No more "Yaweh"

[JimR-OCDS]

snhs;

You said, “I’m more inclined to believe the guidance of the Holy Spirit coming out of a council, than an individual Pope, who could possibly be a lunatic who would undue what the council founded.” (Bold added). Now “could possibly be a lunatic”, sounds to me like an implication.

Taken out of context. I said this in reference to the history of the Church, where we did in fact have bad popes.

So we have a Pope who issues a document which to you goes against what you see as one of the key reasons behind VII.

The reasons behind Vatican II, are what? They certainly weren’t to divide the church.

You then tell us how you’d rather follow a Council than a Pope, who “might possibly be a lunatic”? Sounds like an implication to me, don’t know about anyone else though.

A council over a bad pope, yes.

I have not said Pope Benedict is a bad Pope.

However, let me clarify it better. Some of the public statements and decisions he’s made over the short time as pontiff, have caused division more than unified the Church, and have burned bridges that Pope John Paul II, managed to build.

This is concerning to me and others.

Whether he becomes a great Pope or a bad Pope, won’t be known until after he’s gone and we can reflect on what he did.

Jim

 

[snhs]

If you were to read my post, I clearly state–for the second time–that I have no problem with complying with it and that I accept at face value its intention, which I do in fact find laudable. I clearly explained my issue with the directive, which has nothing to do with this.

And you clearly find labeling and insulting people so you can marginalize and write them off an acceptable subsitute for presenting facts. I guess that would allow me the prerogative to find you discourteous, unChristian, and insubstantial and write you off, though I’ll choose to still find value in whatever truth your words may hold.

I have been clear that I am not criticizing the Pope or the directive. My only concern is with the way it clearly is already being used as an “us against them” weapon. Creating more division is never a good thing, especially between brothers and sisters who need to be working together to bring God to a world that desperately needs Him.

I’d personally like us all to be on the same team, but it’s very clear that far too many want separate teams, and I find that very sad.

You said “I see this “Yahweh” directive at the very least having the effect of driving a wedge by trying to reemphasize the transcendent side of God at the expense of the personal side of God, reducing the balance that Vatican II worked hard to establish.”. You’ve said you’ll comply with it, which is fine. But your ‘issue’ with it, as stated is that you see it as “driving a wedge” by altering in a very trivial way the balance between the transcendent and the personal side of God. You then tell us that “The fact is that we have “true God and true Man”, fully God and fully human. We cannot separate the two and any attempt to is heresy according to the Church.”. Now its seems ‘driving a wedge’, or indeed altering the balance by that wedge, between the two would have the effect of separating them, and as any attempt to do that is heresy your implications as you see it, unintentional or not, is apparent. Unless of course you wish to retract one or both parts of it.

Presenting facts, interesting. How about we see some of the ‘facts’ which justify your earlier comments on VII, and how this decision works into that. Every time you or Jim, have been asked to back up your comments with the documents of VII you’ve failed to produce them. You put forth your argument as if it has already been proven when in fact you have yet to produce even the vaguest trace of truth.

Yes, although you only seem to read the ones you want to. For example, “I’ll not waste my time even reading beyond this point”. Not that we’d want to waste your time, obviously, but trying to disguise your inability/unwillingness to attempt an answer behind such a flimsy cover is a very poor defence. It is rather a common tactic when a position is weak, where someone only answers the least substantive parts of any argument.

Sometimes division is a needful product of doing what is right. I’m inclined to believe there is a balance somewhere between following the Catechism as it was at the turn of the century and the problems brought about in the name of the ‘Spirit of VII’. I want to return to what the documents of VII actually wanted. Following them faithfully is something we should seek to do and that means not doing what an anomalous ‘spirit’ of a Council wants.

And no doubt people felt the same way when the ‘Spirit of VII’ took its toll. There must be a correction to the excesses done in its name, that cannot be accomplished by remaining static.

The Church should be the Church, and it should be allowed to remain as such. To allow it to be overly influenced by any ‘Spirit’ other than the Holy Spirit is to be in error. If the will expressed at VII were truly followed then very few people would have had a problem with it, either then or now. But it wasn’t because it was taken to an extent which the majority of those present at the Council never wanted. Yet every time Pope Benedict introduces a change which attempts to redress this balance, to restore the liturgy, the practices of the Church and the inheritance which was concealed in the wake of its ‘spirit’ we have protests about it which accuse him of undoing the Council, going against its will, or fomenting divisions.

The Pope was chosen in a Papal Conclave, at which the will of the Holy Spirit was manifest through the votes of the Cardinal Electors. He was present at VII and was one of its theologians. If you truly want to see the will of VII he knows what it is and to have everyone on the ‘same team’ we need only trust him to do what is right, whether we agree with it or not, and not raise an uproar every time he takes a decision which the proponents of the ‘Spirit of VII’ might not like and which those of a more conservative persuasion might see as a good decision.

 

[ncjohn]

---

It seems this thread was discussing the directive and its implementation–that is until “the division” came in as to how it would undo “someones idea” of what the Council had “intended”.

Ahhh, now I understand.

We will accept any opinion in agreement that this is the greatest thing since Trent–including that of people who don’t even accept the authority of the Pope but like this particular statement–but anyone who who has a concern that there might be unintended consequences is not welcome.

And your statement is especially ironic coming from someone who has not contributed a single sentence to “discussing the directive and its implementation” but has instead confined posts to taking shots at individuals.

Sorry for having believed this to be a discussion forum.

Bye all…

 

[Walking_Home]

Ahhh, now I understand.

We will accept any opinion in agreement that this is the greatest thing since Trent–including that of people who don’t even accept the authority of the Pope but like this particular statement–but anyone who who has a concern that there might be unintended consequences is not welcome.

And your statement is especially ironic coming from someone who has not contributed a single sentence to “discussing the directive and its implementation” but has instead confined posts to taking shots at individuals.

Sorry for having believed this to be a discussion forum.

Bye all…

---

It comes down to if the concerns are based on someones self based notion of what the Council intended. It may be better overall to leave it to the one who was actually there.

 

[Brendan]

---

It comes down to if the concerns are based on someones self based notion of what the Council intended. It may be better overall to leave it to the one who was actually there.

Exactly,

The reminder of the Church’s prohibition on the liturgy came in Pope John Paul II’s Liturgiucam Authenticam.

40.c) 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.

Pope Benedict is merely restating what +John Paul has said, that within the context of the Liturgy, YHWH is to be rendered as Dominus or 'Lord".

Since they were both there and actively involved in the Council, I think it might be better to leave to them to enact what the Council actually wanted and meant.

 

[Walking_Home]

snhs;

Taken out of context. I said this in reference to the history of the Church, where we did in fact have bad popes.

The reasons behind Vatican II, are what? They certainly weren’t to divide the church.

A council over a bad pope, yes.

I have not said Pope Benedict is a bad Pope.

However, let me clarify it better. Some of the public statements and decisions he’s made over the short time as pontiff, have caused division more than unified the Church, and have burned bridges that Pope John Paul II, managed to build.

This is concerning to me and others.

Whether he becomes a great Pope or a bad Pope, won’t be known until after he’s gone and we can reflect on what he did.

Jim

---

Gee --talk about “causing division”. Now you are pitting our current Pope against our late Pope.

 

[pnewton]

. How about we just do the decent think and let the song die the death? No point in prolonging the inevitable after all.

The fact remains that this is many people’s favorite song. In fact, I mentioned that crazy substitution partly to test how much of the opnions here are theological and how much musical opinion is being stated. I do have a real solution. “Father, I know you are near”, would still allow for a sense of intimacy and has the same number of syllables.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
It comes down to if the concerns are based on someones self based notion of what the Council intended. It may be better overall to leave it to the one who was actually there.
Exactly,

The reminder of the Church’s prohibition on the liturgy came in Pope John Paul II’s Liturgiucam Authenticam.

Quote:
40.c) 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.

Pope Benedict is merely restating what +John Paul has said, that within the context of the Liturgy, YHWH is to be rendered as Dominus or 'Lord".

Since they were both there and actively involved in the Council, I think it might be better to leave to them to enact what the Council actually wanted and meant.

---

Thank you Brendan – for posting the above information. It is of benefit to anyone who reads this thread.

 

[snhs]

snhs;
Taken out of context. I said this in reference to the history of the Church, where we did in fact have bad popes.

The reasons behind Vatican II, are what? They certainly weren’t to divide the church.

A council over a bad pope, yes.

I have not said Pope Benedict is a bad Pope.

However, let me clarify it better. Some of the public statements and decisions he’s made over the short time as pontiff, have caused division more than unified the Church, and have burned bridges that Pope John Paul II, managed to build.

This is concerning to me and others.

Whether he becomes a great Pope or a bad Pope, won’t be known until after he’s gone and we can reflect on what he did.

Fine, lets look at it in context then. We were having a discussion in which VII was the only Council which was prominently mentioned, you then said

"Well I believe it was the Holy Spirit who guided the Cardinals to elect Pope John XXIII and it is the Holy Spirit who inspired him to call the Vatican II council.

I’m more inclined to believe the guidance of the Holy Spirit coming out of a council, than an individual Pope, who could possibly be a lunatic who would undue what the council founded."

Now we go from calling VII to hearing about how you’ll take a Council over a Pope, “who could possibly be a lunatic”. You don’t in fact mention the history of the Church until the opening of the next paragraph when you said “Through the history of the Church…”. It seems to me that your comments, although you may have intended to make them in a historical context, were in fact made in the context of the post-VII Church, and when you said in your concluding paragraph

"Today the** fires of hell** are threatening the church more than ever.

Is Pope Benedict truly protecting the Church, or fueling the flames?

I pray its the former, but directives like this one, are concerning." (Bold added)

The implication seems fairly clear. We have “the fires of Hell”, you’re uncertain whether Pope Benedict is “truly protecting the Church, or fueling the flames”, and finding his actions in issuing such directives ‘concerning’. Perhaps when you may want to stop digging now.

You endorsed ncjohn’s post, I had presumed you might have read it before doing so although perhaps I was mistaken. The point in question, from ncjohn’s earlier post is “I see it (the directive) driving yet another artificial wedge and emphasizing a certain side of God to the exclusion of the other, a key reason behind what Vatican II brought in.” You’re not trying to imply that the reason this document was issued was to divide the Church now are you?

You didn’t say a bad Pope, did you? You said a Pope who “could, possibly be a lunatic”.

Not said perhaps, although “could possibly” sounds like an implication to my ears.

You’ll have to forgive me for not sympathising too much. I just wasn’t aware that having songs with the name “Yaweh” included being sung in Church was such an important ‘bridge’. Bridge to quite what I don’t know, but… I’m far more concerned with following VII and the Church than VII’s ‘Spirit’, and I think most Catholics probably think the same way. I don’t suppose the fact its better for Ecumenical relations not to use the name comes into the equation?

I just hope it is a very long time before you find that knowledge.

 

[pnewton]

I think the letter is best taken at face value instead of reading motives into it. It is a return to a traditional way of translating the name of God for liturgical use. By “tradition” I mean our Catholic tradition, some of which we adapted from our Jewish forebearers. I still think we need to be wary of Judaizers.

This is still assuming that this letter is still legitimate. The blogger that posted this from an anonymous source said it will be up on the USCCB website this week. Well, look for yourself.

I think we need a Catholic Snopes.

 

[snhs]

The fact remains that this is many people’s favorite song. In fact, I mentioned that crazy substitution partly to test how much of the opnions here are theological and how much musical opinion is being stated. I do have a real solution. “Father, I know you are near”, would still allow for a sense of intimacy and has the same number of syllables.

Who are these people and why have they only heard one song? .

The document didn’t ban the hymns, hence with different lyrics they remain valid (no matter how fortunate/unfortunate we may view that to be). It does mean that there are hundreds of Parishes stuck with hymn books which have a wording which is inappropriate for singing at Mass, as a result prudence indicates the hymn should not be used until a source has been found for new lyrics/hymn sheets or an alternative. I doubt many of them like the hymns enough to buy a whole new set of hymn books/immediately find a new source, so for now its probably out of the repertoire for most. By the time new hymnbooks are acquired my guess is they’ll have found new (or hopefully, old) favourites to sing at Mass instead.

 

[Brendan]

I
This is still assuming that this letter is still legitimate. The blogger that posted this from an anonymous source said it will be up on the USCCB website this week. Well, look for yourself.

I think we need a Catholic Snopes.

Catholic News Services reported on it, including interviews with the USCCB.

See post #106 in this thread.

There was also an article on it in my Diocesan newspaper this week ( Michigan Catholic)

It’s real.

 

[Brendan]

. I do have a real solution. “Father, I know you are near”, would still allow for a sense of intimacy and has the same number of syllables.

In the Catholic News Service article, they interviewed a spokesperson for OCP.

They are contacting the composers of the affected music and asking for a change.

It won’t be reflected in the upcoming OCP Hymnal, as it has already gone to press, but it will be in subsequent versions.

 

[totustuus2345]

Blessed be God!

About time, th Tetragrammaton is the most sacred name of God, we should hold it in deepest regards, and not utter it.

XC
Patrick

 

[JimR-OCDS]

As Dominican theologian Melchior Cano observed at the Council of Trent when an overreaction to Protestantism was forming the basis for neo-Catholicism:

"Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the
Holy See–they destroy insteand of strenghthening its
foundations

I read this in “Witness To Hope,” by George Weigle.

Its so fitting for this forum.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

---

Gee --talk about “causing division”. Now you are pitting our current Pope against our late Pope.

Once again, your words not mine.

I’m not pitting them against each other.

However, when they were both Cardinals, they didn’t agree on many things.

In fact I thing it was George Weigle who wrote that, Cardinal Ratzinger was amazed when Pope John Paul II asked him to take over the Congregation of Faith.

But that’s the way John Paul II operated. He wanted smart people around him, who thought differently than himself, and who would force him to check his own thoughts.

Jim

 

[tee_eff_em]

[Having (finally) caught up on the thread]

[Apologies if this particular question has been addressed –

I've not read the entire thread

]

Wow. Obviously.

Me too.

I wonder where this text comes from (My books do not say)? It is neither the Clementine Vulgate:
*Dominus quasi vir pugnator,

Omnipotens

nomen ejus*
nor the Nova Vulgata:
*Dominus quasi vir pugnator;

Dominus

nomen eius!*


tee

tee

 

[pnewton]

Who are these people and why have they only heard one song? .

Strange though it may seem, many people love it. When one has difficult times, it is comforting to be reminded of the eternal presence of God near us. Not everyone is touched by Gregorian chant.

 

[pnewton]

Blessed be God!

About time, th Tetragrammaton is the most sacred name of God, we should hold it in deepest regards, and not utter it.

This letter only applies to liturgical translation. I quoted earlier the CCC and when it is approproate.

 

[drforjc]

Strange though it may seem, many people love it. When one has difficult times, it is comforting to be reminded of the eternal presence of God near us. Not everyone is touched by Gregorian chant.

“Being touched,” of course, is not why the Church asks that chant be given pride of place in the liturgy.