Using the Name "Yahweh" in Mass?

[dashso40]

Why?

Because I like saying Jesus, or God or Father…

 

[benedictgal]

Since I wasn’t disputing those points, I’m not sure how they’re relevant. My point was that liturgical hymns are not explicitly included in the “Yahweh” prohibition, and it’s not obvious from the document that people should second-guess the plain text. As a result, few if any at the time interpreted it that way.Indeed, although LA distinguishes between sung texts and liturgical hymns.Since any composer can introduce a new hymn, with proper local approval, I don’t think that choice of hymnody for a particular mass constitutes changing the parts of the mass under RS.That does surprise me. I thought some here were finding fault with the USCCB for failing to do this. Perhaps I’m confusing more than one directory of songs.

OCP has very poor quality control. While the bishop may be the first stop-gap, the publishing house is the final step. While you may, as you have done in previous threads, defend OCP, they do not, as I have experienced, have a clear leg to stand on in either the issue of the Holy Name of God nor in the parts of the Mass.

Liturgical hymns are part of the liturgical texts since these are used for the Mass. You also did not read my posts wherein I noted that OCP bears a lot of the blame here because, not only did they let the songs with the Holy Name of God slip through, they also allowed paraphrased parts of the Mass (as in the case with the Spanish version of the Gloria) to slip into the liturgy.

 

[pnewton]

I see both sides of OCP. It is easy to miss one aspect of one document in the plethora of information that is out there. Especially in a corportate atmosphere, I could believe something like that could slip between the cracks.

I think the deeper issue is OCP taking a poor approach to liturgical publication. For Catholics, moving slower and more cautiously should override the corporate concepts of innovation and marketing. Perhaps liturgical publishing is the lone exception to the way a company should view changing its product, but there is more at stake than market shares and keeping customers.

 

[Digitonomy]

OCP has very poor quality control. While the bishop may be the first stop-gap, the publishing house is the final step. While you may, as you have done in previous threads, defend OCP, they do not, as I have experienced, have a clear leg to stand on in either the issue of the Holy Name of God nor in the parts of the Mass.

I don’t care much about OCP, and have no intent to defend them generally. They may well be the sloppy, irresponsible, insubordinate, irreverent, money-grubbing, touchy-feelie tools of the secularist left wing, the very smoke that Paul VI warned had entered the Church, that posters here have claimed. I will, however, defend OCP against what I see as an inaccurate claim - that OCP should have known that the Yahweh prohibition extended to hymns - when in fact very few knew this until last year.

benedictgal:

You also did not read my posts wherein I noted that OCP bears a lot of the blame here because…

I did read those, but didn’t see how any actions that OCP took were relevant to whether the CDW’s 2008 interpretation of the Yahweh prohibition was appreciated by anyone before that.

 

[Digitonomy]

I think the deeper issue is OCP taking a poor approach to liturgical publication. For Catholics, moving slower and more cautiously should override the corporate concepts of innovation and marketing. Perhaps liturgical publishing is the lone exception to the way a company should view changing its product, but there is more at stake than market shares and keeping customers.

I can’t speak to the larger issues you raise, but I don’t think what you say applies to the Yahweh prohibition. Rather than making an innovative interpretation of the prohibition, and taking action that both undercuts its composers and confuses parish musicians and priests, OCP moved more slowly and cautiously.

It shouldn’t be the job of a publisher to go out on a limb with a novel interpretation of Church documents - instead they should follow the guidance of bishops.

 

[benedictgal]

I can’t speak to the larger issues you raise, but I don’t think what you say applies to the Yahweh prohibition. Rather than making an innovative interpretation of the prohibition, and taking action that both undercuts its composers and confuses parish musicians and priests, OCP moved more slowly and cautiously.

It shouldn’t be the job of a publisher to go out on a limb with a novel interpretation of Church documents - instead they should follow the guidance of bishops.

But, a responsible publisher should kept abreast of the authoritative Church’s documents. When I spoke to OCP, the editor was bragging about how they keep up with the latest changes. Obviously, this was not the case. Furthermore, the bishops, for their part, also need to keep abreast with what the Holy See mandates.

As I said, you seem to defend OCP even though you state that you could care less. With all due respect, you seem to take the contrary approach to things. Granted, this is your prerogative, but, you seem to want to absolve the publisher of any responsibility even though they share a good deal of the culpability.

 

[Digitonomy]

But, a responsible publisher should kept abreast of the authoritative Church’s documents. When I spoke to OCP, the editor was bragging about how they keep up with the latest changes. Obviously, this was not the case. Furthermore, the bishops, for their part, also need to keep abreast with what the Holy See mandates.

As I said, you seem to defend OCP even though you state that you could care less. With all due respect, you seem to take the contrary approach to things. Granted, this is your prerogative, but, you seem to want to absolve the publisher of any responsibility even though they share a good deal of the culpability.

If Liturgiam Authenticam’s paragraph 41, subsection c), was generally understood to apply to hymns in the period from 2001 to 2008, then OCP has culpability. I haven’t seen any evidence to support this. It doesn’t matter how much of a braggart the OCP editor is, or how much of a contrarian I may or may not be; if that part of LA was not understood as such, you can’t fairly construe OCP’s lack of action on this matter as “not keeping up.”

 

[ibkc]

I don’t care much about OCP, and have no intent to defend them generally. They may well be the sloppy, irresponsible, insubordinate, irreverent, money-grubbing, touchy-feelie tools of the secularist left wing, the very smoke that Paul VI warned had entered the Church, that posters here have claimed. I will, however, defend OCP against what I see as an inaccurate claim - that OCP should have known that the Yahweh prohibition extended to hymns - when in fact very few knew this until last year.

Excuse me, but I guess I am missing something here. Why shouldn’t have they have known? As a publisher of missals, hymns and liturgical planning tools, isn’t it their job to stay on top of this sort of thing? Parishes use those materials in good faith, that OCP knows what it is doing. Why is it excusable that OCP doesn’t live up to its side of the bargain?

ETA: I’m sorry if I sound like a smarty-pants.

 

[benedictgal]

Excuse me, but I guess I am missing something here. Why shouldn’t have they have known? As a publisher of missals, hymns and liturgical planning tools, isn’t it their job to stay on top of this sort of thing? Parishes use those materials in good faith, that OCP knows what it is doing. Why is it excusable that OCP doesn’t live up to its side of the bargain?

ETA: I’m sorry if I sound like a smarty-pants.

No, you don’t sound like one. In fact, you have made my point. When I called OCP to ask them about these deficiencies, they told me that they read up on the latest documents. I told them that, apparently, they missed LA by a wide mile.

Here is the fascinating part: we whine and complain when manufacturers of products we use, like food and cosmetics, have to issue re-calls because they messed up and released merchandise that was not fit for use. Should we not be just as upset when what we use for the Mass is not at all suitable because it violates the authoritative documents of the Holy See?

 

[SMHW]

No, you don’t sound like one. In fact, you have made my point. When I called OCP to ask them about these deficiencies, they told me that they read up on the latest documents. I told them that, apparently, they missed LA by a wide mile.

But the point being made is that while they maybe should have known better (since ignorance of the law is no excuse) they probably thought they were within the guidelines in this particular instance. They were operating under the interpretation of LA that said hymns were not liturgical texts. (Which brings up a question which I shall ask later in this post.) Many of the key players at OCP are on the staffs of dioceses and seminaries around the country which causes something of a circular effect. Dioceses tend to believe what their seminaries teach and that would include interpretations of LA.

It’s been my experience that when a dioceses (re: bishop) learns that there is some new directive or that his interpretation of an existing document was contrary to Rome’s interpretation that it takes a good two years before the word gets out that things need to change and at least twice that long before the change is widely implemented. Whatever knowledge those at OCP may possess thy are like any corporation facing a major change and will spend several months (or years) asking, “What do we do now?” and “How soon do we have to do this?” and “Who’s guidance do *we *listen to?”

And now for my question. Actually it is a multi-part question. Do publishers have a responsibility to ONLY include music which is suitable for a liturgy? Is it acceptable to include devotional material that might be used in group settings other than liturgies and if so, must it be clearly marked?

 

[benedictgal]

But the point being made is that while they maybe should have known better (since ignorance of the law is no excuse) they probably thought they were within the guidelines in this particular instance. They were operating under the interpretation of LA that said hymns were not liturgical texts. (Which brings up a question which I shall ask later in this post.) Many of the key players at OCP are on the staffs of dioceses and seminaries around the country which causes something of a circular effect. Dioceses tend to believe what their seminaries teach and that would include interpretations of LA.

It’s been my experience that when a dioceses (re: bishop) learns that there is some new directive or that his interpretation of an existing document was contrary to Rome’s interpretation that it takes a good two years before the word gets out that things need to change and at least twice that long before the change is widely implemented. Whatever knowledge those at OCP may possess thy are like any corporation facing a major change and will spend several months (or years) asking, “What do we do now?” and “How soon do we have to do this?” and “Who’s guidance do *we *listen to?”

And now for my question. Actually it is a multi-part question. Do publishers have a responsibility to ONLY include music which is suitable for a liturgy? Is it acceptable to include devotional material that might be used in group settings other than liturgies and if so, must it be clearly marked?

If these publishers are going to be touting that their wares are suitable for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, then, it is their responsibility to make sure that their claim is true. Second, with that huge team of theirs, OCP should have been keeping up with the rulings made by the Holy See, especially LA. LA was promulgated in 2001. It has been more than a “good two years” since that time. Furthermore, even the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy notes that no one has the authority to change any part of the Mass. What the publishing house has done with their paraphrases of the ordinary of the Mass is inexcusable, and, the Constitution has certainly been around for more than a “good two years.”

If there is music that is suitable for something outside the confines of the liturgy, be it the Mass, Benediction, LOTH, then, it should be marked so as to avoid confusion.

 

[Digitonomy]

Excuse me, but I guess I am missing something here. Why shouldn’t have they have known? As a publisher of missals, hymns and liturgical planning tools, isn’t it their job to stay on top of this sort of thing?

Good question. It is their job to be aware of what documents, such as Liturgiam Authenticam, say. But it’s not their job to read the minds of the Congregation for Divine Worship. The prohibition on use of the tetragrammaton (YHWH) in Liturgiam Authenticam is in a section titled “Other norms pertaining to the translation of the Sacred Scriptures and the preparation of Lectionaries”. It’s pretty clear this section does not apply directly to hymns, but to translations of the lectionary (such as the Canadians were undertaking), or sung texts like those of the psalter. But LA provides that these guidelines should also be applied as appropriate to other texts. So for instance even though the Eucharistic Prayers may not always correspond directly with scripture, they should also follow the Latin as closely as possible, omit “Yahweh,” etc. The same with sung texts such as the Our Father, Gloria, Nicene Creed, and so forth (you may have noticed in the past these did not always precisely match the normal spoken text - LA intended to correct this).

The question is how far this should extend. Should announcements at the end of mass, for instance, be carefully vetted to assure there is no translation issue at odds with the instructions in LA? Hymns (like announcements) clearly are texts of a sort, but there was (and still is) reason to believe that they did not fall fully within the rules promulgated in LA.

Take for instance the hymn “You Are Near.” It is based on Psalm 139. But it is not Psalm 139, it is a hymn. Whichever week Psalm 139 is recited at mass, I hope nobody ever used this hymn in its place. Hymns generally need not be exact translations of scripture, in fact they don’t even need to be based on particular scripture verses (consider Silent Night). However, if we decide to apply the rules of LA to all hymns, we stumble upon paragraph 60:

Whether it be a question of the texts of Sacred Scripture or of those taken from the Liturgy and already duly confirmed, paraphrases are not to be substituted with the intention of making them more easily set to music, nor may hymns considered generically equivalent be employed in their place.[39]

So by this rule, every hymn that does not exactly match the approved scriptural translation, but instead paraphrases it, may not be allowed. It seems doubtful this was the intent. Rather than adhering rigorously to the many instructions in LA, it seems more reasonable that hymns were intended to be dealt with through a separate process as we see in paragraph 108:

Within five years from the publication of this Instruction, the Conferences of Bishops, necessarily in collaboration with the national and diocesan Commissions and with other experts, shall provide for the publication of a directory or repertory of texts intended for liturgical singing.

I think there is some similarity to the traditional Latin mass. When the present Mass of Paul VI was promulgated, it was generally understood that the old Latin mass had been suppressed or abrogated. Anyone who suggested otherwise was generally regarded as a traditionalist crank. Along came Benedict in 2007, who stated that in fact that form of the mass had never been abrogated. So that’s our current understanding, just as after 2008 we understood that the Yahweh prohibition is to apply to hymns as well. But just as it would have been irresponsible for OCP or anyone else before 2007 to suggest that priests could celebrate the traditional Latin mass without special permission, it was not widely accepted before 2008 that the tetragrammaton must be struck from all hymns.

 

[benedictgal]

Good question. It is their job to be aware of what documents, such as Liturgiam Authenticam, say. But it’s not their job to read the minds of the Congregation for Divine Worship. The prohibition on use of the tetragrammaton (YHWH) in Liturgiam Authenticam is in a section titled “Other norms pertaining to the translation of the Sacred Scriptures and the preparation of Lectionaries”. It’s pretty clear this section does not apply directly to hymns, but to translations of the lectionary (such as the Canadians were undertaking), or sung texts like those of the psalter. But LA provides that these guidelines should also be applied as appropriate to other texts. So for instance even though the Eucharistic Prayers may not always correspond directly with scripture, they should also follow the Latin as closely as possible, omit “Yahweh,” etc. The same with sung texts such as the Our Father, Gloria, Nicene Creed, and so forth (you may have noticed in the past these did not always precisely match the normal spoken text - LA intended to correct this).

The question is how far this should extend. Should announcements at the end of mass, for instance, be carefully vetted to assure there is no translation issue at odds with the instructions in LA? Hymns (like announcements) clearly are texts of a sort, but there was (and still is) reason to believe that they did not fall fully within the rules promulgated in LA.

Take for instance the hymn “You Are Near.” It is based on Psalm 139. But it is not Psalm 139, it is a hymn. Whichever week Psalm 139 is recited at mass, I hope nobody ever used this hymn in its place. Hymns generally need not be exact translations of scripture, in fact they don’t even need to be based on particular scripture verses (consider Silent Night). However, if we decide to apply the rules of LA to all hymns, we stumble upon paragraph 60:So by this rule, every hymn that does not exactly match the approved scriptural translation, but instead paraphrases it, may not be allowed. It seems doubtful this was the intent. Rather than adhering rigorously to the many instructions in LA, it seems more reasonable that hymns were intended to be dealt with through a separate process as we see in paragraph 108:

I think there is some similarity to the traditional Latin mass. When the present Mass of Paul VI was promulgated, it was generally understood that the old Latin mass had been suppressed or abrogated. Anyone who suggested otherwise was generally regarded as a traditionalist crank. Along came Benedict in 2007, who stated that in fact that form of the mass had never been abrogated. So that’s our current understanding, just as after 2008 we understood that the Yahweh prohibition is to apply to hymns as well. But just as it would have been irresponsible for OCP or anyone else before 2007 to suggest that priests could celebrate the traditional Latin mass without special permission, it was not widely accepted before 2008 that the tetragrammaton must be struck from all hymns.

Actually, Pope Benedict held that opinion long before when he was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Just read his books on the liturgy.

Your comparison of the OCP debacle to the Latin Mass really does not make any sense because the two entities are totally different.

As I said, with all due respect, you like to be contrary and take the opposite position on things. That is your prerogative. However, LA clearly indicated that the tentragrammaton could not be used in the liturgy. This includes music. The fact that OCP was negligent in this, and in other things, should not excuse them.

 

[Digitonomy]

However, LA clearly indicated that the tentragrammaton could not be used in the liturgy. This includes music.

I still await your evidence that people widely held this interpretation prior to last year.

 

[benedictgal]

I still await your evidence that people widely held this interpretation prior to last year.

And, with all due respect, I still await evidence that supports your stance. LA has been around for eight years. That is more than enough time for the publishing house to have gotten its act together. 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.

Furthermore, I spoke to the USCCB and was told that Rome had already received the directory of music from them (and this was sent back in 2006). Rome has yet to grant the necessary recognitio. The secretariat for the Bishops Committee on Worship wondered why it was taking Rome a long time to give its ascent to the directory.

It seems to me rather interesting that the reminder regarding the Holy Name of God was given to the USCCB specifically. One could very well infer that one (or more) of the songs submitted for recognitio probably included a reference to the Holy Name of God, since the person assisting in the compilation of the directory was a member of the St. Louis Jesuits. While this is speculation, it is very plausible. In fact, it took me some time to make the connection and my reasoning did not fully come into play until after I hung up with the USCCB. It also started to make a little more sense as I recalled the conversation that I had last year with the Secretary to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments when he told me that there would be a document regarding sacred music coming out some time in 2009. Of course, with the changes in administration, it may well be pushed back to some time next year.

 

[schnurdc]

I work with a JW and he recently gave me a Watchtower tract concerning the prohibition of Yahweh in liturgical celebrations. It claims that early Christians did pronounce the name and the tract shows a photo of a first century copy of the Septuagint with the tetragrammaton to back up the claim. My understanding is that from about the 6th C. BC the Jews did not pronounce it except during the Day of Atonement and then only by the high priest. Before I enter into discussion with him I want to be certain of the facts. I am curious as to why the practice began and why the Catholic Church continues it. I have been unable to find out anything definite on the internet and was hoping someone in this forum might be able to shed some light on this for me. Also I was wondering if there is such a copy of the Septuagint and, if so, why the tetragrammaton is written rather than Kyrios. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Blessings
Dan

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

And, with all due respect, I still await evidence that supports your stance. LA has been around for eight years. That is more than enough time for the publishing house to have gotten its act together.

I think what Digitonomy’s main point is that the quotation from LA that you refer to is under a section entitled Other norms pertaining to the translation of the Sacred Scriptures and the preparation of Lectionaries. Reading the section, it appears to deal mainly with translations of Lectionaries and liturgical books. Now while a hymnal may be a “liturgical book”, I don’t think its too hard to see where confusion could ensue in regards to hymns that are not used as the responsorial psalms.

So, I guess we’ll see what happens with the new batch of OCP books.

 

[benedictgal]

I work with a JW and he recently gave me a Watchtower tract concerning the prohibition of Yahweh in liturgical celebrations. It claims that early Christians did pronounce the name and the tract shows a photo of a first century copy of the Septuagint with the tetragrammaton to back up the claim. My understanding is that from about the 6th C. BC the Jews did not pronounce it except during the Day of Atonement and then only by the high priest. Before I enter into discussion with him I want to be certain of the facts. I am curious as to why the practice began and why the Catholic Church continues it. I have been unable to find out anything definite on the internet and was hoping someone in this forum might be able to shed some light on this for me. Also I was wondering if there is such a copy of the Septuagint and, if so, why the tetragrammaton is written rather than Kyrios. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Blessings
Dan

Actually, if you read Liturgiam Authenticam, it serves as a measure to clean up and clear out the practice.

Here it is:

adoremus.org/liturgiamauthenticam.html

I hope this helps.

 

[DaveBj]

Thank you, benedictgal, but doesn’t YHWH mean “I am, who am”, and not Lord and make Dominus an incorrect translation? Or is it not meant to actually be a translation but just meant to keep in accordance with the use of Latin as the language of the Church?

And to be clear, I honestly am not trying to be impetuous, I’d just really like to fully understand all of our reasoning for why we practice mass the way we do.

Actually, “I Am That I Am” is “ehyeh asher ehyeh” (pronounce the h’s, but the sh is as it is in English). JHWH is the 3rd person singular, “He Is.” After the return from the Babylonian exile the Jews chose to quit pronouncing it and substituted “Adonai” (literally “my lords”). It is this word that is translated "Lord’ (“Dominus” in Latin).

DaveBj

 

[pnewton]

It shouldn’t be the job of a publisher to go out on a limb with a novel interpretation of Church documents - instead they should follow the guidance of bishops.

A novel interpretation?



The irony here is so rich: OCP being careful not to engage in novelty. Prior to the seventies no one, Catholic or otherwise used YHWH in hymns. *That *is the novelty. It became popular and cool to use the name in Protestant circles, starting with the charismatic groups and spread from there.

That is my point. OCP has no problem going out on a limb in introducing novel wording of the Mass or novel approaches to hymns. Irony of ironies.