No more "Yaweh"

[japhy]

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.

But Paul didn’t teach that the Divine Name was fair game now, and it’s not used in the New Testament; as the instruction points out, the New Testament uses kurios, “Lord”, the same as the Septuagint. This is the name above all names. We have no record in the New Testament of a version of YHWH that is not kurios being used. And the early Church seemed to love the name “Jesus” (which, in Hebrew, means “YHWH saves” or “YHWH is salvation”).

It is clearly the opinion of Cardinal Arinze and Pope Benedict.

And whoever the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is (I don’t remember offhand).

 

[benedictgal]

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

There are some national episcopal conferences that may have used this translation. But, you are right. The JB is intended for private devotional use (sure wish that were the case with the RNAB).

 

[snhs]

Don’t know if it is or not.

Nope, not at all.

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.

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.

You don’t know that your advice isn’t binding? Or you don’t know that this document from the Holy See which has been issued by the CDW to the Bishops Conference and accepted as an official document before being made publically available is binding?

Then perhaps you can tell us precisely what you meant in saying “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.”.

And obviously those were such grave mistakes I suppose . Popes have made numerous decisions outwith the structure of a Council, for example allowing Altar girls. And while we are perfectly entitled to debate such a change on its merits we are still bound to accept the rules which the Pope/relevant Congregation have issued on it.

It is already public. The Chair of the USCCB has already issued it with his accompanying letter, there are articles on it on various Catholic news sites. As I said the decrees of Trent and VI are not on the Bishops Conference of Scotland’s webpage am I not bound to accept them?

The need to follow Church rulings does not, nor has it ever, depended on the ability of someone to find it on their national Bishops Conference webpage. However if you can show me which part of the Catechism gives us carte blanche to ignore a ruling until it shows up on the the Bishops Conference’s webpage then please show us it, I’m afraid the rest of us follow the Catholic Church’s Magisterium not Jim’s.

 

[japhy]

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?

CNS reported on it. The first place I saw it was St. Blog’s. I’ve asked (via comment-box) for the author of that post’s source.

 

[nightwalker]

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.

Actually it is an implementation of Liturgiam Authenticam 41.c (CDW&DS under Cardinal Estevez) at the directive of the Holy Father.

As laid out in the document, it was Christian practice not to try to pronounce the ineffable name of God, but to use, after Paul’s own usage, LORD.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

japhy;

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.”

Its not Pope John Paul II’s declaration, but what the Church has held all along.

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!

Actually, I think that was a mistake. But thats another subject and I have enough moderator warnings that prevent me from saying anything more on it.

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

Those who would be the greatest, must serve the least of his brothers.

God protect us from any Pope who seeks power.

Jim

 

[John_Lilburne]

There are some national episcopal conferences that may have used this translation. But, you are right. The JB is intended for private devotional use (sure wish that were the case with the RNAB).

In Australia the lectionary used at Mass is from the Jerusalem Bible. But the lectionary does not have “Yahweh” where the Jerusalem Bible has it.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The USCCB website now has it posted.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804119.htm

So, its official and even though I don’t like it, obedience comes before my personal taste.

Jim

 

[cathgal]

snhs

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.

The infallibility of the Pope concerns only faith and moral. Military action has nothing to do with it, so the Pope can err.

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.

Where faith and moral are concerned, the Pope’s word is final. Any bishop not in union with the Pope is a dissenter.

Note: in union with the Pope, NOT pope in union w/ the bishops.

If a bishop does not make it public, how would you know if he is a dissenter or not ?
You only know it if you are aware of it, thanks to the internet; otherwise, you wouldn’t.

Such thing has happened in the past. Humanae Vitae. You know anything about it ?

Alot of lay people did not know about it because the bishops did not tell them. There were many bishops who were against it at the time, 40 years ago to be exact.

If you haven’t heard of it, will you still wait for a bishop to convey it to you?

This is one example where the Pope’s encylical is binding to all members of the Church and he did not need to agree with the bishops to do it.

 

[japhy]

Its not Pope John Paul II’s declaration, but what the Church has held all along.

I think it was his declaration, just like the definitions of those two Marian dogma you mentioned were declarations made by a specific pope. They were also defining something the Church has believed in all along, although the definitions sought to provide clarity and boundaries. Anyway, this is a side issue needn’t be pursued here.

Those who would be the greatest, must serve the least of his brothers.

I think the Pope is at the service of his brethren here; he is protecting them from violating what has been Judeo-Christian tradition and practice since time immemorial: we don’t say the name of God (YHWH) in the liturgy. Protection – even when it means setting rules and creating laws and exercising power – is service.

God protect us from any Pope who seeks power.

And bishops, too.

 

[wisdom_3_5]

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).

Actual notation is generally credited to Guido d’Arezzo (991/992 to 1033). Well after Pope Gregory I whom Gregorian Chant is named after. Pope Gregory regulated and standardized the use of music in the liturgy. The chanting was retained and adapted from the Jewish liturgy, chanting of Bible readings and solo singing of the psalms. The first notation was used only as a memory aid for a singer who already knew the melody.

I don’t know of the Church documents but any music history class/book will have guidelines for Church music and the rules are quite extensive! A good source is Medieval Music by Richard H. Hoppin and A Handbook of Modal Counterpoint by Stella Roberts and Irwin Fischer (although strictly speaking Gregorian Chant is one line, and counterpoint is at least two but it highlights the “rules” the composers followed). From Hoppin:

• The strict regulation of every detail in the services for the entire year. . . has remained characteristic of the Roman liturgy almost to the present time. Again and again the rigidity of the Roman rite has come into conflict with the efforts of other peoples to adapt and embellish the Mass to suit their own needs and tastes. (pp 39-40)

My husband and I (both music majors) thought this hysterical, and it emphasizes “the rules”:

youtube.com/watch?v=jhHAojVyeG0

I hear what you’re saying though. Mozart et al certainly pushed the envelope with regards to chromaticism, but it was accessible to the people at the time. The current composers of today are very difficult to listen to. I think the compose more by theory than by sound. At least that’s what it seemed like while studying the modern period. I remember a composer in college who wrote a piece to see how many Neopolitan thirds he could get in it! Maybe he was just joking, but it gave me the impression he was not writing for expression so much as a musical exercise.

Anyway, I could go on but I’m not sure how much on topic this is.

 

[Michael96]

The current composers of today are very difficult to listen to. I think the compose more by theory than by sound. At least that’s what it seemed like while studying the modern period.

Yes, there’s some modern music which is dreadfully hard on the ears.

But have you heard people like Taverner and Gorecki?

Here is Gorecki’s perhaps best known piece from his thirsSymphony, inspired by a prayer to Our Mother engraved into a wall in Auchwitz. It really is worth buying the CD and listening to it on a good hi-fi.

youtube.com/watch?v=miLV0o4AhE4

 

[wisdom_3_5]

Yes, there’s some modern music which is dreadfully hard on the ears.

But have you heard people like Taverner and Gorecki?

Here is Gorecki’s perhaps best known piece from his thirsSymphony, inspired by a prayer to Our Mother engraved into a wall in Auchwitz. It really is worth buying the CD and listening to it on a good hi-fi.

youtube.com/watch?v=miLV0o4AhE4

The Gorecki is beautiful, haunting.

I really like Taverner, although I think it is more difficult to sing and to listen to then say Palestrina just because of the atonality. I think a whole concert (or Mass) would be tiring. I’ve been to see Kronos quartet and am ready to pull my hair out by the end of the concert.

The funny thing about that video link I put up is that dissonances do tend to agitate and Perfect intervals tend to calm one. The modes are not so much scales as melodic formulas. Different modes were used to induce different emotions. Boethius quotes Plato,

" Any change in music of right moral tendency should be especially avoided, declaring that there could be no greater detriment to the morals of a community than a gradual perversion of chaste and modest music. For the minds of those hearing it are immediately affected and gradually go astray, retaining no trace of honesty and right, if either the lascivious modes implant something shameful in their minds, or the harsher modes something savage and monstrous.

For discipline has no more open pathway to the mind than through the ear. When by this path rhythms and modes have reached the mind, it is evident that they also affect it and conform it to their nature."

Music in the early Church was not so much a form of expression (creativity) but a tool to assist the penitent. I think much of our music for Mass now is just filler and that includes the Yaweh songs (there, back on topic ).

 

[nightwalker]

Music in the early Church was not so much a form of expression (creativity) but a tool to assist the penitent. I think much of our music for Mass now is just filler and that includes the Yaweh songs (there, back on topic ).

That explains it!

 

[japhy]

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?

Here is the response I got from the man who hosted the PDF:
Regarding the authenticity of the document on the Divine Name, the source is private. The document is due to be posted on the Divine Worship website of the USCCB by the end of the week. As point of correction, it not only directed at music people as the implications are far more important than what parish musicians do.

 

[ethelzguy]

Here is the response I got from the man who hosted the PDF:
Regarding the authenticity of the document on the Divine Name, the source is private. The document is due to be posted on the Divine Worship website of the USCCB by the end of the week. As point of correction, it not only directed at music people as the implications are far more important than what parish musicians do.

Huh?

 

[VociMike]

Huh?

It seems to be directed at anything spoken (prayed) or sung in any liturgical celebration, as well as at the translations of the liturgical texts.

 

[turtle18]

I’ve never understood the lyrics… I know you are near…shouldn’t it be “I know you are HERE.”

 

[jmcrae]

I’ve never understood the lyrics… I know you are near…shouldn’t it be “I know you are HERE.”

It’s based on the New Jerusalem translation of Psalm 139, and yes, the word is “near”.

 

[pnewton]

Regarding the authenticity of the document on the Divine Name, the source is private.

I guess for now then I will ignore it as it is a private matter not affecting the Church. No matter. I do not have to pick music for Sunday until Friday.