No more "Yaweh"

[japhy]

[Edited] Arinze is not the CDWDS, he’s the prefect. The document was promulgated “by directive of the Holy Father” and “in accord with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”. It’s not a “motu proprio” (as it were) of Cardinal Arinze; it’s an instruction from the teaching authority of the Church.

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?

Your logic is “silly”.

First of all, a couple of the psalms do refer to God as “Father”: “Father of the fatherless and protector of widows is God in his holy habitation.” (Ps. 68:5) and “He shall cry to me, `Thou art my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.’” (Ps. 89:26)

Second, several other books of the Old Testament testify to this occasional practice as well:

• “Make his greatness known there, and exalt him in the presence of all the living; because he is our Lord and God, he is our Father for ever.” (Tobit 13:4)
• “it is thy providence, O Father, that steers its course, because thou hast given it a path in the sea, and a safe way through the waves” (Wisdom 14:3)
• “O Lord, Father and Ruler of my life, do not abandon me to their counsel, and let me not fall because of them! … O Lord, Father and God of my life, do not give me haughty eyes” (Sirach 23:1-4)
• “I appealed to the Lord, the Father of my lord, not to forsake me in the days of affliction, at the time when there is no help against the proud.” (Sirach 51:10)
• “For thou art our Father, though Abraham does not know us and Israel does not acknowledge us; thou, O LORD, art our Father, our Redeemer from of old is thy name.” (Isaiah 63:16)
• “Yet, O LORD, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou art our potter; we are all the work of thy hand.” (Isaiah 64:8)
• “I thought you would call me, My Father, and would not turn from following me.” (Jeremiah 3:19).

It seems to, in general, after my cursory check, that Israel saw God as “Father” insofar as it was a “title”, rather than the intimate relationship God desired with Israel (cf. Jeremiah 3:19)

Third, Jesus taught his disciples (Jews!) to call God Abba Father (albeit in a new and more intimate way). Thus, we have precedence – and a divine directive – to call God “Father” and pray the “Our Father”. Jesus did not introduce the speaking of the Name Yahweh by his followers, although it does appear he spoke the Name himself (esp. as recorded in John’s gospel).

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 can imagine a man saying in the 1960’s: “Latin has been used for as long as I remember in the past 57 years. We’re all of the sudden supposed to drop the language?”) The regulation is simply in liturgical singing. You can use Yahweh outside a liturgical context to your heart’s content!

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.

From whom will Arinze receive flack, why will it matter, and what effect will it have? Why will this “never come to pass”? Are people just that blatantly disobedient to the Church nowadays?

And it looks to me as the Bishop Serratelli, chairman for the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship, is accepting this instruction and expecting the other bishops to follow suit. Such directives from the CDWDS aren’t things that individual bishops (or conferences) vote to accept or decline!

PLEASE don’t let this or any other Liturgy & Sacraments thread get locked or deleted!

 

[benedictgal]

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

The person who made that comment is most uncharitable in his remarks concerning both Cardinal Arinze and Pope Benedict. It is a shame that such things had to be said and serve only to denigrate what the Church has already ruled upon. It is clearly dissention at its worst.

 

[snhs]

[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.

Our Lord taught us to call God Our Father, he did not teach us to call him Yaweh. The very fact you call this prohibition ‘silly’ shows that you have either not read the document or not taken the time to think about and try to understand it.

We used the TLM for several hundred years and after VII many Parishes dropped it more or less immediately. Similarly we had worshiped with the Priest facing ad orientem for centuries and changed that to have him facing ad populum. Compared to that kind of change one word and 57 years or so doesn’t seem like that much to me. Its amazing how some people think that traditions only 50-60 years old are in some way more worthy of preservation than traditions which Our Lord followed and the Early Christians would have observed.

I think Cardinal Arinze has the Pope’s backing, if you’d read the document you’ll see that His Holiness had some involvement in the decision. Cardinal Arinze is nearing retirement already, I think, but that doesn’t change the fact that it has been issued and as a result should be followed to do otherwise is to be disobedient. I just hope whoever Pope Benedict eventually chooses as his successor is as effective as Cardinal Arinze has been.

 

[Michael96]

If the USCCB tell us to stop, of course I will be obedient

Jim

I agree Jim (except I’m waiting for the Bishops of England and Wales). It’s important that due process is followed and that the bishops are allowed to assert their apostolic authority. I don’t like the idea of people skipping their local bishops, especially when a letter has been sent to them rather than us.

 

[VociMike]

On another reading the question of what to do do regarding scriptures that write YHWH, the answer seems clear in the letter.

1. The venerable biblical tradition of Sacred Scripture, know as the Old Testament, displays a series of divine appellations, among which is the sacred name of God revealed in the tetragrammaton YHWH. As an expression of the infinite greatness and majesty of God, it was held to be unpronounceable and hence was replaced during the reading of Sacred Scripture by means of the use of an alternate name: “Adonai,” which means “Lord.”

So it seems that we are to follow this example and replace YHWH with “Lord”.

 

[benedictgal]

I agree Jim (except I’m waiting got the Bishops of England and Wales). It’s important that due process is followed and that the bishops are allowed to assert their apostolic authority. I don’t like the idea of people skipping their local bishops, especially when a letter has been sent to them rather than us.

However, the CDWDS is already giving us the word, and the word is stop. The CDWDS acts in the name of the Holy Father, so, in effect, Peter has spoken. Why argue the point?

 

[VociMike]

I agree Jim (except I’m waiting got the Bishops of England and Wales). It’s important that due process is followed and that the bishops are allowed to assert their apostolic authority. I don’t like the idea of people skipping their local bishops, especially when a letter has been sent to them rather than us.

And what will you do if, hypothetically, your bishops never convey this information to the parishes? Or is that simply not a possible outcome in your view?

Hmm, I wonder if Damian Thompson will be blogging this…

 

[jmcrae]

“No more ‘Yahweh’”

Good. I’ve always thought it was a ridiculous term to use, since it has never existed in any of the original biblical languages, and it certainly isn’t English.

 

[VociMike]

“No more ‘Yahweh’”

Good. I’ve always thought it was a ridiculous term to use, since it has never existed in any of the original biblical languages, and it certainly isn’t English.

I always thought it was a combination of “Let’s be different for the sake of being different, and let’s be ‘Early Church’ too.”

 

[Michael96]

Benedictgal, VociMike

At the end of the day I trust in my bishop. And that is the tradition of the Church. In the new internet age we can all see all sorts coming out of Rome that previously we wouldn’t have seen (as it was debated, discussed and shaped), but the Church has not worked on internet promulgation for more than 2000 of its 2008 years.

I don’t think the internet is doing the Apostolic tradition (and I mean the deep tradition that is common to Catholic and Orthodox Churches) any favours.

Michael

 

[snhs]

Benedictgal, VociMike

At the end of the day I trust in my bishop. And that is the tradition of the Church. In the new internet age we can all see all sorts coming out of Rome that previously we wouldn’t have seen (as it was debated, discussed and shaped), but the Church has not worked on internet promulgation for more than 2000 of its 2008 years.

I don’t think the internet is doing the Apostolic tradition (and I mean the deep tradition that is common to Catholic and Orthodox Churches) any favours.

Michael

Wonder how many people used that excuse when Henry had had enough of being under Catholic rules and decided to make up his own? After all many of the Bishops followed him didn’t they? But somehow or other in that far more primitive time some people realised that their Bishop was in the wrong and sought out Priests who remained true to the Faith and the Bishop of Rome. If the English Martyrs managed to follow the Roman Catholic Church under pain of death I think I can manage it when all they ask of me in this document is not to use the word Yaweh in Church. Perhaps you should be asking yourself a similar question.

 

[Michael96]

Perhaps you should be asking yourself a similar question.

I have asked myslef that question, and I am still much more comfortable with an Apostolic tradition rather than simply a Petrine tradition. I think there is a real danger of seeing bishops as simple “middle management” that are now unecessary now Rome can communicate directly via the internet.

That is not how I see my bishop; I see him as the sucessor of the apostles. I believe the Church needs the bishops as much as it needs the Pope. We should not be trying to undermine the bishops in favour of the Pope.

 

[Brendan]

I don’t think the internet is doing the Apostolic tradition (and I mean the deep tradition that is common to Catholic and Orthodox Churches) any favours.

Michael

Why not?

Why would greater exposer to not only what the Church teaches, but to the dictates of the appropriate dictates of the Holy Father be somehow less that a good thing?

Are the decrees of the Holy Father on the liturgy, the very “work of the people” not to be known to all?

Certainly, the Internet has been a vehicle for those who spread falsehoods about the Church, but surely you do not put this into the category of falsehood?

And if it is not falsehood, but rather the teachings promulgated by the Holy Father for the discipline of Christ’s Church, in what way do we not owe him obedience on the subject?

The same obedience that is called for was called for by the Holy Spirit speaking through the First Vatican Council

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

• Pastor Aeternus 3-2

If the Pope decrees it, I have to obey. That obediece does not depend on any other person, clergy or lay.

 

[VociMike]

Benedictgal, VociMike

At the end of the day I trust in my bishop. And that is the tradition of the Church. In the new internet age we can all see all sorts coming out of Rome that previously we wouldn’t have seen (as it was debated, discussed and shaped), but the Church has not worked on internet promulgation for more than 2000 of its 2008 years.

I don’t think the internet is doing the Apostolic tradition (and I mean the deep tradition that is common to Catholic and Orthodox Churches) any favours.

But now you have the knowledge, there’s no un-informing yourself. So why would you ever, from this day forward, go against that knowledge of what the Holy Father has decreed? Really, are there not enough other songs in the repertoire that you will still feeled compelled to include “Yaweh” songs?

 

[VociMike]

Why not?

Why would greater exposer to not only what the Church teaches, but to the dictates of the appropriate dictates of the Holy Father be somehow less that a good thing?

Are the decrees of the Holy Father on the liturgy, the very “work of the people” not to be known to all?

If we had had the Internet from 1960 I am convinced that the false “spirit of Vatican II” could never have wreaked its havoc upon the Church. But that’s another thread…

 

[Michael96]

But now you have the knowledge, there’s no un-informing yourself. So why would you ever, from this day forward, go against that knowledge of what the Holy Father has decreed? Really, are there not enough other songs in the repertoire that you will still feeled compelled to include “Yaweh” songs?

Well, my first post said I don’t really mind where it ends up. But this thread has helped me understand why there were twelve disciples with a leader rather than just the leader alone.

 

[VociMike]

Well, my first post said I don’t really mind where it ends up. But this thread has helped me understand why there were twelve disciples with a leader rather than just the leader alone.

Let me ask you, do you accept that the Holy Father has the authority to make this decision and to compel the bishops to abide by it?

 

[snhs]

I have asked myslef that question, and I am still much more comfortable with an Apostolic tradition rather than simply a Petrine tradition. I think there is a real danger of seeing bishops as simple “middle management” that are now unecessary now Rome can communicate directly via the internet.

That is not how I see my bishop; I see him as the sucessor of the apostles. I believe the Church needs the bishops as much as it needs the Pope. We should not be trying to undermine the bishops in favour of the Pope.

And the English Bishops prior to the Reformation were successors of the Apostles and some of those who have fallen into heresy in the past were successors of the Apostles. The fact that we have Bishops does not mean that we should simply blindly follow them rather than the Church of which we are members. It isn’t good enough to just say “the Bishop never told me, although obviously I knew exactly what I was doing disobeying the decision of the Church singing ‘Yaweh I know you are there’ every few months at Mass”. Many of the Apostles abandoned Our Lord when he was taken to be crucified, Peter even denied him, I don’t think that precedent somehow makes it a legitimate choice for us to do the same.

And as for Apostolic tradition, did you notice whose signature was at the bottom of the decree? Cardinal Arinze. Did you notice whose signature was at the bottom of the covering letter? The Chair of the USCCB. What is unapostolic is a couple of Bishops ignoring what has been decided by the Church and going off and making their own determinations. If we do that we get exactly the same kind of mess that the Anglicans have.

 

[Michael96]

Let me ask you, do you accept that the Holy Father has the authority to make this decision and to compel the bishops to abide by it?

Now that is a good meaty question!

I believe that the Holy Father has the authority to make the decision, but only after a discussion with the bishops. I believe in the Pope as being “first amongst equals”.

And here is where I’m happy to admit to falling between the (current) Catholic and Orthodox positions. I don’t like the current Orthodox position where all bishops are equal and all can go their own way. But I don’t like to see people dismiss the bishops in favour solely of the Pope. And that is why I think it’s actually very important that the Catholic Church tries to unify with the Orthodox Church as that gets us back to the common Church which respects the prinicple of the Pope being “first amongst equals”.

I think we may benefit from being humble enough to allow the Orthodox Church to help shape the way we unify the Church - and of course once we’ve solved that we can try to bring the Protestants back

 

[Brendan]

Now that is a good meaty question!

I believe that the Holy Father has the authority to make the decision, but only after a discussion with the bishops. I believe in the Pope as being “first amongst equals”.)

Michael,

Could you go a read the statement from Pastor Aeternus, the document from Vatican I that describes the role of the Holy Pontiff ( post 53)

That is a statement from an Eccumenical Council that was developed by the bishops, voted on by them, and ratified by the Hole See, all with the guidance of the Holy Sprit, who cannot commit the Church to error.

So we can agree that the statement represents Church teaching as seen by the bishops, the Pope and the Holy Spirit.

Given that, how do you reconcile your statement that the Pope’s authority to promulgate such a decree depends upon conferral with others?

Granted, it would be NICE if he did, but where exactly is the REQUIREMENT for him to do so?

Also, how do you know that the Pope did NOT make this without conferring with fellow bishops? Do you require proof that he did so before you will accept the authority of his promulgations?