...sifted.
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!

At NLM there was a heated discussion (argument complete with excomunications, as is usual there) over the hymn "Gift of Finest Wheat". So, simple question: is it appropriate for Mass? I've often said that the bishops shouldn't decide this, but us musicians. So let's convene a council and settle this once and for all! Here's my case that it is:

I suspect that a LOT of the reaction against it is due to guilt by association: this has been a favorite of parish music as it has been for the past 40 years (well, since it was written...) However, it wasn't written to be strummed by a guitar or crooned by a cantor; it was written to be sung SATB and played by a pipe organ. That kind of guilt by association is odd and winds up affecting not a few good contemporary pieces: I am the Bread of Life; Lift High the Cross, Respond & Acclaim, etc. I'll just post my last NLM comment:

Nothing in the composition of GoFW is related to pop music. I took a cursory look at the harmonic progression - most of it follows classical rather than modern rules. Even though the harmonic rhythm is irregular, the accompaniment moves on the quarter beat. The strategic usage of suspensions is another thing used in classic literature rather than popular.

You mentioned chant - this is written almost in the style of the 3rd or 4th mode, ending on the third and not the tonic. The melody is unrushed but subservient to the text. This is essentially chant.

You say to consider the natural setting - I have never heard this hymn on a guitar. Even thinking of it brings to mind an organ. The verses demand to be sung in SATB harmony. If there's anything popish about this, I don't see it.

As communion music, I'd say it trumps "Panis Angelicus", with the Lambilotte tune which makes use of romanticized chromaticism to get effect. Adoro Te? No way. But it's up there next to it, a modern heir to the devotional tradition.

(and by the way, I already pointed out that the BEST music for communion is the proper antiphon. But many churches can't yet USE the proper antiphon. And there's nothing at all wrong with singing a hymn after Mass, in the OF or EF, so the topic is STILL relevant)

When the original SATB/organ octavo of “Gift of Finest Wheat” was published, it had a two-measure organ introduction that I played many times. Years later, someone pointed out to me that this two-measure introduction includes the first six notes of the song “God Bless America” in the top note of the organ part! I never noticed that, since Kreutz’s underlying harmonies on the first two measures somewhat obscure the melody.

Did Bob Kreutz do this on purpose, since the hymn (with the tune name BICENTENNIAL) was written in America’s bicentennial year? Who knows?! But even if he did – lest someone claim copyright infringement – there are some music historians who propose that the first six melody notes of Irving Berlin’s “God Bless America” are based on an old Jewish-themed novelty song, “When Mose with His Nose Leads the Band,” a song which, of course, we would consider politically incorrect nowadays.

So, if anyone here has the original SATB/organ version of “Gift of Finest Wheat” in their files, take a look, and let us know what you think about the first two measures!