The Son, having been begotten of the Father, receives His Divinity from the Father.

You are essentially saying that it seems heretical to state that Christ's Divinity is a result of his Crucifixion.

But Paul says:

He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross.
For which cause God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names:

This is confusing... surely He was divine (and exalted, and had the name above all names) BEFORE He poured Himself out, before He became obedient, before He was slain.

Indeed he was.

But we get, I think, confused when we think of God's Divine existence as running parallel to our own time, in terms of "before" and "after." The Son of God wasn't hanging around in heaven for billions of years waiting to go down to Earth. His essence (to use that word very imprecisely), the "reason" (if such a word can be used) for the Father to beget Him, is precisely this pouring out, this death, and this resurrection.

Because the Triune God exists outside of our human understanding of time, it seems that there are cause-and-effect relationships which are "backwards" - the cause comes before the effect.

My favorite example of this temporal-causal confusion is the idea that the Holy Spirit doesn't enter the world until the glorification of Jesus at the Ascension. But, of course, the Spirit was with the world throughout all time.

In God, there is not a cause followed by an effect, in our temporal understanding. Nor is there a simple sci-fi-style reversal (wherein effect is seen and then cause later). Rather, in God, cause and effect arise simultaneously (another very imprecise statement).

Because human beings cannot understand this fully, or even put their limited understanding into adequate words (as my above gobbly-gook attests), we often find things in scripture and our literary/liturgical tradition which SEEM to be heretical when viewed in an overly logical way.

The Bible does not have an ur-text.

I didn't say it has no authority, I said it doesn't have an ur-text.

We don't have an approved-by-God single original version of any of the books of the Bible against which all editions and translations are made. Scripture doesn't work like that.

The easiest answer would probably be that there may have been a scribal error, post-Jerome, and it was taken up into the Gradual.

If that is the case--and I really don't know if it is--then it could certainly stand to be reformed.

(Probably play havoc with the chant!)

I agree with Adam that there isn't a theological problem, but there's no reason why the chant can't be reformed if in fact there are textual errors. (Phil 2 is right on target regarding the theological issue, and another relevant text would be Daniel 7.)

David raises another worthy question: was Dignus est Agnus composed in 1925 or adapted from a pre-existing melody? Anyone? Are there places one can find answers like these?

Fr. Krisman,

You've missed David's point. The chant is new.

The fact that the Catholic Church has approved of the Vulgate as the "authentic" or official version does not change the fact that there is NOT an original, perfect ur-text.

Look at the quotes you provided. The reason for its fitness?
"the existing custom of the Church"
"the lengthened usage of so many ages"

The Bible is a part of the living tradition of the Church. It is a human-authored, divinely-inspired, Holy-Spirit-protected witness to the WORD of God, who is Jesus Christ. It is NOT, itself, the WORD of God.

My point is not based on your key quotes, but on 2000 years of Catholic tradition and doctrine.

The inerrancy of scripture, as understood by the Catholic Church, has nothing to do with whether there is an unadulterated ur-text somewhere (there isn't). It has everything to do with the Holy Spirit's protection of dogmatic truth within the Apostolic authority of the Magisterium.

(I'm not saying this solves any arguments. I just really like it.)

Also to follow up on rogue63's question, the Dom Johner book is where I got this.

Johner mentions the Introit Dum sanctificatus fuero from the Wednesday after the 4th Sunday of Lent as the main source for Dignus est Agnus.
The Gradual is based on that of Epiphany.
The Alleluia is based on the 2nd Alleluia from the 4th Sunday after Easter.
Per Johner, the Offertory uses motifs from Christmas season offertories, and the Communion uses motifs from Advent season communions.

He notes the use of chants from throughout the liturgical year: "The chants of this new feast betray throughout adaptations of older melodies. This should not, however, spoil our joy in singing them. Each of them is like a new stanza added to a beloved old song, awakening memories of the most beautiful seasons of the liturgical year."

CMAA reprinted Johner's Chants of the Vatican Gradual in 2007.

My comment is in reply to the original question by “rogue63":

Why "divinity"? Isn't Christ already divine? Isn't he coequal and coeternal with Father and Holy Spirit?

It is an excellant question which brings us directly to the mystery of the Incarnation. Certainly, the second person of the Holy Trinity is divine from all eternity. But “in the fulness of time” this second person “took flesh of the virgin Mary and became man”. When the “Word” entered history, he took upon himself a human nature. Unlike his Divine nature which is perfect from all eternity, the human nature of Christ was perfectable. In other words, Jesus, in his human nature, underwent physical, emotional and spiritual development. The “receiving” of Divinity applies to Christ’s human nature which was divinised as a result of his perfect obedience to the Father’s will. Christ’s humanity was divinised so as to lead us into the Divine life of the Trinity. This is what the Christology and Soteriology of the Church teach us.

Patricia:

I sent you a message.