No more "Yaweh"

[Tantum_ergo]

I’m trying to look at it impartially (which is difficult, of course, for anybody).

The way I see it is this:

If we have been longing for ‘more spirituality and more reverence’ because we think the emphasis in the last 40 years has been too much ‘one way’ and this is leading us to a balanced view --it seems good. We looking at it as though the liturgy etc. has been slightly ‘off balance’ and this will put us more ‘back in the middle’, like a pendulum at perfect ‘balance.’

But it seems there must be some people–probably quite a few people–who think that the last 40 years has been exactly right. Or they’d even like to go a little further and be even more ‘inclusive’ and even more ‘community’ and even more ‘family’ and "Abba’ oriented.

For these people, the pendulum was already fine. They are looking at this as something that is destroying that balance and knocking the Church off kilter. So naturally they are upset.

Unfortunately, until a few more years (hopefully not 40!) have passed, and the balance does become either obvious, or the simple passage of time makes people ACCUSTOMED to this aspect and thus makes it APPEAR ‘balanced’ (which is actually what happened to the second group of people, who ‘felt’ balanced with the status quo), there are going to be those who are convinced that this is a step in the wrong direction. And I don’t think that anything that WE can say is going to convince them otherwise. . .until they actually have gone through a period of time which will help them to accept it.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Oh that Vat 69 looks fine! Single malt?

 

[Walking_Home]

I prefer the Spirits of Vat 69 myself…

---

I am not a Whisky drinker myself --but for Vat 69 to have turned out as good as I read – it didn’t develop the “Spirit of Vat 69”.*

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

I prefer the Spirits of Vat 69 myself…

:coffeeread: I’ll drink to that!

I have always been apprehensive about the overuse of the anglicized tetragrammaton because it is a name so sacred that most Jews even today will not utter it. The Jewish people have a great respect for the name of God, even in print, and will often write G-d. When reading aloud from the Torah and the tetragrammaton comes along, most will substitute “Adonai” for the Name.

Besides, now I will no longer have to listen to those whiny OCP campfire songs that feature that word.

 

[pnewton]

So let’s replace “You Are Near” in the hymnal with “Abba, Father.” This way we will use the correct term for God.

My other proposal is we substitute only the one one word in the song with,“Unspeakable Tetragrammaton, I know You are near…”

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

So let’s replace “You Are Near” in the hymnal with “Abba, Father.” This way we will use the correct term for God.

My other proposal is we substitute only the one one word in the song with,“Unspeakable Tetragrammaton, I know You are near…”

For your second suggestion, drop “unspeakable” and change the measure with four eighth notes and two quarter notes. That way, the rhythm would match that of “marvelous to me” at the beginning of the fourth verse.

With your first suggestion, why not ditch them both? The age of orange shag carpet and lava lamps came to an end a long time ago.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

With your first suggestion, why not ditch them both? The age of orange shag carpet and lava lamps came to an end a long time ago

NOOOOOOOOOOO!

Next you’ll be telling me disco is dead.

 

[pnewton]

NOOOOOOOOOOO!

Next you’ll be telling me disco is dead.

I hope not. I am almost through composing my disco Mass setting. The Memorial Acclaimation features “Staying Alive.”

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The Memorial Acclaimation features “Staying Alive.”

 

[jmcrae]

I hope not. I am almost through composing my disco Mass setting. The Memorial Acclaimation features “Staying Alive.”

PS: Is the Credo sung to the tune of “I Believe in Angels” by ABBA?

 

[VociMike]

I hope not. I am almost through composing my disco Mass setting. The Memorial Acclaimation features “Staying Alive.”

Scored for disco ball and electric piano, no doubt.

 

[GodsGadfly]

I don’t see how even the US Bishops can get away with disagreeing with the Second Commandment.

To use that word at all is blasphemy–it’s what God Jesus crucified, according to the Gospel of John.

Look at it this way: these days, we’ve all become very comfortable with shopping and dining out on Sundays. The Church tells us that it’s OK to do necessary work on Sundays (such as if you’re a doctor, or if it’s the only job you have and your employer gives you no choice, or if you absolutely must travel, etc.) But generally speaking, we’re not suposed to conduct business on Sundays (or Holy Days of Obligation or Days of Fast). But we do. And we do it all the time.

That doesn’t make it right. It’s a violation of the Third Commandment, and it’s a mortal sin. And if the Vatican issues a reminder of that fact, as JPII did almost 10 years ago, a Catholic has two responses: compliance or indignancy.

To pronounce the Tetragrammaton is to say “I am God.” It is just courtesy to God to carefully guard one’s usage of that word.

Let’s not forget that most of these hymns are inappropriate for Mass because a) they manipulate Biblical texts instead of using the approved translation (Liturgiam Authenticam) and b) they do not develop organically from traditional Catholic chant (Documents of Vatican II). The fact that we may personally see merit in many of these hymns (and I like many of them) does not make them appropriate for Mass. Appropriate for your CD player or private prayer, but not necessarily Mass or the Office.

I don’t see how anyone can ever be indignant at being told to show more respect for the Lord.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t see how even the US Bishops can get away with disagreeing with the Second Commandment.

To use that word at all is blasphemy–it’s what God Jesus crucified, according to the Gospel of John.

I know that the Bible says not to use the Lord’s name in vain, but I know of no where in the Bible is says not to speak His name or write his name. I believe the rules we derive this from is a Jewish tradition, not a divine command. If I am mistaken, where does God command His name not to be written or spoken?

 

[GodsGadfly]

Well, it’s derived from the commandment, just like not using contraception is derived from the 6th commandment and “do not be angry” is derived from the 5th commandment and “do not lie at all” is derived from the 7th.

Taking the Lord’s name in vain can happen several ways:

1. Literally, using God’s name as an epithet, such as “Oh, my G#$! I can’t believe it!” or “J@$*$! I can’t believe he missed that shot!”
2. But when we do those things, often we are cursing, whether intentionally or not. When we say, “D#!@ it!” we are calling on God to condemn that item or person or situation to Hell. Intentional or not, that is a curse (and most exorcists will attest to the power of even unintentional cursing).
3. Directly “cursing” or “tempting” God: “God, I hate you for giving me this disease!” or “God, if you are real, let me win the lottery.” Now, whether that constitutes a sin or an honest prayer depends kind of on one’s relationship with God, intent and all that, and is the stuff confessors were made for
4. Taking an oath in God’s name that we do not keep.
5. One of the things, though, that makes it wrong to actually curse someone is that we’re bringing judgement, we’re playing God. The first three Commandments concern giving God His due, and properly praying to Him is a big part of that. Acknowledging that we are not God is also a big part of that.

And the Tetragrammaton is God’s most holy name. It is the statement in the First Person of the mystery of Divinity itself, which Aristotle phrased in the third person as “being qua being.”

Sometimes, people look at the Passion and say, “But Jesus never claimed to be God, at least not in public.” Yet He did, in several passages where He said things like, “Before Abraham came to be, I AM.” This was, if not true, the sin of blasphemy, the ultimate sin against the 2nd Commandment.

When we use that Name casually, even for academic purposes, we run the risk of commiting the same sin as when we say, “Oh, God!” and do not mean it as a prayer.

 

[pnewton]

When we use that Name casually, even for academic purposes, we run the risk of commiting the same sin as when we say, “Oh, God!” and do not mean it as a prayer.

But I noticed you gave no scripture, but rather derived your opinion from the initial commandement. Yet using God’s name in a proper sense is not vain or empty. Using God’s name in prayer, singing or liturgy is not vain or empty. Again, it seems that the prohibition against it’s use, even in liturgy, is a tradition, not a commandment. I do not wish to speak blasphemy, but is it not more blasphemous to claim that God ordered a thing that he did not command?

 

[GodsGadfly]

I agreed that it was tradition at the beginning of my post.

Obvously, this is how the Israelites have interpreted the Commandment since it was given on Mt. Sinai. The only question is whether Christians interpret it the same way.
I grew up thinking that had something to do with how Christianity changed the Law, because of Communion or something. But then, as an adult, I found out that Christians traditionally interpreted the commandment the same way Jews do, and it was mostly a post-Vatican II thing for Catholics to ignore it.

Same as it’s mostly a post-Vatican II thing for Catholics to ignore the Sabbath.

And, again, the Tetragrammaton is set apart from every other name we give to God. Even Jesus’ Name is not as sacrosanct as that word, because that word speaks to the mystery of the Trinity.

I would argue–and this is my opinion–that to utter that word in prayer is worse than to state it academically, because, when you do so, you are claiming to God that you are God, that you are a member of the Trinity asking to be invited in.

This is how it was used in the Charles Williams novel that changed my view on this subject.

Most of what I said in my previous post was not my opinion, but the teaching of the Church. See Catechism 206-10, 446, 2143, 2146-2155.

 

[pnewton]

From CCC #2143

Among all the words of Revelation, there is one which is unique: the revealed name of God. God confides his name to those who believe in him; he reveals himself to them in his personal mystery. The gift of a name belongs to the order of trust and intimacy. “The Lord’s name is holy.” For this reason man must not abuse it. He must keep it in mind in silent, loving adoration. He will not introduce it into his own speech except to bless, praise, and glorify it.

Seems appropriate for prayer here.

 

[GodsGadfly]

"He will not introduce it into his own speech except to bless, praise, and glorify it. "
Which, I should think, applies to things like, “May the name of THE LORD be praised!” or “Blessed be the name of THE LORD.” Or “Glory be to You, O LORD!”
not “THE LORD’s people dance for joy” (which doesn’t praise the lord directly but describes people dancing) or “THE LORD, we know you are near” and “THE LORD, turn your face to me,” both of which are using the Lord’s name to invoke Him, not to praise Him.

 

[snhs]

My other proposal is we substitute only the one one word in the song with,“Unspeakable Tetragrammaton, I know You are near…”

Sorry but that’s definitely a non-starter. Did no one tell you that the Bishops think we’re too daft to know what ‘ineffable’ and ‘wrought’ means never mind ‘Tetragrammaton’. How about we just do the decent think and let the song die the death? No point in prolonging the inevitable after all.

 

[ethelzguy]

Well – if its upsetting the “Spirit of Vat II” --its a sign the Pope is leading the Church in the right direction.

So is that all that matters to some here? “Upsetting the Spirit of Vatican II”? It sure seems that way. How sad.