no more Yahweh

[FrDavid96]

This is a prime example of closing the barn door long after the horse is gone.

The real issue here is not about how to meet a deadline or pulling music from publication at the last moment.

The real problem is in the quality and suitability of the music that is being published. The vast majority of recently composed music being pushed for use at the Mass does not conform to Catholic practice in the first place. It’s not a matter of conforming to some “new” directive given at the last moment (from the publishers point of view). It’s a matter of the fact that for so many years, publishers selling their subscriptions to Catholic parishes have been ignoring (since shortly after Vatican II) what the Church has constantly taught about the suitability of music used in the Mass. I could go on and on about the details of WHY the music isn’t suitable, but I’m sure that’s being said elsewhere in these posts.

The fact is that the music should never have been published (nor used at Masses). The timing is irrelevant. The publishers put themselves in this position long ago when they decided to distribute Music that conflicts with the dignity and solemnity of the Mass, and with the constant liturgical tradtion of the Church.

Enough is enough.

 

[Sarabande]

Our director is just going to not allow it anymore at our parish so we don’t have to do it for weddings ever again. (We’ve never done it for a regular Sunday mass.)

 

[benedictgal]

This is a prime example of closing the barn door long after the horse is gone.

The real issue here is not about how to meet a deadline or pulling music from publication at the last moment.

The real problem is in the quality and suitability of the music that is being published. The vast majority of recently composed music being pushed for use at the Mass does not conform to Catholic practice in the first place. It’s not a matter of conforming to some “new” directive given at the last moment (from the publishers point of view). It’s a matter of the fact that for so many years, publishers selling their subscriptions to Catholic parishes have been ignoring (since shortly after Vatican II) what the Church has constantly taught about the suitability of music used in the Mass. I could go on and on about the details of WHY the music isn’t suitable, but I’m sure that’s being said elsewhere in these posts.

The fact is that the music should never have been published (nor used at Masses). The timing is irrelevant. The publishers put themselves in this position long ago when they decided to distribute Music that conflicts with the dignity and solemnity of the Mass, and with the constant liturgical tradtion of the Church.

Enough is enough.

Thank you, Fr. David. You’ve hit the proverbial nail on the head. This situation has been festering for nearly 40 years.

Regarding what the previous post indicated:

What do you mean by “pulled them down.” I am not familiar with that expression. OCP printed their disposable hymnals before the directive so they could not reprint them. I found out from OCP only a few days following the directive that they would be contacting the composers to rewrite the texts. I belive the recent letter was witheld until all the texts were corrected.

it wasn’t prudent on the part of the publisher to withhold the letter until the changes were made. The letter was already up on the USCCB website for quite some time. Prudence should have dictated that OCP pull down (remove) the songs from their playlist until they were either rewritten or permanently shelved. Inasmuch as these songs were included in the disposable song books, a disclaimer should have been sent indicating that, in obedience to the directive, these songs should not be performed until either corrections or deletions have been made.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread has gone off topic. Please stay on topic and take side discussions to new or existing threads. Thank you all.

 

[FrDavid96]

OCP sent out a letter saying we are not allowed to use the name “Yahweh” in Liturgy any longer and they will be removing it from songs like I lift up my soul Yahweh You are near etc etc.
They site a directive from Bish Arthur Serratelli of Paterson NJ on the Committee on Divine Worship. I have emailed them and OCP and can get no resonse as to when he said this or published this. I would like to know the reasoning behind this proclamation.
Fr. Mike, the great state of Oklahoma

Yes, we have gone off topic. Fr Mike, here’s an answer to your original question (for the benefit of all readers).

The holy Name of God has always been considered by the Jewish people to be too holy to ever say aloud, or even to write-down. Jewish scriptures have constantly avoided ever writing the name, doing the Hebrew equivalent of writing Y----- in its place. The prohibition is twofold:

1. Out of respect for our Jewish brethren, we should not engage in a practice which they consider to be blasphemous (speaking the Name aloud)
2. Since our Christian origins are (of course!) Jewish, we should maintain the same tradition of avoiding speaking the Name; out of respect

Christian scriptures have always maintained that tradition of never writing the Name. A change came with the translation of the New Jerusalem Bible (at least as far as Catholic printings are concerned), wherein the translators for some reason choose to use the actual word rather than replace it with something else. The New American Bible for example prints “LORD” in its place.

I hope that provides some insight.

 

[fmwheel]

Thank you Fr.
I have had quite an earful in this thread. I have had more than my question answered and am quite satisfied to let it go for now. . .

Thanks too all of you who had an opinion about this topic.

Fr. Mike

 

[mizznicole]

Sorry if this has been discussed…

Did I dream this, or was there a recent guideline issued that bans the use of “Yahweh” in the liturgy?

Wondering because we oddly skipped the first verse of “Sing a New Song,” and it seemed to jog my memory.

thx

 

[mizznicole]

Answered my own question.

catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=60153

 

[Manfred]

Answered my own question.

catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=60153

Quoting from the article to which you provided a link:

"The Bible reflects the Hebrew tradition, and the Name of God is not spelled out in authorized Catholic translations. …

“However, the instruction notes, ‘in recent years the practice has crept in’ of using the Name of God and spelling out the tetragrammaton. That practice should be avoided in the Catholic liturgy, the Vatican says.”

Hold on, here; is it the Vatican, or the author of this article, stating that the Jerusalem and New Jerusalem Bibles are not “authorized Catholic translations”? (Both use “Yahweh” throughout the Old Testament.)

And to what does “authorized” apply: for usage in public worship, i.e., Liturgy, or for private reading and study?

 

[mizznicole]

The Vatican directive will not require any changes in the language of liturgy, since the Name of God is not spelled out in any authorized translation of the Roman Missal.

It must be referring to the Missal. Fuzzy reporting, I agree.

 

[margya]

It’s definitely refering to songs where Yahweh appears. The songs that Yahweh in them will need to be revised. Here is another article on it:

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804119.htm

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

Devout Jews avoid pronouncing the Tetragrammaton (Y----h) out of respect for God’s Holy Name, usually substituting another name like Adonai. I am very glad that the Vatican has addressed this issue. Granted, the Name is not pronounceable, and earlier, less-accurate versions (such as Jehovah) were more commonly used in the past, but the Name of God should always be held in the highest esteem.

 

[benedictgal]

This is what the letter issued by the Committee on Divine Worship of the USCCB has to say on the subject:

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has sent the attached letter containing several directives on the use of “the Name of God” in the Sacred Liturgy.

We welcome this guidance on the use of particular terminology for the Divine Name, as it helps to emphasize the theological accuracy of our language and appropriate reverence for the Name of God so consistent in our tradition. While the directives contained here do not force any changes to official liturgical texts, including our continuing work of the translation of the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia, which already follow the spirit of the directives, there may be some impact on the use of particular pieces of liturgical music in our country as well as in the composition of variable texts such as the General Intercessions for the celebration of the Mass and the other sacraments.

This instruction from the Congregation provides also an opportunity to offer catechesis for the faithful as an encouragement to show reverence for the Name of God in daily life, emphasizing the power of language as an act of devotion and worship.

Now, this letter explains what the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discpline of the Sacraments can be found here:

usccb.org/liturgy/NameOfGod.pdf

Now, regarding Manfred’s observation, from what I understand, the English translation that Vatican Radio uses (and I could be wrong, but that is what I have heard) is from the Jerusalem Bible.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

I just saw a copy of the 2009 edition of OCP’s Today’s Missal • Music Issue. I guess they didn’t get the memo. The word Yahweh is still in there.

 

[agapewolf]

I just saw a copy of the 2009 edition of OCP’s Today’s Missal • Music Issue. I guess they didn’t get the memo. The word Yahweh is still in there.

Those books were already printed and many of them sent by the time this order came out. (We had our books already).They stated so when the directions came out and sent revised sheet music to subscribers.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

Those books were already printed and many of them sent by the time this order came out. (We had our books already).They stated so when the directions came out and sent revised sheet music to subscribers.

Thanks for that info.

 

[Manfred]

Those books were already printed and many of them sent by the time this order came out. (We had our books already).They stated so when the directions came out and sent revised sheet music to subscribers.

The directive on NOT using the Tetragrammaton in any liturgical reading, prayer, or hymn is not all that recent; check out Liturgiam Authenticam from 2001.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20010507_liturgiam-authenticam_en.html

Paragraph 41 (c) states:
“in accordance with immemorial tradition, which indeed is already evident in the above-mentioned “Septuagint” version, the name of almighty God expressed by the Hebrew tetragrammaton (YHWH) and rendered in Latin by the word Dominus, is to be rendered into any given vernacular by a word equivalent in meaning.”

 

[Manfred]

Now, regarding Manfred’s observation, from what I understand, the English translation that Vatican Radio uses (and I could be wrong, but that is what I have heard) is from the Jerusalem Bible.

benedictgal,

Yes, it is, but the Lectionary based on the JB does NOT contain the name “Yahweh”. In fact, the recently-published edition of the Bible from the (British) Catholic Truth Society is the 1966 Jerusalem Bible with the following exceptions:

(a) the Hebrew Tetragrammaton (YHWH) and its English rendering “Yahweh” are replaced by “the LORD”;

(b) the Psalms are the 1963 Grail edition, not those of the 1966 JB.

 

[benedictgal]

The directive on NOT using the Tetragrammaton in any liturgical reading, prayer, or hymn is not all that recent; check out Liturgiam Authenticam from 2001.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20010507_liturgiam-authenticam_en.html

Paragraph 41 (c) states:
“in accordance with immemorial tradition, which indeed is already evident in the above-mentioned “Septuagint” version, the name of almighty God expressed by the Hebrew tetragrammaton (YHWH) and rendered in Latin by the word Dominus, is to be rendered into any given vernacular by a word equivalent in meaning.”

Right you are, Manfred. In fact, Cardinal Arinze noted as much in his letter to the bishops, quoting that exact same passage. I guess the good folks at the music publishing house didn’t read Liturgicam Authenticam. It took a directive from the Vatican to remind them about what the document actually said.

It seems to me that since LA is about six or seven years old, this problem should have been taken care of since that time frame. However, it is unfortunate that these publishing houses will release what they please regardless of what the documents say. At least now, they have to fix this problem.

What concerns me the most is that they waited an entire month after the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship released the letter. The responsible thing for these publishers to have done was to place a moratorium on these songs, recalled them and given the composers enough time to thoroughly rewrite them or delete them rather than do a rush job.

Manfred, you and I are dog-lovers. Let’s say that Mars (and this is a real-life scenario) finds out that a certain batch of Pedigree is defective. It sends out letters to PetCo, Wal-Mart, Sam’s and PetSmart and asks them to pull the problematic lot numbers off the shelves until such time as the danger has passed and a new and safer shipment comes into the store. They don’t wait until the new shipment comes into store before they ask the merchants to pull the bad stuff off the shelves. Shouldn’t that have worked with this particular publishing house?

If we take that much care of our beloved pets, why should we not be much more vigilant as to what goes into our Masses?

 

[Manfred]

Right you are, Manfred. In fact, Cardinal Arinze noted as much in his letter to the bishops, quoting that exact same passage. I guess the good folks at the music publishing house didn’t read Liturgicam Authenticam. It took a directive from the Vatican to remind them about what the document actually said.

It seems to me that since LA is about six or seven years old, this problem should have been taken care of since that time frame. However, it is unfortunate that these publishing houses will release what they please regardless of what the documents say. At least now, they have to fix this problem.

What concerns me the most is that they waited an entire month after the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship released the letter. The responsible thing for these publishers to have done was to place a moratorium on these songs, recalled them and given the composers enough time to thoroughly rewrite them or delete them rather than do a rush job.

Manfred, you and I are dog-lovers. Let’s say that Mars (and this is a real-life scenario) finds out that a certain batch of Pedigree is defective. It sends out letters to PetCo, Wal-Mart, Sam’s and PetSmart and asks them to pull the problematic lot numbers off the shelves until such time as the danger has passed and a new and safer shipment comes into the store. They don’t wait until the new shipment comes into store before they ask the merchants to pull the bad stuff off the shelves. Shouldn’t that have worked with this particular publishing house?

If we take that much care of our beloved pets, why should we not be much more vigilant as to what goes into our Masses?

benedictgal,

I highlighted your statement above because I am not as optimistic as you that the publishing houses will obey simply because another directive came from the Vatican. After all, everybody knows these are not really binding, they are merely suggestions to be accepted or rejected, right?

Aside: since 1990, our parish has used a dramatic, multi-voiced adaptation of The Passion according to St John on Good Friday, from the 1970 NAB, no less, even though (1) dramatic presentations during the Good Friday liturgical service are NOT permitted, and (2) the 1970 NAB NT is no longer authorized for Lectionary use in the USA. But our former music and liturgy coordinator introduced this and no one seems to think it’s any big deal, so…