No more "Yaweh"

  • Thread starter Thread starter VociMike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
John_Lilburne said:
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.
Click to expand...
The same is true for the Lectionary used in UK, Ireland, South Africa, Malaysia-Singapore etc. The texts are based on the Jerusalem Bible and 1963 Grail Psalms, but the sacred name YHWH is consistently rendered as “the Lord”, while YHWH Sabaoth is rendered as “Lord of hosts”. Similarly, El Shaddai and other Hebrew terms (except Hosanna and Amen I think) are translated in the Lectionary.
 
pnewton said:
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.
Click to expand...
“The source”, as in where he got a copy of the document prior to the USCCB publishing, is private.

It’s up on the USCCB website now, so THAT source certainly isn’t private and is legitimately promulgated as per Canon 16.
 
pnewton said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, it does affect the Church. The person hosting it is not revealing which bishop gave him a copy of the letter, but it has been publicly announced ( see Jim post - #106)

So, it’s been promulgated by the appropriate authority under Canon 16, and is therefore law.
 
peregrinus_sg said:
The same is true for the Lectionary used in UK, Ireland, South Africa, Malaysia-Singapore etc. The texts are based on the Jerusalem Bible and 1963 Grail Psalms, but the sacred name YHWH is consistently rendered as “the Lord”, while YHWH Sabaoth is rendered as “Lord of hosts”. Similarly, El Shaddai and other Hebrew terms (except Hosanna and Amen I think) are translated in the Lectionary.
Click to expand...
I believe that when Vatican Radio does its commentary during the Papal Mass, the translation they use for the Envglish version is drawn from the Jerusalem Bible. Although, to my knowledge, I hadn’t heard nor even noticed if references to Yahweh were made.
 
While I will have no problem with following the new guidelines, I do find this whole thing very troubling for a different reason, in that I see it driving yet another artificial wedge and emphasizing a certain side of God to the exclusion of the other, a key reason behind what Vatican II brought in.

The early Church greatly recognized the significance of Jesus, God coming into the world as a human being and wanting to have a true relationship with each of us. His teaching to approach God as Abba was a prime example of how the teaching of the New Covenant changed our perception of God. Some might see this as a very “protestant” approach of “me and Jesus”, but it is actually the human side of the God/Man paradox.

As time went on though, and especially for the time from Trent to Vatican II, the Church went back to a very transcendent God, a God who was “out there” and all powerful, in most ways a God to fear in the sense of “afraid” rather than in a sense of “awe”. This ultimately shaped the way the Church looked at itself and the way clericalism rose to the degree it did, since only the ordained were “worthy” enough to approach the Holy of Holies.

Vatican II recognized this and attempted to restore the balance in this perception of God. It attempted to bring the people back into the personal relationship and responsibility for their own salvation, rather than the feeling that some other more worthy or more competent third party was handling all of that.

The downside was the for many this brought on too much of the humanity at the expense of the transcendent, supplanting the previous view that was all transcendent and virtually no human.

In my mind that is what all of this factionalism really comes down to in the end. It is the two extremes trying to drag each other toward their respective perceptions of God. Is He the “best friend you can always turn to” or the “great thunderbolt in the sky”? Is He the transcendent God that created the universe just by willing it, as in the first creation account, or the personal God that came down and made man from the dirt, as noted in the second creation account?

The fact is that we have “true God and true Man”, fully God and fully human. We cannot separate the two and any attempt to is heresy according to the Church. We have a God who is Creator, Redeemer, and King and a God who is Abba and who indwells each of us.

To me this is yet another pullback from Vatican II that is attempting to emphasize the transcendent “I AM” at the expense of Abba. Instead of bringing us to the necessary balance, I see the Church again trying to separate God, which results in nothing more than another “My God is better than your God” fight in the Church.

I personally see it making the problem worse instead of resolving anything. Yes, we need to emphasize reverence and awe towards the Master of the Universe. But Jesus Himself told us to think in terms of the utterly familiar–familiar as in family–and I tend to give great credence to the Word of God made flesh.

My two cents worth. If not satisfied, please return for a full refund.
 
I don’t believe it was Vat. II’s intent to bring about low Christology.
 
While I can accept the Church’s teaching that the Tertragrammaton in transations of the Bible should be rendered as “Lord”, I really wish it would at least keep the original Hebrew in the footnotes, like…

Book of Numbldypeg, 1:23: “The LORD[1] says this:…”

[1] Original Hebrew “YHVH”. Cf Gen 2:45.

…

Book of Generics, 2:45: “Yea, verily, for the LORD[1] hath said…”

[1] Original Hebrew “Adonai”. Cf Num 1:23

Basically, when “LORD” and “God” appear bazillions of times, I like to know where it actually says “El Shaddai” or “Sabaoth” or “Adonai” or “Elohim” or “YHVH”. Again, even if it’s only in a footnote.

Although if all else fails, there is a “Hebrew names Bible” on-line which I can crossref, but I’d prefer it on the same page. But that’s just me.
 
Walking_Home said:
I don’t believe it was Vat. II’s intent to bring about low Christology.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with you. It was the intent to balance the Christology, where Jesus is fully both God and Man.

I think my post did reflect that the excessive low Christology that resulted in some cases was a “downside”.
 
ncjohn said:
I totally agree with you. It was the intent to balance the Christology, where Jesus is fully both God and Man.

I think my post did reflect that the excessive low Christology that resulted in some cases was a “downside”.
Click to expand...
I see it more as the Church bringing us to where we aught to be—away from where the “Spirit of Vat II” is leading.
 
ncjohn said:
I think my post did reflect that the excessive low Christology that resulted in some cases was a “downside”.
Click to expand...
I think what your post reflected was the eponymous ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ . Thankfully that is something which is being tempered by the Church to reflect what Vatican II actually said. It’s something which Pope Benedict is uniquely placed to do having been one of the theologians at VII, who knows what the Council actually said. And I, for one, hope he continues to do so.
 
snhs said:
I think what your post reflected was the eponymous ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ . Thankfully that is something which is being tempered by the Church to reflect what Vatican II actually said. It’s something which Pope Benedict is uniquely placed to do having been one of the theologians at VII, who knows what the Council actually said. And I, for one, hope he continues to do so.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
ncjohn said:
I totally agree with you. It was the intent to balance the Christology, where Jesus is fully both God and Man.
Click to expand...
Well, nobody is prevented from using or speaking the name of Jesus, so where’s the problem?
 
ncjohn said:
While I will have no problem with following the new guidelines, I do find this whole thing very troubling for a different reason, in that I see it driving yet another artificial wedge and emphasizing a certain side of God to the exclusion of the other, a key reason behind what Vatican II brought in.

The early Church greatly recognized the significance of Jesus, God coming into the world as a human being and wanting to have a true relationship with each of us. His teaching to approach God as Abba was a prime example of how the teaching of the New Covenant changed our perception of God. Some might see this as a very “protestant” approach of “me and Jesus”, but it is actually the human side of the God/Man paradox.

As time went on though, and especially for the time from Trent to Vatican II, the Church went back to a very transcendent God, a God who was “out there” and all powerful, in most ways a God to fear in the sense of “afraid” rather than in a sense of “awe”. This ultimately shaped the way the Church looked at itself and the way clericalism rose to the degree it did, since only the ordained were “worthy” enough to approach the Holy of Holies.

Vatican II recognized this and attempted to restore the balance in this perception of God. It attempted to bring the people back into the personal relationship and responsibility for their own salvation, rather than the feeling that some other more worthy or more competent third party was handling all of that.

The downside was the for many this brought on too much of the humanity at the expense of the transcendent, supplanting the previous view that was all transcendent and virtually no human.

In my mind that is what all of this factionalism really comes down to in the end. It is the two extremes trying to drag each other toward their respective perceptions of God. Is He the “best friend you can always turn to” or the “great thunderbolt in the sky”? Is He the transcendent God that created the universe just by willing it, as in the first creation account, or the personal God that came down and made man from the dirt, as noted in the second creation account?

The fact is that we have “true God and true Man”, fully God and fully human. We cannot separate the two and any attempt to is heresy according to the Church. We have a God who is Creator, Redeemer, and King and a God who is Abba and who indwells each of us.

To me this is yet another pullback from Vatican II that is attempting to emphasize the transcendent “I AM” at the expense of Abba. Instead of bringing us to the necessary balance, I see the Church again trying to separate God, which results in nothing more than another “My God is better than your God” fight in the Church.

I personally see it making the problem worse instead of resolving anything. Yes, we need to emphasize reverence and awe towards the Master of the Universe. But Jesus Himself told us to think in terms of the utterly familiar–familiar as in family–and I tend to give great credence to the Word of God made flesh.

My two cents worth. If not satisfied, please return for a full refund.
Click to expand...
Fantastic thoughts and post! :tiphat:
 
Well – if its upsetting the “Spirit of Vat II” --its a sign the Pope is leading the Church in the right direction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top