Using the Name "Yahweh" in Mass?

[Digitonomy]

And, with all due respect, I still await evidence that supports your stance.

As far as my stance dissecting the meaning of LA, I’ve gone into that in some detail. Whether this was the accepted understanding of LA regarding the use of the tetragrammoton before 2008, we have only indirect evidence.

benedictgal:

LA has been around for eight years. That is more than enough time for the publishing house to have gotten its act together.

Agreed. And they had their act together on this issue, based on the common understanding of LA prior to 2008.

benedictgal:

Furthermore, had they read LA, they would also not have put paraphrases of the parts of the Mass into their song books and masquerading them as legitimate.

Let’s try to stick to the subject.

As I said, we only have indirect evidence from the period prior to 2008 as to how subsection 41 c) in LA was generally understood. Why only indirect evidence? Because nobody in the various sources I’ve checked commented on that issue when the document came out. Presumably people felt the impact would be minimal, since the various lectionaries and missal translations don’t use the word “Yahweh.” If it was thought to impact a few of the most common hymns in use, it probably would have been worthy of comment or even news coverage - as we saw last year.

So we can consider the various commentators (including yourself) who while ready and willing to catalog each and every failing of OCP, somehow missed this issue - but perhaps they failed to read LA until the second half of last year.

More relevant would be the actions of the bishops. We know the USCCB provided no guidance on this matter. But it’s just a national conference - the rubber really hits the road in the individual dioceses. Since you’re familiar with Laredo, perhaps you can share how Bishop Tamayo responded to this frequent “abuse.” Like any competent bishop, he was of course aware of the use of hymns containing the tetragrammaton in various parishes. If LA were as clear as you say he should have taken responsibility and issued a quick directive describing the promulgation of LA, and instructing his flock on the impact it would have on hymn selection.

To be fair, Bishop Tamayo had a lot on his plate with a relatively new diocese. But at other longer-established, better-staffed dioceses, I’m also not aware of any action on this matter. Sometimes such action is quiet and informal, but with 150 dioceses in the US, I would have expected at least a smattering of cases where the action was public, which in turn would have bred discussion online and in diocesan papers. So we are left with the two main possibilities that all of our nation’s bishops acted irresponsibly on this matter, or that they interpreted the “Yahweh” prohibition as not applying to hymns. I think the latter is much more likely.

 

[Digitonomy]

Prior to the seventies no one, Catholic or otherwise used YHWH in hymns. *That *is the novelty.

YHWH was used in German hymns back in the 1800s. The use of the specific name “Yahweh” in American music seems to be relatively recent, however.

 

[benedictgal]

As far as my stance dissecting the meaning of LA, I’ve gone into that in some detail. Whether this was the accepted understanding of LA regarding the use of the tetragrammoton before 2008, we have only indirect evidence.Agreed. And they had their act together on this issue, based on the common understanding of LA prior to 2008.Let’s try to stick to the subject.

As I said, we only have indirect evidence from the period prior to 2008 as to how subsection 41 c) in LA was generally understood. Why only indirect evidence? Because nobody in the various sources I’ve checked commented on that issue when the document came out. Presumably people felt the impact would be minimal, since the various lectionaries and missal translations don’t use the word “Yahweh.” If it was thought to impact a few of the most common hymns in use, it probably would have been worthy of comment or even news coverage - as we saw last year.

So we can consider the various commentators (including yourself) who while ready and willing to catalog each and every failing of OCP, somehow missed this issue - but perhaps they failed to read LA until the second half of last year.

More relevant would be the actions of the bishops. We know the USCCB provided no guidance on this matter. But it’s just a national conference - the rubber really hits the road in the individual dioceses. Since you’re familiar with Laredo, perhaps you can share how Bishop Tamayo responded to this frequent “abuse.” Like any competent bishop, he was of course aware of the use of hymns containing the tetragrammaton in various parishes. If LA were as clear as you say he should have taken responsibility and issued a quick directive describing the promulgation of LA, and instructing his flock on the impact it would have on hymn selection.

To be fair, Bishop Tamayo had a lot on his plate with a relatively new diocese. But at other longer-established, better-staffed dioceses, I’m also not aware of any action on this matter. Sometimes such action is quiet and informal, but with 150 dioceses in the US, I would have expected at least a smattering of cases where the action was public, which in turn would have bred discussion online and in diocesan papers. So we are left with the two main possibilities that all of our nation’s bishops acted irresponsibly on this matter, or that they interpreted the “Yahweh” prohibition as not applying to hymns. I think the latter is much more likely.

First of all, the relevence of my bishop’s workload has nothing to do with this discussion. We became a diocese in 2000. It makes no difference if the diocese is one minute old or 150 years old, the norms apply to everyone, the documents are the same for all.

Second, as the person who pretty much planned the diocesan liturgies, I can assure you that I never used any of the songs in question in the first place. I was blessed to have the guidance of a rector who knew what he was doing and who also had a strong sense of the liturgy. Unfortunately, most times, a bishop will cede a lot of stuff to the diocesan liturgy committee and assume that the person planning the liturgies knows what he is doing. That can be a two-edged sword. It is on the person planning the liturgies to be well-versed in the authoritative documents of the Holy See so that whatever is going out there is in compliance. On the other hand, this may bring on the ire of those who would rather not and continue doing their own thing. These will whine and complain to the bishop and the person planning the liturgy has to defend the selections.

Digitonomy, unless you, yourself, have been directly involved in diocesan and parochial liturgical planning, you may not, with all due respect, necessarily understand how the sausage is made. Everyone wants to eat the sausage, but, no one wants to see how it is made (and I don’t mean cooked).

Furthermore, OCP has many “liturgical” conferences a year. They pride themselves on being at the forefront of liturgical developments. If you talk the talk, you have to walk the walk.

 

[benedictgal]

YHWH was used in German hymns back in the 1800s. The use of the specific name “Yahweh” in American music seems to be relatively recent, however.

Please show us proof.

 

[benedictgal]

I just got this interesting email from OCP:

Did you know?

The word “Yahweh” may no longer be used during liturgical celebrations. OCP has you covered: the new 2010 missals and missal accompaniments include updated texts and revised versions of the affected songs. Plus, we’ve provided a message for your Sunday bulletin!

Here is Dan Schutte’s response:

danschutte.com/revisions.html

He somehow finds Pius XII reasonings enough evidence to do what he did. The Adobe Flash makes it hard to read and hard to copy.

 

[ibkc]

I just got this interesting email from OCP:

Here is Dan Schutte’s response:

danschutte.com/revisions.html

He somehow finds Pius XII reasonings enough evidence to do what he did. The Adobe Flash makes it hard to read and hard to copy.

Good grief. In his last paragraph, he comes across as passive-aggressively encouraging dissent against the directive.

(my emphasis)

For many it is not enough to say we’ll do it because the Vatican congregation says so. They want to understand. Their faith, informed by reason, deserves an intelligent, responsible explanation. And even with careful catechesis, some will choose to continue to sing “You Are Near” just the way they have for the past 37 years. That is the way they know how to pray it.

Remarkable.

 

[TobyLue]

Does anybody know if this also include not using the word “Jehovah” in hymns. In our
church we sing “Guide Me O Thou Great Jehovah” at times with different wording but the words “Great Jehovah” still used even in those hymns.

 

[benedictgal]

Does anybody know if this also include not using the word “Jehovah” in hymns. In our
church we sing “Guide Me O Thou Great Jehovah” at times with different wording but the words “Great Jehovah” still used even in those hymns.

Jehova should never be used. In fact, there is no such thing as Jehova, since it is another variant of the YHWH. The same principle applies.

 

[pnewton]

YHWH was used in German hymns back in the 1800s. The use of the specific name “Yahweh” in American music seems to be relatively recent, however.

I was referring to English, but I will still await your evidence.

 

[Digitonomy]

benedictgal:

Second, as the person who pretty much planned the diocesan liturgies, I can assure you that I never used any of the songs in question in the first place.

Given your view of Shutte and the like, I should think not!

benedictgal:

Unfortunately, most times, a bishop will cede a lot of stuff to the diocesan liturgy committee and assume that the person planning the liturgies knows what he is doing. That can be a two-edged sword. It is on the person planning the liturgies to be well-versed in the authoritative documents of the Holy See so that whatever is going out there is in compliance. On the other hand, this may bring on the ire of those who would rather not and continue doing their own thing. These will whine and complain to the bishop and the person planning the liturgy has to defend the selections.

Digitonomy, unless you, yourself, have been directly involved in diocesan and parochial liturgical planning, you may not, with all due respect, necessarily understand how the sausage is made. Everyone wants to eat the sausage, but, no one wants to see how it is made (and I don’t mean cooked).

Ok, a couple things confuse me about this.

First, I thought when the bishop visits a parish, it’s usually a relatively normal parish mass – in other words planned by the locals. Do I gather correctly from you that when the bishop presides, the liturgy is planned by you or your equivalent in other dioceses? So your bishop may be unaware that parishes sometimes use songs with “YHWH.”

Second, my point about bishops in my previous posts was that they have ultimate responsibility for implementing Vatican instructions in their dioceses, including Liturgiam Authenticam. I had trouble following exactly how you were addressing that point, but you seemed to take issue with it. Are you suggesting bishops should not be held responsible for implementing LA?

benedictgal:

Furthermore, OCP has many “liturgical” conferences a year. They pride themselves on being at the forefront of liturgical developments. If you talk the talk, you have to walk the walk.

Yes, and they have a website, and I’m sure a variety of other means of outreach to their customers. How is this relevant to whether the “Yahweh” prohibition was understood to apply to hymns prior to 2008?

 

[Digitonomy]

pnewton:

Prior to the seventies no one, Catholic or otherwise used YHWH in hymns. That is the novelty.

Digitonomy:

YHWH was used in German hymns back in the 1800s. The use of the specific name “Yahweh” in American music seems to be relatively recent, however.

I think I was mistaken about that last. There are numerous Christadelphian hymns using “Yahweh,” apparently from many decades ago. Unfortunately the page isn’t well documented, so there is a little room for doubt:
antipas.org/hymnbook/hymns.html

I was also surprised to find how long YHWH had been used in English. Here are some examples:

Halleluja, Praise Jehovah (1899)
hymnary.org/text/hallelujah_praise_jehovah-5

Guide Me, O Thou Great Jehovah (Welsh 1745, English 1771)
hymnsite.com/lyrics/umh127.sht

Before Jehova’s Awful Throne (1719)
digitalhymnal.org/dhymn.cfm?hymnNumber=82

Gross ist Jehovah (1825)
answers.com/topic/die-allmacht-gross-ist-jehovah-song-for-voice-piano-d-852-op-79-2

Jehovah, du mein Vater (1804) Beethoven
sheetmusicplus.com/title/3209350

Dir, dir Jehova will ich singen (1697)
ccel.org/a/anonymous/luth_hymnal/tlh021.htm

Jehovah, Jehovah, to my words give ear Handel
artsongcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/aossten.pdf

I would also point out that Rastafarian hymns use “Jah,” which is roughly equivalent. Although it’s used as the Holy Name of God, since it’s consistent with our longstanding use of Hebrew constructions like Hallelu-Jah, they probably wouldn’t violate the new directive. If indeed there are any that would be suitable for Catholic use. Anyway, some of these would also predate 1970.

 

[benedictgal]

I think I was mistaken about that last. There are numerous Christadelphian hymns using “Yahweh,” apparently from many decades ago. Unfortunately the page isn’t well documented, so there is a little room for doubt:
antipas.org/hymnbook/hymns.html

I was also surprised to find how long YHWH had been used in English. Here are some examples:

Halleluja, Praise Jehovah (1899)
hymnary.org/text/hallelujah_praise_jehovah-5

Guide Me, O Thou Great Jehovah (Welsh 1745, English 1771)
hymnsite.com/lyrics/umh127.sht

Before Jehova’s Awful Throne (1719)
digitalhymnal.org/dhymn.cfm?hymnNumber=82

Gross ist Jehovah (1825)
answers.com/topic/die-allmacht-gross-ist-jehovah-song-for-voice-piano-d-852-op-79-2

Jehovah, du mein Vater (1804) Beethoven
sheetmusicplus.com/title/3209350

Dir, dir Jehova will ich singen (1697)
ccel.org/a/anonymous/luth_hymnal/tlh021.htm

Jehovah, Jehovah, to my words give ear Handel
artsongcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/aossten.pdf

I would also point out that Rastafarian hymns use “Jah,” which is roughly equivalent. Although it’s used as the Holy Name of God, since it’s consistent with our longstanding use of Hebrew constructions like Hallelu-Jah, they probably wouldn’t violate the new directive. If indeed there are any that would be suitable for Catholic use. Anyway, some of these would also predate 1970.

From what I could read, some of your sources are not Catholic; they are Lutheran and Calvanist, so that argument certainly does not hold water since it would not have been used in the Mass. Our discussion centers on what should be used at the Mass, not at a Protestant ecclesial community service.

Please cite authentic Catholic sources to prove your point.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Here is Dan Schutte’s response:

danschutte.com/revisions.html

He somehow finds Pius XII reasonings enough evidence to do what he did. The Adobe Flash makes it hard to read and hard to copy.

Huh? He used the Jerusalem Bible with an imprimatur as his basis for the lyrics. The hymn went on to become popular. Let’s not assign some kind of ulterior motive for this.

 

[benedictgal]

Huh? He used the Jerusalem Bible with an imprimatur as his basis for the lyrics. The hymn went on to become popular. Let’s not assign some kind of ulterior motive for this.

Father, with all due respect, did you not read Schutte’s entire statement? He is still convinced that he is right and the CDWDS is wrong. Granted, he wrote the song before LA took effect, but, he seems to not want to accept what Rome has said and is still, as I read his words, stubbornly holding on to his beliefs.

Incidentally, even though he was compelled to change the wording, it would have been better for him to use the word “Father”. He seems to be allergic to the word.

 

[SMHW]

Father, with all due respect, did you not read Schutte’s entire statement? He is still convinced that he is right and the CDWDS is wrong. Granted, he wrote the song before LA took effect, but, he seems to not want to accept what Rome has said and is still, as I read his words, stubbornly holding on to his beliefs.

Incidentally, even though he was compelled to change the wording, it would have been better for him to use the word “Father”. He seems to be allergic to the word.

I agree that Schutte has fallen prey to the inclusive language bug.

But he is correct in saying that the Jerusalem Bible is an exception to the principle that “… the sacred Tetragrammaton was never pronounced in the Christian context nor translated into any of the languages into which the Bible was translated.”

His motives are not pure but Schutte is technically correct in saying that the CDWDS erred. It only takes one instance of an exception to disprove a rule.

And I will willingly admit to my own bias in this case because I fell in love with “You Are Near” when I first heard it back in the 1970s. It has a gentle, almost luluby, type of feel if done correctly.

 

[Digitonomy]

From what I could read, some of your sources are not Catholic; they are Lutheran and Calvanist…

And Christadelphian and Rastafarian.

benedictgal:

Our discussion centers on what should be used at the Mass, not at a Protestant ecclesial community service.

Agreed. I was merely refuting pnewton’s point:

pnewton:

Prior to the seventies no one, Catholic or otherwise used YHWH in hymns.

 

[benedictgal]

And Christadelphian and Rastafarian.Agreed. I was merely refuting pnewton’s point:

But, I think that pnewton meant in a Catholic setting. What you provided was for use in a Protestant ecclesial community, not for the Mass.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Father, with all due respect, did you not read Schutte’s entire statement? He is still convinced that he is right and the CDWDS is wrong. Granted, he wrote the song before LA took effect, but, he seems to not want to accept what Rome has said and is still, as I read his words, stubbornly holding on to his beliefs.

Indeed he appears to not be too happy with the directive to stop using Yahweh. However, I was responding to your statement “He somehow finds Pius XII reasonings enough evidence to do what he did.” It appeared that “what he did” was use the name Yahweh in a song he wrote some 30-odd years ago. His explanation for the original song seems innocent enough to me.

Incidentally, even though he was compelled to change the wording, it would have been better for him to use the word “Father”. He seems to be allergic to the word.

Maybe, but then again Adonai is a traditional substitute for Yahweh.

 

[pnewton]

And Christadelphian and Rastafarian.Agreed. I was merely refuting pnewton’s point:

FYI - I was well aware that Jehovah was used extensively. The existence of the nineteenth century sect, Jehovah’s Witnesses, shows that. I am saying that after the time of the seventies, when Christian music first came in vogue, the name Yahweh seemed to come along with it.

 

[Digitonomy]

FYI - I was well aware that Jehovah was used extensively. The existence of the nineteenth century sect, Jehovah’s Witnesses, shows that. I am saying that after the time of the seventies, when Christian music first came in vogue, the name Yahweh seemed to come along with it.

It is certainly true that the “Yahweh” form of YHWH has become more popular in the last 40 years. At least one of the OCP hymns dates from 1969 (I can’t remember which one), but that hardly disproves your general point. I suspect that there were some smaller groups that used it, but I have no evidence at the present other than the Christadelphian hymnal, whose date is uncertain. It seems unlikely that the Jerusalem Bible was so influential outside Catholic circles that it alone is responsible for the sea change in the frequency of “Yahweh” songs.