Why don’t you read the actual letter from the Vatican.
Not quite true !
Is your sig picture the “un-lookable-at” image of Yahweh?
No it isn’t. We are not permitted to pronouce YHWH (which, by the way, is the way we should spell it because that’s the way the Catechism does) but we are permitted to pronouce the shortened “Yah” as in “hallelujah”.
And, especially appropriate:
Out of respect, we too are not to use the Ineffable Name, but are instead charged to use the word LORD.
The regulations are for use in the Liturgy, not for private reading
Huh? No-one said you had to start throwing Bibles out with the full spelling of YHWH in them, LOL. Every time you read over It, just say “Lord” like Jews and Christians have always done.
) or taking His Name in vain by saying something like “Oh, God!!!” (in exasperation, for example), if “God” isn’t His Name (which I’ve always known it’s not His Name but more like “what” He is)?
An “older” phrase refering to the “unpronouncable-ness” of Yahweh is “ineffable”, which I personally think is a MUCH better term.
I’m sure that was not Rome’s intention, to confuse people. That’s why their decision was explained with a fair amount of context (historically and liturgically).
On what basis do you make this argument? “YHWH” may be the ineffable name, but Jesus – that is, Yehoshua, which means “Yah(weh) is salvation” – is not the same name as YHWH. And in this document that the Church put out, it says that the name Jesus was bestowed was “Lord”, that is, “Adonai”, or, more specifically, “YHWH”.
Do you have children? If so, do you encourage them to call you by your first name, or do you prefer “mother” or “mom” or “mommy” or “ma”, etc.? Most parents I know would find it disrespectful for their children to call them by their name rather than by their “title”, that is, their relational title.
Because when we say “God”, we mean the Aramaic “El”, which is the (generic) word for (a) god. When we say “God”, we mean the true God. To say “God” is a perfectly acceptable substitute for saying His name. As to why saying “God” in an unworthy manner is a blasphemous sin, it’s because you are invoking God in a manner which does Him no glory at all.
Although Christ’s Name is holy, Tradition or Scripture has never had a prohibition against saying It. However, in both Judaism and Christianity, it has universally been standard to use “Lord” (“Adonai” to the Jews, and “Kurios” to the Christians) in the ineffable Name’s stead, out of respect. “Lord” has always been used in Christianity.
You wouldn’t call your father by his first name, would you? Only “dad” or “daddy” is suitable.
Because, in the Bible it says we are not to curse anything, and it is a sin. And when we invoke God’s authority to curse something, we are disobeying Him in two ways. It’s blaspemy.If we should not be pronouncing YHWH because that’s His Name, then why is it a sin to say “God d*** it!” (not that I think that’s a good thing to do
You will not find this anywhere in the Bible. For such a critical point in Jewish tradition, it was not in their scripture. I am still waiting to see this out on the USCCB website.
Because Jews didn’t believe in “Scripture alone”. Jews did not say the name of the Lord, YHWH. They pronounced “adonai” in its place. Are you disputing this?
Is that the rationale the Church is using for restricting saying “Yahweh” in the liturgy?The name of the Lord can, of course, be taken in vain in many varied and interesting ways, and removing it from liturgy won’t lessen that one iota.
The Church has historical incorporated many Jewish elements into the liturgy. I guess this is just one more that we might be going back to.
I’m confused; are you saying the Jewish liturgy did or didn’t include the use of the Divine Name (outside, perhaps, of the high priest saying the name in the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur)? What are we “going back to”?
It’s been pointed out to you earlier that the the News division of the USSCB (Catholic News Service) has already released an article on this that interviewed the chair of the USCCB.
Not at all. I just remembered that the anonymous, trustworthy source that first leaked this stated it would be on the USCCB website two weeks ago. I am not the one that made the claim. I just notice that it proved false.