no more Yahweh

[fmwheel]

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

 

[mercygate]

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

Maybe Bishop Serratell’s office could help you. It’s not a big diocese.

 

[JMMK]

Fr John Trigilio posted on this back in August.

The letter from Bishop Serratelli should’ve included the original letter that came from His Eminence Francis Cardinal Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments. The letter was promulgated on June 29, 2008 and as such is when the ordinance took effect.

Here is a blog post with a link to the complete letter.

 

[japhy]

This has been discussed several times already on this forum.

See the USCCB’s web site; check out the “Liturgy” section. There’s a link to a PDF of the CDWDS’s “Directive on the Name of God”. The CDWDS document explains rather well the reason for prohibiting the mention of the tetragrammaton during the liturgy.

 

[fmwheel]

thaks for your responses to my inquirey. I will be doing some research today.

 

[benedictgal]

HI, Father, I’m from the other side of the Red River, the Burnt Orange Side!

Incidentally, I got the same email. Inasmuch as I am not a big fan of OCP, I used to use their services when I was at our Cathedral because the publisher has a monopoly on the Spanish language music. I remain on their list to see what innovations they will come up with next.

If you notice, the letter from the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship is dated August 8, 2008; OCP’s email is dated around Seoptember 30th, I believe. The prudent thing for OCP to have done would have been to put a moratorium on any songs containing the word “Yahweh” as of August 8th and then send a follow-up letter once the music had been revised, rather than wait aroundn for nearly two months. That would have shown me that there would have been a sincere attempt at complying immediately with the directive issued by the Holy See instead of just waiting around until the composers rushed through making the changes. Or, if it were me, I would have simply scrapped the songs altogether.

When the directive came out, I sent a copy of it to some priest friends of mine in our diocese and they immediately pulled the music off their rotations and informed their choirs that they would not be singning these pieces until such time as the amended versions became available, if that were to have happened. That would have been the right thing for OCP to have done, rather than just let the status quo remain until they decided when they would comply with the directive. That is just my opinion, for whatever it is worth.

 

[Digitonomy]

The prudent thing for OCP to have done would have been to put a moratorium on any songs containing the word “Yahweh” as of August 8th and then send a follow-up letter once the music had been revised, rather than wait aroundn for nearly two months. That would have shown me that there would have been a sincere attempt at complying immediately with the directive issued by the Holy See instead of just waiting around until the composers rushed through making the changes. Or, if it were me, I would have simply scrapped the songs altogether.

I don’t fault OCP for its actions. They may not have known whether all the songs would be revised, or some scrapped. They may not have known when that would happen. In order to avoid misleading people on those issues, the email would have had to be a bit vague and not very informative. Anyone who cared would read their press release in the diocesan paper or a national publication, or the OCP website. Sending an early email would have invited reply emails and phone calls asking for details on which songs would be revised, when it would happen, if the songs were permitted for non-liturgical use, etc - and the answers to most of those were not available yet, making it a waste of time for both OCP and the inquirer. They probably got more than enough of those questions just from the article that ran.

As for a moratorium, that is an action appropriate for bishops, pastors, music directors. OCP can’t stop the songs from being sung, and it’s not their job to do so. Rather than get into other people’s business and possibly contradict proper authorities, they allowed the Church heirarchy to implement an instruction from the Vatican.

Could they have done more? Yes, but I think what they did was perfectly sufficient.

 

[benedictgal]

I don’t fault OCP for its actions. They may not have known whether all the songs would be revised, or some scrapped. They may not have known when that would happen. In order to avoid misleading people on those issues, the email would have had to be a bit vague and not very informative. Anyone who cared would read their press release in the diocesan paper or a national publication, or the OCP website. Sending an early email would have invited reply emails and phone calls asking for details on which songs would be revised, when it would happen, if the songs were permitted for non-liturgical use, etc - and the answers to most of those were not available yet, making it a waste of time for both OCP and the inquirer. They probably got more than enough of those questions just from the article that ran.

As for a moratorium, that is an action appropriate for bishops, pastors, music directors. OCP can’t stop the songs from being sung, and it’s not their job to do so. Rather than get into other people’s business and possibly contradict proper authorities, they allowed the Church heirarchy to implement an instruction from the Vatican.

Could they have done more? Yes, but I think what they did was perfectly sufficient.

Actually, OCP knows very well which songs have been affected by the mandate. That is why I am not so quick to cut them slack.

Furthermore, as the publsher of these songs, they have a responsibility to inform their users and subscribers of the change as soon as they receive word.

I see it in the same way as a recall notice. Let’s say that Hershey’s has recalled certain lot numbers of its Caramel Kisses. It’s incumbent on the merchants to pull the affected products off the shelves until such time has passed. If we are that concerned with what we consume, whether it involves candy, milk, tomatoes or, in the case of our dogs, pet food, should we not be even more concerned with what goes into the Mass, especially since the Vatican has issued what is, in effect, a recall notice?

I believe that tt should be the same concept with OCP. Even the notice from OCP indicates that there were not that many songs affected by the Vatican’s directive. Still, OCP should have informed its subscribers right away, pulled down the songs and then sent another notice giving word that the affected titles are ready for use. That would have been the responsible approach. After all, what more word would one need than that which was already given by the Holy See and explained by the Chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on Divine Worship? There doesn’t need to be further explanation because both notices are pretty self-explanitory, in my opinion.

 

[Digitonomy]

Actually, OCP knows very well which songs have been affected by the mandate.

Obviously. But they probably did not know whether all songs would in fact be rewritten, or when that would be complete.

benedictgal:

I see it in the same way as a recall notice. Let’s say that Hershey’s has recalled certain lot numbers of its Caramel Kisses. It’s incumbent on the merchants to pull the affected products off the shelves until such time has passed. If we are that concerned with what we consume, whether it involves candy, milk, tomatoes or, in the case of our dogs, pet food, should we not be even more concerned with what goes into the Mass, especially since the Vatican has issued what is, in effect, a recall notice?

I believe that tt should be the same concept with OCP. Even the notice from OCP indicates that there were not that many songs affected by the Vatican’s directive. Still, OCP should have informed its subscribers right away, pulled down the songs and then sent another notice giving word that the affected titles are ready for use. That would have been the responsible approach. After all, what more word would one need than that which was already given by the Holy See and explained by the Chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on Divine Worship? There doesn’t need to be further explanation because both notices are pretty self-explanitory, in my opinion.

I haven’t seen the notice from the Bishops’ Committee; I could not find it on their website. The letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship does not proscribe use outside of liturgical settings, so characterizing it as a recall notice is not entirely accurate. The issue of when or whether the songs may be used is best left to each local bishop.

 

[benedictgal]

Obviously. But they probably did not know whether all songs would in fact be rewritten, or when that would be complete.I haven’t seen the notice from the Bishops’ Committee; I could not find it on their website. The letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship does not proscribe use outside of liturgical settings, so characterizing it as a recall notice is not entirely accurate. The issue of when or whether the songs may be used is best left to each local bishop.

But, when the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issues a directive, it needs to be obeyed. They should have indicated that the affected songs should not be sung, in obedience to the directive, until such time as the lyrics have been fixed, or, the songs have been removed altogether.

Furthermore, the Bishops Committee on Divine Worship issued the letter on August 8, 2008.

Here is what is says, in part:

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.

You can read the letter by clicking on to this link:
execulink.com/~dtribe/blog/Name%20of%20God.pdf

Furthermore, since the directive indicated that the word “Yahweh” shouldn’t be used, OCP knows full well which songs are affected by that ruling. Regarding the issue of letting the local bishop decide whether or not to use these songs, this matter has pretty much been decided by the Holy See.

In addition, OCP also prints out General Intercessions, some of which have included the word “Yahweh” in the past. A lot of composers use “Yahweh” rather than the more doctrinally and theologically appropriate “Father” when referencing the First Person of the Trinity. That is why this directive is very welcome news for many of us.

 

[Digitonomy]

They should have indicated that the affected songs should not be sung, in obedience to the directive, until such time as the lyrics have been fixed, or, the songs have been removed altogether.

However, the letter from CDW does not direct that the songs not be sung - only that they not be sung in a liturgical setting. The Bishops’ Committee expands the interpretation to include celebration of sacraments, which I suppose in a few cases could occur outside of liturgy. There is no prohibition on singing the songs at a meeting of a church organization, or a choir concert, or a family gathering.

benedictgal:

Furthermore, since the directive indicated that the word “Yahweh” shouldn’t be used, OCP knows full well which songs are affected by that ruling.

Yes, we agree on that already.

benedictgal:

Regarding the issue of letting the local bishop decide whether or not to use these songs, this matter has pretty much been decided by the Holy See.

It would be the place of the bishop to decide whether to expand the meaning of the CDW letter and prohibit use of the name in settings such as those I mentioned above. For OCP to do so would be presumptuous and in some cases might contradict the local ordinary.

 

[benedictgal]

However, the letter from CDW does not direct that the songs not be sung - only that they not be sung in a liturgical setting. The Bishops’ Committee expands the interpretation to include celebration of sacraments, which I suppose in a few cases could occur outside of liturgy. There is no prohibition on singing the songs at a meeting of a church organization, or a choir concert, or a family gathering.Yes, we agree on that already.It would be the place of the bishop to decide whether to expand the meaning of the CDW letter and prohibit use of the name in settings such as those I mentioned above. For OCP to do so would be presumptuous and in some cases might contradict the local ordinary.

I respectfully disagree with your observations. First of all, the Chairman’s letter was explicit in that the directive of the Holy See didn’t affect the current work on the translation of the Roman Missal because word “Yahweh” is not used. He did note that there are pieces of music that do contain the word; henceforth, they should not be used for the Mass.

Furthermore, the lower authority cannot override what the supreme authority, in this case, the Holy See has ruled. If the Holy See has indicated that we are not to use songs that contain the word “Yahweh”, then, that is it. It’s not being inflexible; that is the way it is.

Therefore, the more prudent thing for OCP to have done would be to have removed the songs containing “Yahweh” from its catalogue until such time as the composers have either amended them or deleted them altogether. That would have been the responsible thing to do, since these songs are in the OCP liturgical planning guide that many parishes use in planning their Sunday Mass music programs.

As I see it a careful re-reading of the final paragraph of the Chairman’s letter where he notes that:

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.

would appear to cover the matter of non-liturgical events such as retreats and gatherings. If anything, I believe that we need to practice consistency. If it’s not appropriate to use for the Mass, then it shouldn’t be used outside of it, either, because then there would be confusion.

 

[Digitonomy]

As I see it a careful re-reading of the final paragraph of the Chairman’s letter where he notes that:

would appear to cover the matter of non-liturgical events such as retreats and gatherings. If anything, I believe that we need to practice consistency. If it’s not appropriate to use for the Mass, then it shouldn’t be used outside of it, either, because then there would be confusion.

That is a reasonable interpretation, but it is not certain that that’s the intent of the CDW:

In liturgical celebrations, in songs and prayers the name of God in the form of the tetragrammaton YHWH is neither to be used or pronounced.

Are liturgical celebrations, songs, and prayers meant as a series, or is “in liturgical celebrations” a prepositional phrase modifying the rest of the sentence? Either is possible, my first inclination is the latter. If it were a series, there would be no need to repeat the preposition “in”: In liturgical celebrations, songs, and prayers…" Alternatively, it could have been a series of prepositional phrases: “In liturgical celebrations, in songs, and in prayers…” However, the construction may simply be a lack of attention to grammar - proper grammar would have been to use “nor” rather than “or” later in the sentence.

The USCCB paragraph you cite is basically an exhortation by a group that only has advisory power on the matter.

I tried to find the letter in another language, but there don’t seem to be many foreign language news sites indexed by Google that mention “tetragrammaton,” and the CDW appears to have been without a webmaster for a number of months - other than a document from January, there is nothing on its site since 2006.

 

[benedictgal]

That is a reasonable interpretation, but it is not certain that that’s the intent of the CDW:Are liturgical celebrations, songs, and prayers meant as a series, or is “in liturgical celebrations” a prepositional phrase modifying the rest of the sentence? Either is possible, my first inclination is the latter. If it were a series, there would be no need to repeat the preposition “in”: In liturgical celebrations, songs, and prayers…" Alternatively, it could have been a series of prepositional phrases: “In liturgical celebrations, in songs, and in prayers…” However, the construction may simply be a lack of attention to grammar - proper grammar would have been to use “nor” rather than “or” later in the sentence.

The USCCB paragraph you cite is basically an exhortation by a group that only has advisory power on the matter.

I tried to find the letter in another language, but there don’t seem to be many foreign language news sites indexed by Google that mention “tetragrammaton,” and the CDW appears to have been without a webmaster for a number of months - other than a document from January, there is nothing on its site since 2006.

It may be an exhortation, but, it certainly makes sense. If it isn’t good enough for the Mass, then, it shouldn’t be good enough any place else.

I think that the problem regarding the use of the Holy Name of God seems to be found mostly in the United States. From my perusal of Spanish hymns, even those offered by OCP, I do not find the Holy Name of God ueed within those songs.

Furthermore, there is a disturbing trend among composers, especially the OCP stable, to use words like that of the Holy Name of God in lieu of something more doctrinally and theologically sound and appropriate like “Father.”

The bottom line is tht the Holy See has issued a directive and it must be obeyed. I don’t mean to suond inflexible, but neither the letter from the CDWDS nor the Bishops Committee on Divine Worship leaves enough room for wiggle room here.

 

[Digitonomy]

If we are that concerned with what we consume… should we not be even more concerned with what goes into the Mass

benedictgal:

If it isn’t good enough for the Mass, then, it shouldn’t be good enough any place else.

First you suggest a higher standard for the mass, then you suggest the same standard. I personally think you were more on target in the first case.

benedictgal:

I think that the problem regarding the use of the Holy Name of God seems to be found mostly in the United States.

This is an interesting observation. I’ll poke around the next couple days and see if I can dredge up any foreign use of the name in songs and the like.

benedictgal:

The bottom line is tht the Holy See has issued a directive and it must be obeyed.

I don’t think I’ve seen anyone propose that the directive not be obeyed. I’m just not sure I want OCP doing the interpretation and promulgation of the directive.

 

[benedictgal]

First you suggest a higher standard for the mass, then you suggest the same standard. I personally think you were more on target in the first case.This is an interesting observation. I’ll poke around the next couple days and see if I can dredge up any foreign use of the name in songs and the like.I don’t think I’ve seen anyone propose that the directive not be obeyed. I’m just not sure I want OCP doing the interpretation and promulgation of the directive.

I don’t think that I am proposing anything different. Most assuredly, the Mass is the highest standard. However, if we are not to use any songs containing the Holy Name of God for the liturgy, then, it would be good to avoid them altogether. This would alleviate any confusion.

OCP is the publsher of these songs. It would be there respnsibility to ensure that these songs are either corrected or removed. It’s just like the Mars company sending out a recall notice to Wal-Mart, HEB, Wallgreen’s and Sam’s indicating that a certain batch of Pedigree Dog food needs to be pulled off the shelves because of contamination. Mars issued the recall, but, the stores have to be the ones to actually pull their products off the shelves. It’s the same thing with this directive.

 

[benedictgal]

My best friend’s mother died over the weekend. She asked me to plan the funeral Mass for her. Having picked the readings, I started calling cantors. It was hard to find someone who could cantor for a weekday funeral, as most of our musicians hold down regular jobs.

Luckily, the diocesan superintendent of schools gave one or her teachers, a cantor, permission to sing at the Mass. While we were choosing hymns, the song “You are Near” was suggested. I gently told her that this song wasn’t to be used anymore until such time as it was amended. She had not heard of the directive from the Holy See. I also told her that this directive extended to any snog containing the Holy Name of God. She thanked me for the information. We went for a more traditional English/Latin/Spanish mix.

So, evidently, the word hasn’t trickled down yet regarding this issue. I sent the document to the superintendent and she thanked me as well.

 

[Digitonomy]

However, if we are not to use any songs containing the Holy Name of God for the liturgy, then, it would be good to avoid them altogether.

As I said, this is a reasonable approach, but not mandated as far as I can tell. I would also point out that the directive applies to more than just songs.

benedictgal:

It’s just like the Mars company sending out a recall notice to Wal-Mart, HEB, Wallgreen’s and Sam’s indicating that a certain batch of Pedigree Dog food needs to be pulled off the shelves because of contamination. Mars issued the recall, but, the stores have to be the ones to actually pull their products off the shelves. It’s the same thing with this directive.

If Mars is the Vatican, then it seems that the stores they are directing to remove the dog food (representing Holy Name in your analogy) more directly correspond to the dioceses.

benedictgal:

I gently told her that this song wasn’t to be used anymore until such time as it was amended.

Actually, the song has been amended, but I can understand wanting to avoid the unnecessary confusion caused by inserts or an announcement if the old hymnals are being used.

benedictgal:

I think that the problem regarding the use of the Holy Name of God seems to be found mostly in the United States.

A brief check of German indicates this is neither a strictly American phenomenon, nor a recent one.

Dir, dir, Jehovah will ich singen, 1868

Gross ist Jehovah, Franz Schubert mid 1800s

 

[benedictgal]

Yes, I know that the directives apply to more than just the songs, but to the liturgy as a whole.

Furthermore, as I indicated in an earlier post, the only other language that I am familiar with, as far as the Mass is concerned is Spanish, and, to my limited knowledge, the Holy Name of God does not appear.

I am not so quick to absolve OCP from culpability. The letter from the Chairman of the CDW came out on August 8th. OCP didn’t send word out ot its clients until the end of September. The prudent thing for the publshing house to have done was to alert everyone as soon as it received the notice from both the CDWDS and the Chairman of the CDW and to pull down the questionable music until such time as the songs were either rewritten or deleted.

In addition, I don’t think that my analolgy would directly correspond to the dioceses because the diocesees and Metroplitan Sees didn’t write nor publish the music. That falls under OCP’s scope. Furthermore, why would it be confusing to simply tell your subscribers and clients that these hymns are pulled down from our catalogue until such time as they are amended or altogether removed? Granted, the songs have been amended, for better or for worse, but, the more responsible thing was to have pulled them down until changes or deletions could be made.

 

[Joannm]

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.