No more "Yaweh"

[gelsbern]

I’ve got a question.

I pray the Liturgy of the Hours in Latin regularly, and for Saturday of Week 1, the canticle from Exodus 15 presently reads, in the *editio typica altera *edition:

Does this instruction mean I should henceforth replace Iahveh with Dominus?

Or should I stick with what’s printed in the current liturgical books?

The way I read the instruction, you just omit pronouncing the word. So you would simply read it as “Dominus quasi vir pugnator; nomen eius!”

 

[Corki]

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

Actually according to the cover letter, they are passing it on to the Bishops for implementation. It doesn’t sound like this is something that will be voted upon (which would be the first step before sending somethng back to Rome).

The USCCB knows when to pick its battles. This is a little hill while they are trying to get the rest of the English translation of the missal passed.

I think they will just let it happen.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

OK: The following song is a PARODY.

It is not meant to mock or insult anybody.

It is simply meant to be a parody of the song Yahweh as somebody (anybody) who might be tired of the song (for whatever reason) might have written it.

It is not a ‘bashing song’. It is merely meant like any other parody. For those who like the song "Yahweh’ and might be offended. . .please do not read the following parody if you feel you will be offended or hurt. It is a light-hearted spoof not meant to cause pain, to insult, or to hurt. So please, if you think you might feel hurt–or you start to read it and don’t care for it–please stop reading. Don’t think you need to respond. . .just ignore it. It isn’t infallible. It is not meant to hurt. It’s just a funky little parody. Thank you.

“Yahweh” now is missing from my repertoire. . .
I trust it ne-ver will return. . .
I sing of the joy this now has given me. . .
And I draw deeply from the springs of this great kindness.

Open our eyes to the wonder of this moment!
The return now of Ortho-do-xy. . .

“Yahweh” now is missing from my repertoire. . .
I trust it ne-ver will return. . .
I sing of the joy of Mus-i-cum Sacram. . .
And I draw deeply from the wells of great tradition. . .

Be with us Lord, as we break through from O-C-P
To stow the Gather hymnal far away. . .

“Yahweh” now is missing from my repertoire. . .
I trust it ne-ver will return. . .
I sing of the joy of chants Gregorian
And classic oldies --and some newbies–will sustain us.

And classic oldies–and some newbies–will sustain us.

 

[GodsGadfly]

One thing that does makes this sad is it eliminates The Jerusalem Bible as a legitimate translation.

As for the 1970s pop songs, since Cardinal Arinze has called for composers to write proper liturgical music to go with the new translation of the Mass, it’s all part and parcel.

And in a society where the average person blasphemes every minute or so, I think this is more than welcome news.

Having grown up since the 1970s, I always assumed the flippancy about “Yahweh” was a “Christians don’t have to worry about that anymore” kinda thing. Then I read Charles Williams’ All Hallows Eve, and it changed my view of the significance of the Tetragrammaton.

After all, in the Gospel of John, Jesus uses the Tetragrammaton very prominently and very specifically.

Now, if only the CDF would issue a directive reminding people that it is a mortal sin to exclaim “Oh my God” or “Jesus Christ” unless you’re actually praying.

 

[muffinmojo]

From the American Heritage Dictionary

" 1. Incapable of being expressed; indescribable or unutterable. See Synonyms at unspeakable.
2. Not to be uttered; taboo: the ineffable name of God."

lol I guess the ‘ineffable’ thing is too much of a WDTPRS reader joke… whoops

 

[ethelzguy]

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

I wonder if all such things actually come from his lips, or does he just “sign off” on them?

As I ponder this issue, I am sorry for those who take such pleasure in something like the removal of some hymns from the Mass.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

Thanks for the couple of posters who offered suggestions. I’m really not sure about writing to my Bishops’ Conference (Malaysia-Singapore) which does not have the developed conference apparatus as the US or England. Maybe I should write to the US bishops instead, now that the letter is published on the Catholic News website.

It’s funny how people can be so passionate about whether we should pronounce YHWH in the sacred liturgy, to the extent that some said they would follow the bishops rather than the Apostolic See, and tried to set up a dichotomy between “apostolic” and “petrine” traditions, which never existed in the Catholic Church really. The petrine office is part of the Apostolic Tradition of the Church. It’s interesting to observe disregard for even such non-doctrinally important decisions can also be linked to warped understandings of the Catholic faith. This has reminded me of the virtue of Christian obedience, which is what I want to do.

Second, I must say whatever one’s opinions on this liturgical matter, YHWH remains the sacred name of God. I think the way some people use the sacred name in these posts so far borders on disrespect, and highlights the virtue of Rome’s instruction.

 

[Brendan]

I wonder if all such things actually come from his lips, or does he just “sign off” on them?[/qoute]

First, it doesn’t really matter.

Secondly, what generally happens is that they discuss it in one of their regularly scheduled meetings, and the Pope give the 'go ahead"

As I ponder this issue, I am sorry for those who take such pleasure in something like the removal of some hymns from the Mass.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Even though I personally do not care for the tune of “Yahweh” (see parody above) and I admit to laughing like a hyena at the many parodies I saw Fr. Z and others post on “Gather Us In”, I don’t really ‘take pleasure’ at the removal of hymns per se.

I know musical taste varies. I also know that the Church does have certain guidelines and that in a transitional period some of these guidelines weren’t really adequately met–no blame attached to the composers themselves, it just happened.

But certainly we should want our music to reflect the ‘best’ and to adhere to the guidelines we do have–even if that means that some of the well-intentioned and (by some beloved) music --not just ‘contemporary’ but some of the ‘past’ as well, which does not meet the standards, must be ‘put away’.

We can be thankful to the composers for their time and effort, and be grateful to them, without having to ‘accept’ every single offering ‘for all time’.

And if “Yahweh” is legitimately kept --with requisite changes–no one will be happier than I, even if I do not care for the song. I only wish to do what is right, in the right spirit, for God.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

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?

The Pope didn’t speak outside the teachings of the Church, which he didn’t invent, but are agreed upon by the Bishops from the various preceding councils. .

BTW, I could not find, this document on the USCCB website, nor the Vatican Website.

So, its probably not a binding document as of yet, and is probably going through the discussion process, between the Bishops and Rome.

Until the USCCB comes out and tell the parishes to stop using Yahweh in hymns, or prayers, I would advise music directors, to not throw out my song books, which use Yahweh in verse.

Jim

 

[Michael96]

It’s funny how people can be so passionate about whether we should pronounce YHWH in the sacred liturgy, to the extent that some said they would follow the bishops rather than the Apostolic See, and tried to set up a dichotomy between “apostolic” and “petrine” traditions, which never existed in the Catholic Church really.

I think you may be talking of my posts there. But you might have missed earlier ones where I said that I didn’t particularly mind one way or another on YHWH, but then we got rather off-topic on the balance of authority between the Pope and the Bishops.

 

[snhs]

The Pope didn’t speak outside the teachings of the Church, which he didn’t invent, but are agreed upon by the Bishops from the various preceding councils.

BTW, I could not find, this document on the USCCB website, nor the Vatican Website.

So, its probably not a binding document as of yet, and is probably going through the discussion process, between the Bishops and Rome.

Until the USCCB comes out and tell the parishes to stop using Yahweh in hymns, or prayers, I would advise music directors, to not throw out my song books, which use Yahweh in verse.

Fortunately for the rest of us your advice is not binding whereas this document from the Holy See is.

Are you seriously trying to contend that the Pope is speaking “outside the teachings of the Church”? Are you actually telling us that the Pope doesn’t have the right to make this decision, despite having it with the agreement of the Bishops at various Councils through the centuries? Didn’t King Henry do the same thing?

I don’t think the Bishops Conference of Scotland has many of the VI or VII documents online, or indeed those of Trent, Nicea and the rest. Am I no longer bound to follow them?

It is a binding document, it is a directive from the CDW with the backing of the Holy Father which has been issued to the Bishops and acknowledged as such in its covering letter by the chair of the USCCB. You might want to get with programme already, I don’t think the Pope’s for turning.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

snhs

Fortunately for the rest of us your advice is not binding whereas this document from the Holy See is.

Don’t know if it is or not.

Are you seriously trying to contend that the Pope is speaking “outside the teachings of the Church”?

Nope, not at all.

Are you actually telling us that the Pope doesn’t have the right to make this decision, despite having it with the agreement of the Bishops at various Councils through the centuries? Didn’t King Henry do the same thing?

Few Pope’s have rarely made pronouncements outside of the councils. In fact, I can think of only two dogmas that they’ve made, the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception.

In history, Pope’s who did act outside the council of Bishops, erred gravely. Read about the Papal military actions in Europe during the middle ages, if you don’t believe me.

It is a binding document, it is a directive from the CDW with the backing of the Holy Father which has been issued to the Bishops and acknowledged as such in its covering letter by the chair of the USCCB. You might want to get with programme already, I don’t think the Pope’s for turning.

Until the Bishops make it public, its not binding. The Pope leads the Church through the Bishops. If it is in fact a binding document, the USCCB will make it known publicly and carry it out.

As I stated earlier. I could not find this document on the USCCB or Vatican websites. So until further notice, I’ll carry on as before.

Jim

 

[Walking_Home]

Well the news is out. It not like the conference/bishops/laity can make believe the document does not exist. So we will see how “faithful” to the Apostolic See --this turns out.

 

[japhy]

BTW, I could not find, this document on the USCCB website, nor the Vatican Website. So, its probably not a binding document as of yet, and is probably going through the discussion process, between the Bishops and Rome.

So if it’s not online, it’s not official?

What makes you think that it’s “probably not a binding document”? What constitutes “binding”? It says “the following directives are to be observed”. Granted, it does not have a “this instruction takes effect on # Month, Year”, so we can reasonably assume the Congregation isn’t trying to rush or intimidate anyone, but that doesn’t mean the bishops can just delay actually following the instruction.

Bishop Serratelli “welcomes” the instruction; it doesn’t say he “questions” it or thinks it merits “discussion”.

 

[cpageinkeller]

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

Thanks, the linked PDF clarifies the rationale for the issue. Obedience was not the question. Understanding the “why,” if we are capable, is always preferable to blind obedience!

 

[japhy]

Few Pope’s have rarely made pronouncements outside of the councils. In fact, I can think of only two dogmas that they’ve made, the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception.

I think I’d include Pope John Paul II’s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis in there too: “Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

In history, Pope’s who did act outside the council of Bishops, erred gravely.

Hopefully people won’t infer from history that the Pope has erred gravely in liberating the Extraordinary Form of Mass, since he did not do so at the request of a Council!

Until the Bishops make it public, its not binding.

Sounds like great power to have. Sounds like a good way to stall things and prevent our due obedience to Holy Mother Church.

 

[pnewton]

I guess this is the first issue I have ever not agreed with Cardinal Arinze. It smacks too much of the Judaizers that attempted to tie obedience to the Jewish law (or in this case Jewish tradition) into Christianity. It seems on the face to be contrary to what Paul taught. On the other hand, the letter does not prohibit the use of the word except in the context of liturgy. But who am I compared with Cardinal Arinze.

I have always said that obeidience and loyalty are measured only when we disagree, so now it is my turn to swallow and obey while I try to wrap my mind around the reasons this was done. I do not know the legal status of whether this is binding or not. It is clearly the opinion of Cardinal Arinze and Pope Benedict. I do not see its status as an issue. It is clearly now the teaching of the Church, if not yet the law of the Church.

After ten years of singing “You are Near” in the original key, I just transposed it down this year to make it more singable. Oh well.

 

[Contarini]

One thing that does makes this sad is it eliminates The Jerusalem Bible as a legitimate translation.

Doesn’t it only affect the use of the translation in Mass? I always thought that the JB was intended for private devotional use anyway.

Edwin

 

[pnewton]

Before I jump off too quickly, I just noticed that this was no where on the USCCB site, even though that was the letter head. Is this just a hoax? Is it anywhere official or just some blogger playing a prank?

Does anyone know where this can be found on an official website?