No more "Yaweh"

[Phemie]

Unfortunately, in my opinion, “You Are Near” and “I Lift Up My Soul” are readily fixed by using ’ O, Lord’. Even worse is “Sing a New Song” will probably use ‘The Lord’s’ people, which just doesn’t sound right. (try it… The Lord’s people dance for joy…, seems clunky).

CBW III rejected use of the Y word out of respect for our Jewish roots. Not having my copy at hand I can’t recall specifically how they dealt with it.

BTW, “All God’s people dance for joy” works better than “The Lord’s people”

 

[drforjc]

Pope Benedict makes the same observation in his book “Jesus of Nazareth,” (page 143 in the Doubleday edition), concerning Bible translations that translate YHWH as “Yahweh.”

 

[Corki]

Pope Benedict makes the same observation in his book “Jesus of Nazareth,” (page 143 in the Doubleday edition), concerning Bible translations that translate YHWH as “Yahweh.”

I agree.

And I propose:

“Abba, I Know You are Near” (not that I get a vote)

“To You Yahweh, I Lift up my Soul, O my God” is more problematic. I can’t figure out a way that doesn’t sound redundant.

I wish they would use Adonai (sp?) more.

 

[b_justb]

Hi all

Since this mostly effects music in the Liturgy, do you all think this is just another step to bring conformity to the music in the Mass?

 

[Michael96]

Hi all

Since this mostly effects music in the Liturgy, do you all think this is just another step to bring conformity to the music in the Mass?

I think that must be part of it. And that is not necessarily a bad thing, though I would prefer for that to be addressed in the whole rather than in small parts like this (which I doubt will trickle down anyway).

However, I think it’s incredibly hard to bring conformity to music unless very strict bounds are set which goes against the Catholic tradition (small t) of allowing local cultures to influence the music in masses (and would have meant we’d have missed out on some of the great religious music from the great composers, and we wouldn’t have had any of the great Victorian organ-based hymns, and dependending on when the music is set we may have missed even Gregorian chant!).

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Hi all

Since this mostly effects music in the Liturgy, do you all think this is just another step to bring conformity to the music in the Mass?

I wouldn’t attempt to guess what agenda if any, they might be trying to interject.

Jim

 

[nightwalker]

I wouldn’t attempt to guess what agenda if any, they might be trying to interject.

Jim

I agree, we shouldn’t guess we should read the document (pdf)

 

[James0235]

Now, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments just needs to ban songs where we “sing a new Church into being”, songs that are sung to the tune of the Brady Bunch theme song, and songs that rhyme with “Let’s sing a ditty to God” and we should start seeing some major improvement in the music used at Mass all throughout the English-speaking world.

James

 

[Brendan]

I agree, we shouldn’t guess we should read the document (pdf)

Exactly.

There is no need to subscribe an ‘agenda’. Rather, read the document and do what it says.

No more, no less

 

[snhs]

I think that must be part of it. And that is not necessarily a bad thing, though I would prefer for that to be addressed in the whole rather than in small parts like this (which I doubt will trickle down anyway).

However, I think it’s incredibly hard to bring conformity to music unless very strict bounds are set which goes against the Catholic tradition (small t) of allowing local cultures to influence the music in masses (and would have meant we’d have missed out on some of the great religious music from the great composers, and we wouldn’t have had any of the great Victorian organ-based hymns, and dependending on when the music is set we may have missed even Gregorian chant!).

Well it certainly won’t ‘trickle down’ if people take the view that “it’s not something I will loose any sleep over if the priest wants to carry on using it”, as you do. We are meant to follow what the Church wants not what a single Priest or Priests might desire, and for us to not bother ourselves if a Priest falls into opposition of the Church’s guidelines is a failure on our part as much as the Priest’s.

Gregorian Chant conformed to strict guidelines and was used and composed throughout almost all of the Western Church. Polyphonic compositions similarly conformed to strict guidelines, indeed the Church had certain devices which were considered especially suitable for music in the Church (plagal cadences, suspensions etc.). Piano and many musical devices used in the popular music of the day were explicitly banned from use in the Mass under Pope Pius X. The Church’s tradition of allowing inculturation is fine in cases where it is legitimate and supported by the rules set by the Church, that doesn’t mean we should not have strict and enforceable rules which govern what is suitable for use in the Mass. Indeed if anything our guidelines should be all the stricter in order to allow this inculturation to continue and to ensure we don’t lose the way completely in the process. Organs were allowed to accompany singing by the time of Palestrina during the Mass, how would Victorian organ accompaniment have been affected by having guidelines in place? And perhaps you can give us a few examples of the ‘great composers’ we’d be missing out on by having boundaries of what is or isn’t acceptable music for the Mass, or for that matter by following more faithfully the boundaries which we already have? I really can’t think of any composers today who I would consider ‘great’ either in the secular or religious spheres, certainly not in the order of the Prince of Music.

 

[Michael96]

Hi snhs

I’m interested when you say that Gregorian chant conformed to strict guidelines. What were the guidelines in place before Gregorian chant was first composed? Can you point me to a historial document?

On the great composers. If the strict guidelines of plainchant were followed (as they were in the Orthodox Church) we’d have none of the great masses (Mozart, Verdi, Beethoven, etc.). Only time will tell whether any of today’s composers will be considered great, but I think Tavener, Gorecki, Einhorn and Part all have a chance. And I think there is a good chance that the beautiful polyphony of Taize chant will be considered as great as plainchant (and I do love plainchant).

As for trickle down - I think we need to remember that the document written was for the attention of the Bishop’s conferences and not for us lay people. I have no idea on how much autonomy Bishops conferences are allowed to assert in these matters, so I do think it’s important that these things are handled in the way the Vatican intends - which in this case is through the Bishops.

 

[Brendan]

Hi snhs

I’m interested when you say that Gregorian chant conformed to strict guidelines. What were the guidelines in place before Gregorian chant was first composed? Can you point me to a historial document?.

Gregorian chant is a derivative of the Jewish chant used to chant the Psalms in Biblical times.

It is, in effect, the way Christ and the Apostles sang the Liturgy.

st-thomascamas.org/moretreasures/sacredmusic.htm

Now, just a little footnote on the Gregorian Chant. In reflecting on these things about Church music, I began to think about the Psalms a few years back. And a very obvious idea suddenly struck me. Why it didn’t come earlier I don’t know, but the fact is that the Psalms are songs. Every one of the 150 Psalms is meant to be sung; and was sung by the Jews. When this thought came to me, I immediately called a friend, a rabbi in San Francisco who runs the Hebrew School, and I asked “Do you sing the Psalms at your synagogue?” “Well, no, we recite them,” he said. “Do you know what they sounded like when they were sung in the Old Testament times and the time of Jesus and the Apostles?” I asked. He said, “No, but why don’t you call this company in Upstate New York. They publish Hebrew music, and they may know.”

So, I called the company and they said, “We don’t know; call 1-800-JUDAISM.” So I did. And I got an information center for Jewish traditions, and they didn’t know either. But they said, “You call this music teacher in Manhattan. He will know.” So, I called this wonderful rabbi in Manhattan and we had a long conversation.

At the end, I said, “I want to bring some focus to this, can you give me any idea what it sounded like when Jesus and his Apostles sang the Psalms?” He said, “Of course, Father. It sounded like Gregorian Chant. You got it from us.”
I was amazed.

I called Professor William Mahrt, a Professor of Music at Stanford University and a friend. I said, “Bill, is this true?” He said, “Yes. The Psalm tones have their roots in ancient Jewish hymnody and psalmody.” So, you know something? If you sing the Psalms at Mass with the Gregorian tones, you are as close as you can get to praying with Jesus and Mary. They sang the Psalms in tones that have come down to us today in Gregorian Chant.

So the ‘strict guidelines’ were taking the what the Church had recieved from Christ and the Apostles, and keeping and maintaing what was given and how it was given to us.

 

[VAC]

From the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments come new rules prohibiting the use of terms such as “Yaweh” in liturgical celebrations, prayers and songs.

So is Yaweh to be taken out of the Old testament readings as well?

 

[VociMike]

So is Yaweh to be taken out of the Old testament readings as well?

You’d have to ask the Vatican. Can you point to some OT readings in the Lectionary that would be problematic?

 

[japhy]

You’d have to ask the Vatican. Can you point to some OT readings in the Lectionary that would be problematic?

Genesis 22:14 says the mountain is named Yahweh-yireh, and then follows that with a translation of sorts: “On the mountain, the LORD will see (to it)”. It sounds a bit odd to say “The Lord-yireh”; perhaps “Adonai-yireh” instead?

 

[nightwalker]

So is Yaweh to be taken out of the Old testament readings as well?

It would seem so, but I am sure that there will be some clarification in the notitiae soon enough.

Are there plans to re-translate the Lectionary and Breviary? If so this will be one of the guiding principles for those translations.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

[Edited]

The logic for this prohibition is silly. In Jewish tradition, the name of God was never pronounced.

Well guess what, the Jews never called God Father either. Should we stop praying the Our Father?

Yahweh has been used for as long as I remember in the past 57 years. We’re all of a sudden suppose to drop the word?

I love the song by the monks of the Weston Priory, “Yahweh.”

If the USCCB tell us to stop, of course I will be obedient, but my guess is that Arinze is going to receive some flack on this, and it will never come to pass.

Jim

 

[James0235]

Yahweh has been used for as long as I remember in the past 57 years. We’re all of a sudden suppose to drop the word?

Is Yahweh really used very often in the Liturgy?

Other than the one song - Yahweh I know you are near - (which, personally I won’t miss much) I can’t recall hearing it used.

I don’t believe the NAB really uses it (with a few exceptions such as the one Japhy pointed out) so it does not come up in the Readings (at least in the U.S.)

James

 

[VociMike]

Hopefully Cardinal Arinze will be gone before this takes effect.

And Benedict too, I suppose, since the directive is stated as “by directive of the Holy Father”.

 

[nightwalker]

The logic for this prohibition is silly. In Jewish tradition, the name of God was never pronounced.

And this continued in the Early Church. The tetragammaton abbreviates the name of God that cannot be said without claiming to be God. To use the name “I AM WHO AM” borders on blasphemy, hence it should not be used.

And, as was noted, this is published at the Holy Father’s wish, a joint document between the CDW&DS (bearing not only Cardinal Arinze’s name, but Archbishop Ranjith’s as well) and the CDF (which would add Levada to the prelates you wish to see gone.)

Furthermore, as this was published in June and distributed to the bishops, it seems that it is meant to take more or less immediate effect.