Agnus dei words

Has anyone heard the words bread of God used in the Agnus Dei? This has happened a few times in my parish. Just wondering if it is common.

The GIRM says that the invocation “Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us” may be repeated for as long as it takes for the ‘bread’ to be divided (breaking homemade bread or a concelebration host into multiple pieces takes longer than breaking a traditional 2 1/4" priest’s Host), always ending with “…grant us peace.”

Some composers have come up with settings that include tropes, things like “Jesus, Bread of Life”, “Jesus, Prince of Peace”, etc. Since many, many parishes use Haugen’s “Mass of Creation” setting, I’d say hearing those is pretty common.

However, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy says that no one, not even a priest may change things in the Mass of his own accord. Bishops may change some things, but only those for which there is that allowance. That should have been enough to allow the a Music Director to say “Whoa! This is not allowed so we’re not using your setting of the Agnus Dei.” Instead, the USCCB issued a document on music that specifically allows it.

Since there is nowhere in the GIRM or the rubrics that gives the Bishops Conference the right to change the Agnus Dei, I doubt that the document would be approved by Rome. We’ll never find out, however, since it didn’t get the approval of enough bishops to be sent to Rome for review. For now the document is in force only in the US.

Yes! this is exactly what I was asking about. it went “Jesus bread of life”
So am I to understand that parishes can change the words because they THINK they have the freedom to dod so but really dont? kinda like handholding?

There is nothing I’ve ever read that allows the words to be changed. In fact, I think the CSL says quite the opposite. Unfortunately, both the document on music in the US and the Canadian Bishops’ inclusion of Haugen’s “Mass of Creation” setting in the official Canadian Hymnal, “Catholic Book of Worship III” disregard what the CSL says.

It is unclear whether or not there is freedom to use other invocation. The U.S. bishop’s document Sing to the Lord states:
188. The supplicatory chant Agnus Dei accompanies the Fraction Rite. . . . This invocation accompanies the fraction and, for this reason, may be repeated as many times as necessary until the rite has reached its conclusion, the last time ending with the words dona nobis pacem (grant us peace). When the Agnus Dei is sung repeatedly as a litany, Christological invocations with other texts may be used. In this case, the first and final invocations are always Agnus Dei (Lamb of God).
Sing to the Lord was approved by 88% of the bishops. So, while it is true that one interpretation of Sacrosanctum Concilium, as given by Phemie above, would bar the use of alternative invocations, our bishops have apparently interpreted those pronouncements differently and have arrived at a different result. Rome has not issued any additional guidance on this point; they certainly haven’t repudiated paragraph 188 of Sing to the Lord.

Are you sure about the 88%? That would seem to be enough to submit it to Rome and my understanding was that they did not receive the required percentage to do so.

It’s hardly surprising that the CDW has never ruled on a part of a document that it hasn’t received for approval.

Yes, I’m as sure as I could reasonably hope to be, and 88% would certainly have been enough to submit the document for recognitio. My vague understanding, however, is that it was agreed before the vote was taken that the document would not be sent to Rome, and some speculate that not as many bishops would have voted for it otherwise.

In the end, what we have is our own private interpretation of generalized Vatican pronouncements – on which, btw, I entirely agree with you that it doesn’t look like other invocations ought to be permitted – and the bishops’ interpretation, which in this respect differs from yours and mine. I am not so confident in my own private reading of the documents (sola documentis?) that I could say the bishops’ contrary reading is to be rejected out of hand. If it’s to be rejected at all, that’s to be done by Rome.

It’s hardly surprising that the CDW has never ruled on a part of a document that it hasn’t received for approval.

If anyone cares, they will submit a dubium. If the CDW cares, they’ll answer it.

So is it just up to the parish then?

Haugen gets a lot of flak for the tropes in the “Agnus Dei”, probably since the Messed Up Creation is so widely used-- but it seems that others have followed that lead. James Chepponis is one sad example. I say sad, because his “Magnificat” rendition is so beautiful. It’s sad because shouldn’t be too hard to come up with an “Agnus Dei” that retains the flavor of the rest of the Mass setting, while retaining the “correct” wording.

Chepponis’ “Mass of Jubilation” is gorgeous, musically. Hopefully, when the Revisions are implemented, he will have that corrected!

In Christ,
~Spoken4

I know that my church at least will not be using the added words. Forget Marty Haugen. As for what’s allowed and what isn’t, the documents of the Church certainly seem pretty clear when they say that words cannot be changed. However, I think the USCCB is using a loophole in that they are not changing the words BECAUSE the first of the three is the same and the last is the same, this they’re keeping all the original words. Still, what they do is considering adding something, and I believe that’s forbidden as well.

Even my local Ordinary Form church does not mess with Haugen’s music. And they are very reverent. Of course, for the most part I don’t have to concern myself with this sort of thing as I go to an FSSP parish about half the time.

We use the Mass of Creation during Lent. I have always found the music to be fitting. However, Haugen’s “Jesus, Lamb of God” is a sore spot. I have to skip it and use another. He can’t even get the words right the first time it is sung. There is no word “Jesus” in the GIRM during the Agnus Dei. I would prefer to go strictly to the using Jubilate Deo for Lent, but have not yet been allowed.

He messes up the Sanctus too, not sticking to the words in the Roman Missal. His Gospel Acclamation also leaves much to be desired. It’s as though he thinks most of the Ordinary is lacking and needs to be Haugenized.

However, Sing to the Lord is only binding and in force when it quotes the authoritative documents. Thus, the provision concerning the Agnus Dei does not have the force of law since it never got the recognitio from Rome.

there is a version of the sung Lamb of God in English that has several refrains of various titles for the Eucharist in between the first two and the last grant us peace, intended to be used where the number of concelebrants or time of preparation for the communion rite is going to take longer. It does not change the words, it adds some words in the additional refrains. Ask your pastor which is always your first step when something in the Mass at your parish strikes you as wrong.

Even if the pastor were to try to justify this, it is still wrong. Sacrosanctum Concilium (as well as Liturgiam Authenticam and Redemptionis Sacramentum) states that no one, not even the celebrant, is to add anything to the Mass. If the Fraction Rite is going to take a little longer, the Agnus Dei…miserere nobis repeats until the final “dona nobis pacem”. One should not be adding additional titles to the Eucharist.

and that is not OP’s problem it is the pastor’s

When they first started turning the Agnus Dei into a litany of some of the titles for Jesus Christ (about a month ago), we thought that it was an error. Not wanting to be confrontational, we have not asked either of our priests or our music director. It continues to this day.

Now, reading the earlier postings, I assume it’s left up to individual parishes to “make up as they go along.” I find it confusing and distracting. I lament the creeping Haugenization of our Holy Mass. If Marty Haugen were a Catholic (he is not - he was raised Lutheran, and is now a member of the United Church of Christ), even if he were a Catholic Priest or Bishop, we would still cringe. Now, after reading the posts, it DOES seem that it would only be frustrating to talk to our priests because something is “allowed.” It’s like back in the 80s when it was “allowed” that the tabernacle could be in a close-by area just off the altar if need be, our pastor (at another church) immediately moved the tabernacle off of the altar into a side room. It was not in the way, nor was the space that it occupied on the altar needed for something else. It seemed like the pastor was putting the “Lord” in His place! (Don’t get me started about that priest!)

This all needs to be “fixed,” but so many parishioners probably don’t pay that much attention or seem to care - why else, I ask you, are people coming to Mass in shorts, tank tops and flip flops? They seem to obey the “No Shirt, No Shoes-No Service” signs at local restaurants, so I guess that maybe they think the same will do for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Why else, when it’s “Culture Appreciation Sunday,” do we have synthesized Hawaiian guitar music from the electronic organ, marimbas, maracas, castanets, bongos, etc “contributing” to our Mass?

What’s next? It’s scary! …time for a blood pressure tablet!

It is not up to each parish to make stuff up as it goes along. Please note what Liturgiam Authenticam states:

  1. A great part of the liturgical texts are composed with the intention of their being sung by the priest celebrant, the deacon, the cantor, the people, or the choir. For this reason, the texts should be translated in a manner that is suitable for being set to music. Still, in preparing the musical accompaniment, full account must be taken of the authority of the text itself. Whether it be a question of the texts of Sacred Scripture or of those taken from the Liturgy and already duly confirmed, paraphrases are not to be substituted with the intention of making them more easily set to music, nor may hymns considered generically equivalent be employed in their place.39

We cannot substitute the Church’s official texts at will. No one, not even the celebrant, has the authority to do so.

No one is saying it is the OP’s fault.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.