Respect for the Ineffable Name in Public Liturgy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Matariel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Matariel

Guest
I found an interesting article at the USCCB website, with some interesting things in it:

usccb.org/liturgy/NameOfGod.pdf

I think this is why Catholics have so long used “Lord” instead the Ineffable Name, יהוה.

Any thoughts or opinions on this?

I found it to be an interesting article.
 
Actually, there are three 🙂 I found the article VERY interesting, and quite honestly was surprised at the date of the article since I had never heard anything about it before. My spiritual adviser once had me “investigate” all the names for God in the Old Testament. It seemed appropriate that they were all “condensed” into “Father” in the New Testament by Jesus. Thanks for posting this article, I’m going to share it with several people I know.
 
There is so much going on here in the Forums, as a “newbie”, I can’t even keep up with what happens in the forum day to day, let alone search for what has been going on over a year ago! So thanks to Matariel for reposting, and to Japhy for giving me something to look up!
 
can I be #4 that finds it interesting? I kind of missed out on this the first time it was posted, and then had trouble finding information later when I went looking for it. This helps to clear up some of the fogginess.

Karen
 
An important point here is to note that it even became necessary for the Church to clarify the ancient custom of never speaking the Name of God aloud, especially in a liturgical setting. This did not happen by accident. It happened because it became the fashion in moderm compositions to use the Name. It’s one of the many proofs that modern compositions fail in the necessary criteria of being in harmony with the existing musical Tradition and in harmony with the liturgical principles of the Church.

One step at a time…
 
FrDavid96 said:
An important point here is to note that it even became necessary for the Church to clarify the ancient custom of never speaking the Name of God aloud, especially in a liturgical setting. This did not happen by accident. It happened because it became the fashion in moderm compositions to use the Name. It’s one of the many proofs that modern compositions fail in the necessary criteria of being in harmony with the existing musical Tradition and in harmony with the liturgical principles of the Church.

One step at a time…
Click to expand...
Actually, ,this first step took place back in 2001 with the promulgation of Liturgiam Authenticam, the document that governs translations for the liturgy. The document notes that:
c) in accordance with immemorial tradition, which indeed is already evident in the above-mentioned “Septuagint” version, the name of almighty God expressed by the Hebrew tetragrammaton (YHWH) and rendered in Latin by the word Dominus, is to be rendered into any given vernacular by a word equivalent in meaning.
Click to expand...
As I read it, the instruction came out as a reminder to us not to use the unspeakable Name of God.
Click to expand...
 
FrDavid96 said:
It happened because it became the fashion in moderm compositions to use the Name. It’s one of the many proofs that modern compositions fail in the necessary criteria of being in harmony with the existing musical Tradition and in harmony with the liturgical principles of the Church.
Click to expand...
If your thesis is correct, this has been a problem for some time. It was not uncommon back in the mid-19th century for composers to use the Name, as with this work by Franz Schubert. Any theories on why the Church waited a century and a half to bring to light the fact that modern compositions in the 1800s were not in harmony with the musical Tradition and liturgical principles of the Church?
 
Digitonomy said:
It was not uncommon back in the mid-19th century for composers to use the Name, as with this work by Franz Schubert. Any theories on why the Church waited a century and a half to bring to light the fact that modern compositions in the 1800s were not in harmony with the musical Tradition and liturgical principles of the Church?
Click to expand...
Is there any evidence that Gross ist Jehovah was intended for liturgical use? It’s listed as “voice and piano”, and piano was not an acceptable musical instrument in the liturgy of the 1800’s. (Pope Pius X confirmed as much in 1903.)
 
japhy said:
Is there any evidence that Gross ist Jehovah was intended for liturgical use? It’s listed as “voice and piano”, and piano was not an acceptable musical instrument in the liturgy of the 1800’s. (Pope Pius X confirmed as much in 1903.)
Click to expand...
That’s a good question. AllMusicGuide lists the length as about 5 minutes, so liturgical use wouldn’t be out of the question on that basis. I was unaware of the prohibition on piano at mass, but even so, that encyclical (Tra le Sollecitudini) was written in 1903. Presumably there was at least some use of piano at that time, whether illicit or not, else there would be no need to mention it in the encyclical. Do we know that liturgical use of piano was prohibited back in 1825, when the piece was written?

Suppose we accept that Die Allmacht could not have been written for liturgical use because it uses the word Jehovah. We must conclude that there was a dichotomy in the rules for sacred composition between liturgical and non-liturgical pieces - not just on the basis of what instruments and what length could be incorporated into a mass, but also what specific words and lyrics were verboten in liturgy, yet acceptable in non-liturgical sacred music. This last point seems doubtful to me, but if true it seems important enough to be documented somewhere.
 
Interesting article from the USCCB. the Hebrew tetragrammaton (YHWH) as rendered in Latin by the word Dominus. Tetragrammation is also found in the original Greek translation of the Old and New Testament in whom Saint Jerome who translated the Vulgate.
I know that there are numerous words used to call God with great respect.
Personally though I like the words God gave to Moses to go tell the Egyptian Pharaoh.

I AM WHO AM says the Lord. Something in this ineffable description is so very profound.

I AM WHO AM My Lord and My God for me demands so much reverence and respect.
It’s difficult for me to articulate in human words. I would gather that everybody has a special respected reverent word they use to identify our beloved Saviour. Even the most simple word in how every person identifies God in their heart can be profound and respectful.

NICE THREAD !
 
FrDavid96 said:
…This did not happen by accident. It happened because it became the fashion in moder[n] compositions to use the Name…
Click to expand...
I wonder why this was? I’m so glad we’re returning to more traditional and respectful Catholic practices, and this is good. Does anyone know why some people started using יהוה instead of the traditional, respectful “Lord” in Its stead. Does anyone know who/why this trend was started? 🤷
 
IOPdevotee said:
There is so much going on here in the Forums, as a “newbie”, I can’t even keep up with what happens in the forum day to day, let alone search for what has been going on over a year ago! So thanks to Matariel for reposting, and to Japhy for giving me something to look up!
Click to expand...
And thanks to the same for posting a childish comment when he/she did not receive the desired response within 72 hours…
 
There is also an old practice of bowing at the name of Jesus in public liturgy. I try to do so when I remember, but not always. It does eventually get into your system so that you find your heart showing respect even when you don’t/can’t bow physically. It’s more noticeable in the old liturgy, where priests would doff their birettas when the Name is read in the readings, creed, etc.
 
Matariel said:
I wonder why this was? I’m so glad we’re returning to more traditional and respectful Catholic practices, and this is good. Does anyone know why some people started using יהוה instead of the traditional, respectful “Lord” in Its stead. Does anyone know who/why this trend was started? 🤷
Click to expand...
In Catholic circles, The Name “Yahweh” appears in the 1966 Jerusalem Bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem Bible. Since both of these have roots in their counterpart French-language editions, it is possible The Name appeared there as well.

The Protestant American Standard Version of 1901 went out of its way, it seems, to pepper the OT with the incorrect form of The Name, “Jehovah”, but it was not the first, as “Jehovah” appears four times in the venerable King James Version.

I know of no Protestant bible translation that uses “Yahweh”.
 
Manfred said:
In Catholic circles, The Name “Yahweh” appears in the 1966 Jerusalem Bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem Bible. Since both of these have roots in their counterpart French-language editions, it is possible The Name appeared there as well.

The Protestant American Standard Version of 1901 went out of its way, it seems, to pepper the OT with the incorrect form of The Name, “Jehovah”, but it was not the first, as “Jehovah” appears four times in the venerable King James Version.

I know of no Protestant bible translation that uses “Yahweh”.
Click to expand...
Well, I really meant pronouncing it, especially in hymns in Mass-- a regrettable practice.
 
Matariel said:
Well, I really meant pronouncing it, especially in hymns in Mass-- a regrettable practice.
Click to expand...
I first heard The Name “Yahweh” back in Catholic high school in 1965, right around the time Vatican II was wrapping up. My point being that a lot of the hymns in which The Name is used were written “in the spirit of Vatican II”. It is regrettable that it took over 35 years (!) till 2001 when Liturgiam Authenticam was issued for the Vatican to rein in this practice.

But, hey, look how long we have to wait for a decent and dignified English translation of the Novus Ordo Missae. :rolleyes:

Oooh, I just had a thought - maybe Rome should temporarily curtail use of the vernacular in the Latin-rite Liturgy and have us use LATIN until someone (finally) comes up with a really fitting English translation. (Yes, I know they’ve been working on one for some time now, but obviously all the proofreaders have to get in their two-cents’ worth. Until that happens, we’re stuck with what we have.) 😦
 
Manfred said:
I first heard The Name “Yahweh” back in Catholic high school in 1965, right around the time Vatican II was wrapping up. My point being that a lot of the hymns in which The Name is used were written “in the spirit of Vatican II”. It is regrettable that it took over 35 years (!) till 2001 when Liturgiam Authenticam was issued for the Vatican to rein in this practice.
Click to expand...
At least it’s going to be corrected now. But at First Confession this evening (yes, I finally had my first confession! :)) there was a penitential rite before with a Scripture reading from Isaiah. It had the Divine Name in it numerous times, and I wondered, even after the corrections’re made, will they still use a Scripture version which contains It?
But, hey, look how long we have to wait for a decent and dignified English translation of the Novus Ordo Missae. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Can’t wait! When’ll that come out?

What really bothered me is, I saw the USCCB conference a while back and they were speaking about the new translation. It was really bothering, because several bishops tried to desacralize and dumb-down the language. For instance, they didn’t want “ineffable” used “because the laity won’t understand it”. :mad:
How dumb do they think we are? Fortunately, most of the beautiful and theological words (such as ineffable, consubstantial, etc.) were kept, and it looks to be a good translation. 🙂

I’m glad that those who wanted to dumb-down the Mass failed and were in the minority.
Oooh, I just had a thought - maybe Rome should temporarily curtail use of the vernacular in the Latin-rite Liturgy and have us use LATIN until someone (finally) comes up with a really fitting English translation.
Click to expand...
That’d be nice, but I doubt they’d temporarily re-instate Latin. Although there should be parts of the Mass that are always in Latin (It’s the LATIN rite, after all!). Besides, not all priests can say Mass in Latin, can they?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top