are you?
I'm glad that we have such a depth of archived conversation here that people feel they can add comments to a discussion from SEVEN YEARS AGO.
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.