Origen in Litany of Saints


#1

I heard Origen in the Litany of Saints during one of the Triduum masses. It may have been the Easter Vigil. Origen is not a saint however.

Did anyone else hear this?


#2

There is a modern version of the Litany of Saints, published (I believe) by either Oregon Catholic Press or GIA, which includes Origen and a number of non-canonized others such as Julian of Norwich and Thomas Merton. There is also a colorful wall calendar in a circular shape, surrounded with rather disturbing art, which is frequently found in parishes. It gets around the canonization issue by not preceding the names with “saint.” Theological liberalism often has to suppress the Eighth Commandment to further its cause.


#3

That’s the Litany by Becker. I’ve sung it a dozen times at least as a cantor, and it bothered me every time. Finally, last year, I chose a real saint from the early period of Christianity whose name had three syllables to substitute for Origen. I used Polycarp. His feastday falls on my birthday.


#4

Well done! I love a good substitution. When I visited New Zealand and Australia, I noticed that when they sang the well-known Taize hymn “Eat This Bread, Drink This Cup…,” they substituted the words “Eat My Flesh, Drink My Blood…”


#5

I’m looking at the sheet music right now, but doesn’t the missal text for the litany say “Saint XYZ. Pray for us.”??

Is that even licit to use?


#6

Who knows? It’s all I’ve ever heard in any Catholic church for the last 15 years. It’s a nasty, low-quality piece of music, but you sing what you’re hired to sing and you fix what you can.

When you get past the idealistic teen years, you’ll find that some things are worth fighting to the death for and some are not. This is not the hill I wish to die upon.


#7

Origen is not recognized as a saint by the Catholic Church and no version of the litany of saints should include his name. This is an abuse. I have heard this version, too, and find it offensive when this is done.


#8

The above, of course, is an opinion. Others find it to be quite lovely and our cantor/schola get complimented on it every Easter Vigil and All Saints’ Day. Origen should not be included, but is easily substituted. I do think that his inclusion is symptomatic of what is wrong with OCP.


#9

The above, of course, is an opinion. Others find it to be quite lovely and our cantor/schola get complimented on it every Easter Vigil and All Saints’ Day. Origen should not be included, but is easily substituted. I do think that his inclusion is symptomatic of what is wrong with OCP.
[/quote]

I don’t mean to stir up people, but really, the above, of course, is a fact. There is many problems with it that disqualify it from licit use as a litany of the saints within the context of the liturgy.

[LIST]
*]It does not say “Saint N.” as specified in the missal
*]It takes liberties with the text
*]It’s very secular and emotional in it’s style, making it unsuitable for Mass
[/LIST]

And this may be not as big of a deal, and I’m probably not explaining it well, but isn’t there an odd theological connotation of having some saints sung at the end of each phrase, therefore making them more prominent, and “more special”?

It is a low quality piece of music, and is not suitable for Mass on so many fronts.


#10

The above, of course, is an opinion. Others find it to be quite lovely and our cantor/schola get complimented on it every Easter Vigil and All Saints’ Day. Origen should not be included, but is easily substituted. I do think that his inclusion is symptomatic of what is wrong with OCP.
[/quote]

I don’t mean to stir up people, but really, the above, of course, is a fact. There is many problems with it that disqualify it from licit use as a litany of the saints within the context of the liturgy.

[LIST]
*]It does not say “Saint N.” as specified in the missal. In fact, once you get past the title, there is not one mention of “saint”.
*]It takes liberties with the text
*]It’s very secular and emotional in it’s style, making it unsuitable for Mass
*]Names that aren’t even saints
[/LIST]

Yes, you can substitute the non-saint’s names out, but shouldn’t this raise some red flags when it is marketed as a “litany of the saints”? Has anyone else thought about what else this Becker guy might not know about writing liturgical music if he is adding non-saints to a litany of the saints!?!?!?

And this last point may be not as big of a deal, and I’m probably not explaining it well, but isn’t there an odd theological connotation of having some saints sung at the end of each phrase, therefore making them more prominent, and “more special”?

It is a low quality piece of music, and is not suitable for Mass on so many fronts.


#11

Again, an opinion (I’m astonished that so few can distinguish between a fact and an opinion in these fora, as it is a part of most school’s curriculums beginning in 3rd grade).

[LIST]
*]I know of no requirement that we MUST say “saint.” Kindly point out the documentation that says we MUST.
*]It’s a song. Songs TAKE liberties. They aren’t formulated creeds and artists have been allowed by the Church some liberties in their expression.
*]Some would argue that chant also is emotional. Unless a there is a percussion instrument introduced, it isn’t particularly secular, indeed, in our parish, it sounds like a variation on chant, sung on one note for the verses. The chorus is sung on four. We sing it either with the organ or the piano.
*]I’ve already stipulated that the idea of using non-saints is inappropriate. Your last sentence is an opinion. Gregorian chant/polyphony is supposed to have pride of place, but the Church does not forbid everything, but those.
[/LIST]


#12

The litany of saints is one of the most beautiful hyms of the Church and Becker's version is one of the most beautiful except the Latin version. Becker's version was in fact used during Pope Benedict's visit to the US.

And I know that it is illicit to add non-saints because it defeats the purpose of the prayer - which is to call upon those who are in heaven to our aid.


#13

[quote="JKirkLVNV, post:11, topic:237914"]
Again, an opinion (I'm astonished that so few can distinguish between a fact and an opinion in these fora, as it is a part of most school's curriculums beginning in 3rd grade).

[/quote]

Again, not an opinion (I'm astonished that so few people actually know the rites of the church, and yet walk around talking like they do).

[quote="JKirkLVNV, post:11, topic:237914"]
I know of no requirement that we MUST say "saint." Kindly point out the documentation that says we MUST.

[/quote]

Under LOS, the missal says "Saint N. Pray for us." It does not say "Sing an appropriate song about the saints." It says sing this: and then prints the LOS (including the word Saint before each name).

Here's further documentation:

General Instruction of the Roman Missal, no. 24 (2003)
o Nevertheless, the priest must remember that he is the servant of the Sacred Liturgy and that he himself is not permitted, on his own initiative, to add, to remove, or to change anything in the celebration of Mass.

If this document quote is not enough for you, I have about 5 more like this from other documents.

[quote="JKirkLVNV, post:11, topic:237914"]
It's a song. Songs TAKE liberties. They aren't formulated creeds and artists have been allowed by the Church some liberties in their expression.

[/quote]

You're right. Songs TAKE liberties. But the rite does not say "Sing a song." It says to sing the LOS.

And the litany is not just a song. The LOS is an official litany with an official formula (despite what you say). Yet this song does not follow that text, yet it calls itself a "litany of the saints". The fact is: this song by John Becker is not the LOS, but rather a song based on the LOS, making it unsuitable for use in place of the LOS before a baptism, ordination, or any time the litany is called for. That is not an opinion. That's fact.

Now there's be nothing wrong with singing this around a camp fire (I have many times), but when you sing this instead of the LOS during Mass, there's issues.


#14

#15

[quote="TheMc, post:13, topic:237914"]
Again, not an opinion (I'm astonished that so few people actually know the rites of the church, and yet walk around talking like they do).

Under LOS, the missal says "Saint N. Pray for us." It does not say "Sing an appropriate song about the saints." It says sing this: and then prints the LOS (including the word Saint before each name).

Here's further documentation:

General Instruction of the Roman Missal, no. 24 (2003)
o Nevertheless, the priest must remember that he is the servant of the Sacred Liturgy and that he himself is not permitted, on his own initiative, to add, to remove, or to change anything in the celebration of Mass.

If this document quote is not enough for you, I have about 5 more like this from other documents.

You're right. Songs TAKE liberties. But the rite does not say "Sing a song." It says to sing the LOS.

And the litany is not just a song. The LOS is an official litany with an official formula (despite what you say). Yet this song does not follow that text, yet it calls itself a "litany of the saints". The fact is: this song by John Becker is not the LOS, but rather a song based on the LOS, making it unsuitable for use in place of the LOS before a baptism, ordination, or any time the litany is called for. That is not an opinion. That's fact.

Now there's be nothing wrong with singing this around a camp fire (I have many times), but when you sing this instead of the LOS during Mass, there's issues.

[/quote]

Perhaps we're talking past each other. Yes, it IS apparently not strictly in line as being, line for line, the LOS. That would be a fact when compared with the rubrics of the Church, so you're quite right. Nonetheless (and I'm a big supporter of the reform of the reform, esp. as regards music), I would predict that this song is here to stay, even if it may eventually require the specific permission of the Holy See (which I'm sure it will delegate to the local ordinary). Why? Because most people really like it and if the correct saints names are used, it isn't theologically out of line (neither the tune nor the rythm is "secular," at least not the way my schola sings it). I guess I think it will be like Cardinal Pell's attitude, when he was a part of the the ICEL's work on the new translation, toward "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again" as the Mysterium Fide (as expressed in an interview with Raymond Arroyo). No, it does not appear in the original Latin, but it does express the mystery and it is dear to the hearts of many of the faithful and Cardinal Pell went on record as saying that he hoped we would be able to continue to use it. It isn't in the new translation, of course, but who knows, maybe it will someday again be permitted. Not all new things are an evil. So I hope we can continue to use this song, even if it means simply reciting the LOS and then singing it at Holy Communion or as a sequence or whatever.


#16

While I really don’t agree with your entire attitude, there really isn’t much more to say. But it does raise one question:

Why wouldn’t you chant the LOS and sing this some later time (but not as a sequence)??


#17

We could, I suppose. But, as I said, we DO chant the “song.”


#18

I want to thank you all for your help in this matter. The information gathered here will help me to work toward a better LOS at our parish.

God bless you all!


#19

[quote="Cavaille-Coll, post:4, topic:237914"]
Well done! I love a good substitution. When I visited New Zealand and Australia, I noticed that when they sang the well-known Taize hymn "Eat This Bread, Drink This Cup...," they substituted the words "Eat My Flesh, Drink My Blood..."

[/quote]

Never heard such a thing in Australia, and can't imagine why anyone would do such a thing. However, "Eat my flesh and drink my blood..." is a verse of the song, and this is what you might have heard.


#20

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.