No more "Yaweh"

[Contarini]

I haven’t read the reasoning behind it. My eyebrows went up a bit when I first read the OP…

\

I think the point is not so much an attack on gender-neutral language (one could after all just say “God” instead of pronouns), but rather that the pronunciation “Yahweh” is a scholarly reconstruction with absolutely no tradition behind it either in Christianity or Judaism (well, no tradition before the modern era!). Using “Yahweh” in worship would be like using the “classical” pronunciation in the Latin Mass: “Gloria in exkelsis Deo. . . In prinkipio erat Werbum, etc.” It would sound weird, because this is not the organic tradition of the Church but a modern extrapolation based on archeology. (And yes, poor kids are still taught that this is the Only Right Way to pronounce Latin!)

Of course the Divine Name is a much more serious issue.

Edwin

 

[JimR-OCDS]

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?

Actually, the CDWDS gave it to the Bishops, who must then digest the information and I’m sure if they disagree, have a process to go back to Rome with.

They don’t opperate under an absolute dictatorship.

Jim

 

[Michael96]

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?

Hi Brenden

I’m very happy to go through this in more detail but don’t want to dominate the thread with our off-topic discussion. Drop me a pm and let’s continue without disrupting this thread (I’m in the UK so will probably pick up the pm tomorrow).

God bless, look forward to discussing the general Cathol vs. Orthodox position on Apotsolic authority.

 

[Walking_Home]

Hi Brenden

I’m very happy to go through this in more detail but don’t want to dominate the thread with our off-topic discussion**. Drop me a pm and let’s continue without disrupting this thread (I’m in the UK so will probably pick up the pm tomorrow).**

God bless, look forward to discussing the general Cathol vs. Orthodox position on Apotsolic authority.

---

I (and probably others) would be interested in this discussion —why not take it to Apologetics instead.

 

[japhy]

(Sorry for being off-topic; I won’t continue this train of thought here. Please PM me about the tangent thread if it gets started.)

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”.

Ah, but what type of discussion? You didn’t say “agreement”.

Vatican II reasserted the traditional Catholic belief that “the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.” (Lumen Gentium, n. 22)

And here is where I’m happy to admit to falling between the (current) Catholic and Orthodox positions.

The Catholic Church can’t “develop” the doctrines surrounding the Petrine office to end up contradicting the Roman Pontiff’s primacy over all other bishops.

But I don’t like to see people dismiss the bishops in favour solely of the Pope.

“The parallel between Peter and the rest of the Apostles on the one hand, and between the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops on the other hand, does not imply the transmission of the Apostles’ extraordinary power to their successors; nor does it imply, as is obvious, equality between the head of the College and its members, but only a proportionality between the first relationship (Peter-Apostles) and the second (Pope-bishops).” (Lumen Gentium, preliminary note of explanation, n. 2)

“The College, which does not exist without the head, is said ‘to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church.’ This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question.” (Lumen Gentium, preliminary note of explanation, n. 3)

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’m afraid that’s simply not possible (if “first among equals” contradicts Vatican I and II). See my blog post here and a post in a different thread here.

 

[nightwalker]

---

I (and probably others) would be interested in this discussion —why not take it to Apologetics instead.

Please, let’s separate the two topics.

 

[allana]

wow, i now saw this thread, ‘No more Yaweh’???

does that mean i should throw away my ‘New Jersusalem Bible’ and get another, since it uses YAHWEH repeatedly in the Old Testament???

 

[Ghoti]

wow, i now saw this thread, ‘No more Yaweh’???

does that mean i should throw away my ‘New Jersusalem Bible’ and get another, since it uses YAHWEH repeatedly in the Old Testament???

No, I think just don’t read from it at Mass.

 

[japhy]

Actually, the CDWDS gave it to the Bishops, who must then digest the information and I’m sure if they disagree, have a process to go back to Rome with. They don’t opperate under an absolute dictatorship.

It’s not an absolute democracy either. The Pope does have authority over and above the bishops. And frankly, I’m more inclined to accept the legitimacy of the decisions coming out of the CDWDS (which was created for competency in liturgical matters) than the legitimacy of the disagreements and complaints of the USCCB. (That’s changing, I hope, with their recent change of guard, such as Bishop Serratelli.) Perpetual hemming and hawing between the USCCB and Rome is a sure-fire way to make sure nothing Rome says ever gets actually implemented here.

Also, you can’t please all the people all the time, but that doesn’t mean you’re not doing what’s best for them. The failure of some Bishops to accept Redemptionis Sacramentum at face value, for instance, is disillusioning.

 

[frommi]

That means that OCP is going to have a major cow since one of the SLJ songs won’t be able to be sung anymore.

It’s just a shame that bitterness shines through in posts about this kind of thing on the part of several posters.

When the songs were written, there was no directive such as this, so no directive was violated.

I’m certain that with just some minor edits these songs will still be around.

It’'s almost laughable the lengths to which people will go to stretch the meaning of a papal directive to mean that they have been proven ‘right’ about something.

I’ve never heard anything about the use of Yahweh spring up in these forums before…

But none of the logic that comes out of Texas surprises me.

 

[benedictgal]

It’s just a shame that bitterness shines through in posts about this kind of thing on the part of several posters.

When the songs were written, there was no directive such as this, so no directive was violated.

I’m certain that with just some minor edits these songs will still be around.

It’'s almost laughable the lengths to which people will go to stretch the meaning of a papal directive to mean that they have been proven ‘right’ about something.

I’ve never heard anything about the use of Yahweh spring up in these forums before…

But none of the logic that comes out of Texas surprises me.

Maybe because the composers were drunk on the Spirit of Vatican II and never paid attention to what the documents actually said, or, they were too busy copying the themes from the 1960s and 1970s shows and trying to pass them off as sacred music.

Maybe you never heard of this issue before because the Holy See just released the document last week.

 

[VociMike]

wow, i now saw this thread, ‘No more Yaweh’???

does that mean i should throw away my ‘New Jersusalem Bible’ and get another, since it uses YAHWEH repeatedly in the Old Testament???

The Instruction involves only liturgical celebrations and language.

 

[VociMike]

When the songs were written, there was no directive such as this, so no directive was violated.

Quite true.

I’m certain that with just some minor edits these songs will still be around.

I think that’s certainly the case.

It’'s almost laughable the lengths to which people will go to stretch the meaning of a papal directive to mean that they have been proven ‘right’ about something.

I didn’t pick up on that.

I’ve never heard anything about the use of Yahweh spring up in these forums before…

Me neither. I don’t think it’s a big deal for most people or parishes.

But none of the logic that comes out of Texas surprises me.

Growing up (in California) I always heard “Don’t Mess With Texas!”

 

[nightwalker]

It’s just a shame that bitterness shines through in posts about this kind of thing on the part of several posters.

When the songs were written, there was no directive such as this, so no directive was violated.

I’m certain that with just some minor edits these songs will still be around.

It’'s almost laughable the lengths to which people will go to stretch the meaning of a papal directive to mean that they have been proven ‘right’ about something.

I’ve never heard anything about the use of Yahweh spring up in these forums before…

But none of the logic that comes out of Texas surprises me.

Try some logic from NJ, then.

While the attempt to base new liturgical music on Scripture was laudable, the end result of these same songs, written in a style that did not endure, replacing virtually all other liturgical music for forty years is problematic to say the least.

When these songs were written they did not violate this norm, which was just issued based on Liturgicam Authenticam. Their widespread use in the Mass does violate the principles for sacred music set down before, during, and after Vatican II. (As certain Texans have shown countless times in the past).

In addition many Catholics find that this music is somehow lacking in artistry, at least at its usual level of expression. (Hence we have books published like “Why Catholics Can’t Sing” and a flight of young people to mega-churches “for the music”).

So can you blame those of us who are happy that, for a brief period we might not hear some of these songs? (and I already pointed out some obvious work-arounds that will inevitably be in the next OCP/GIA publications).

In the interest of full disclosure I am opposed to the use of most of the popular hymns these days, based on artistic merit more than anything else (although there are serious textual issues with a few songs). I am also opposed to P&W music on principle, however I do realize that it can be a step forward (although the content of the text at times suffers). Ideally, in my mind, we will come to a new mode of polyphony/ chant based on the Mass parts and Gregorian chant. I know, however, that this is not going to be an overnight process, but a drawn out process as time sorts out what is worth preserving.

 

[benedictgal]

Actually, the CDWDS gave it to the Bishops, who must then digest the information and I’m sure if they disagree, have a process to go back to Rome with.

They don’t opperate under an absolute dictatorship.

Jim

That’s what King Henry VIII said as he broke away from Rome. Sorry, Jim, but that line of reasoning doesn’t jibe. Rome already said no. What’s there to digest?

 

[VociMike]

That’s what King Henry VIII said as he broke away from Rome. Sorry, Jim, but that line of reasoning doesn’t jibe. Rome already said no. What’s there to digest?

And really, what bishops conferences are going to disagree? I mean, do they really have so much invested in this issue that they’re willing to fight over it? I strongly doubt it.

 

[frommi]

Maybe because the composers were drunk on the Spirit of Vatican II and never paid attention to what the documents actually said, or, they were too busy copying the themes from the 1960s and 1970s shows and trying to pass them off as sacred music.

Maybe you never heard of this issue before because the Holy See just released the document last week.

I simply find it interesting that you seem to have a electronic smile from ear to ear because music you don’t like won’t be used anymore.

Never mind the fact that it’s a word that has to change, last I checked there has been no ban on syncopation.

 

[snhs]

It’s just a shame that bitterness shines through in posts about this kind of thing on the part of several posters.

When the songs were written, there was no directive such as this, so no directive was violated.

I’m certain that with just some minor edits these songs will still be around.

It’'s almost laughable the lengths to which people will go to stretch the meaning of a papal directive to mean that they have been proven ‘right’ about something.

I’ve never heard anything about the use of Yahweh spring up in these forums before…

But none of the logic that comes out of Texas surprises me.

With some minor edits maybe. But in the short term most Parishes, however devoted they may be to the ‘Yaweh songs’, are probably not going to rush out and buy a whole set of new hymn books with the slightly altered words. As a result of that if they remain true to what the Vatican has said on the matter the hymns should not appear at most Parishes for a while at least.

Indeed, no explicit directive was violated, at least by including the word in hymns. From the document though we can deduce that Pope Benedict still supports his idea that “one song is not as good as another as far as the liturgy is concerned”. In this case the use of this word in such a context made it, as has now been officially decided, unsuitable for use during the Mass. And I don’t see anything wrong with people who have put forward a point for a considerable period, namely that there were problems with some of the hymns in the OCP hymnal, feeling a sense of vindication at this decision.

Interestingly enough it came up back in 2005 here.

Without making any comment on logic coming from anywhere within the US, I have no qualms whatsoever in accepting the logic which underlies the ruling of the Vatican in this matter. I do however take exception to the ‘logic’ some seem to be using to try to avoid obeying it, perhaps more of an emphasis on the Church not being a cafeteria is required.

 

[John_Lilburne]

…It’'s almost laughable the lengths to which people will go to stretch the meaning of a papal directive to mean that they have been proven ‘right’ about something.

I’ve never heard anything about the use of Yahweh spring up in these forums before… .

I think it has been discussed a few times. A post I found was November 2007 at forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=199411 . As I said then, I thought it was surprising that “Yahweh” was banned in readings, but not in hymns.

The Compendium of the Catechism does not include “Yahweh”, only “YHWH”. I think the only place in the Catechism where “Yahweh” is to be found in the Glossary. There it is three times, in the entries for Lord, Moses and Yahweh.

The prefatory note to the Glossary has: “While the Glossary is faithful to the language of the Catechism, it does not participate in the approval of the text of the Catechism given in the Apostolic Constitution Fidei depositum of Pope John Paul II.” The approved part has “YHWH” in 206, 209, 210, 446 and 2666.

 

[Corki]

I think it has been discussed a few times. A post I found was November 2007 at forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=199411 . As I said then, I thought it was surprising that “Yahweh” was banned in readings, but not in hymns.

The Compendium of the Catechism does not include “Yahweh”, only “YHWH”. I think the only place in the Catechism where “Yahweh” is to be found in the Glossary. There it is three times, in the entries for Lord, Moses and Yahweh.

The prefatory note to the Glossary has: “While the Glossary is faithful to the language of the Catechism, it does not participate in the approval of the text of the Catechism given in the Apostolic Constitution Fidei depositum of Pope John Paul II.” The approved part has “YHWH” in 206, 209, 210, 446 and 2666.

Thanks John,

That is very helpful and informative. We have those songs based on psalms and I always assumed that Yahweh was in the Psalm. I was pleasantly surprized this afternoon to find that that is not the case. Personally, I wish that the songs based on the Psalms were uniformly closer to the original wording since the Psalms are themselves songs. (try saying that three times fast )