Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Congregation for Divine Worship: Leave God's Name Out Of It [Ecumenical]
CMR ^ | August 10, 2008 | Patrick Archbold

Posted on 08/11/2008 9:58:24 AM PDT by NYer

Fr. Jay Toborowsky, the Young Fogey himself, has a very interesting piece on an instruction sent out by Cardinal Arinze of the Congregation for Divine Worship prohibiting the literal Hebrew pronunciation of the name of God to be used in songs or prayers.

What is Rome talking about? The "Tetragrammaton". Confused? We're talking about the four Hebrew letters yod, heh, vav, and heh (יהוה) transliterated in English as "YHWH", and found in some translations of the Old Testament as well as the occasional hymn as "Yahweh". "Tetragrammaton" is a Greek word meaning "four letters", as in the 4 letters used to name God.

In books of Scripture written in Hebrew, the name is certainly written, but never pronounced phonetically. Instead, the word "Adonai" ("God") is substituted, or even the words "Ha Shem" (literally, "The Name") are used. For Jews, even to say the proper name of God would be a violation of the third commandment (or second commandment to Christians), taking God's name in vain. The only time it was used in Judaism was once per year by the High Priest during Yom Kippur, when he alone had the privilege of pronouncing God's authentic name while offering prayers of atonement on behalf of the people.
...
So what does this mean? First of all, directive one says that the word "YHWH" is not to be used in liturgical celebrations ... The second directive says that in future translations of Scripture into vernacular languages, the word YHWH be translated as "God". It's hard to say what this will affect in the future, but looking to the past, I believe it is the New Jerusalem Bible that used "Yahweh" in translations of the Psalms. In short, words like "God" or "Lord" should be used, rather than God's proper name.
The best part of this this instruction? A piece of Schutte gets the boot. Dan Schutte's "Sing A New Song" which has the line "Yahweh's people dance for joy," should no longer be used in the liturgy. Buh-bye.

Now if we can only get the CDW to ban singing in the first person as if we were Yah... Um... God.


TOPICS: Catholic; Worship
KEYWORDS: catholic; cdw; pope
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last

1 posted on 08/11/2008 9:58:24 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; nickcarraway; Romulus; ...

There has to be more to this story, don’t you think?


2 posted on 08/11/2008 10:00:04 AM PDT by NYer ("Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ." - St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

As long as we can still address Him as our Father, I don’t have a problem.


3 posted on 08/11/2008 10:07:05 AM PDT by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Seems reasonable to me.

Why interpolate something into the liturgy that is not supposed to be there, and additionally greatly offends our Jewish brethren?

And getting rid of that awful Schutte song is just a happy byproduct. There are so many other rotten songs out there that I don't see a deep, dark plot here.

4 posted on 08/11/2008 10:12:22 AM PDT by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother

You mean the one that goes Yaaaaaahhhhhweeeeehhhhh, Yaaaaaahhhhhweeeeehhhh? Talk about taking the Lord’s name in vain.


5 posted on 08/11/2008 10:21:28 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I do think there’s got to be more to it, but it’s overdue, in any case. The Jerusalem Bible’s use of “Yahweh” blighted what would otherwise be fairly adequate modern translations of the Psalms, and spread this unfortunate usage, which is foreign to the Christian literary and liturgical world. And certainly, it couldn’t be very fondly viewed by Jews.

I’m surprised that this happened now and I’d like to know what was behind it, but I’m just glad it’s finally happened!


6 posted on 08/11/2008 10:24:48 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer
There has to be more to this story, don’t you think?

**********************

I don't know. What do you think it might be?

7 posted on 08/11/2008 10:44:02 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I have no problems with a restriction on pronouncing the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew, and saying instead “the Lord” or “Jehovah”, as it is usually translated.


8 posted on 08/11/2008 10:49:24 AM PDT by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
It always struck me as somehow trendy, tacky, "cheap thrills", and thoughtless.

Not that that's a BAD thing ...

9 posted on 08/11/2008 10:53:36 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: livius
NO! Who on earth wrote THAT one????!!!!??? Sounds dreadful.

But it also sounds like that one's out, too! Hurrah!

(This one is the one that goes, "Sing a new song unto the Lord,
Let your song be sung from mountains high.
Sing a new song unto the Lord,
Singing, Alleluia.

Yahweh's people dance for joy,
O come before the Lord,
And play for him on glad tambourines
And let your trumpets sound.")

Etc. etc. That's from shuddering memory, so it may not be quite right.

The words are a pretty stupid (and not particularly accurate) paraphrase of Psalm 149. Of course the Jerusalem Bible is the only one that uses "Yahweh" here -- even Young's Literal uses the truncated form "Ja" or just writes out the old "Jehovah" (itself the product of a reading error).

10 posted on 08/11/2008 10:54:13 AM PDT by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
Of course the Jerusalem Bible is the only one that uses "Yahweh" here -- even Young's Literal uses the truncated form "Ja" or just writes out the old "Jehovah" (itself the product of a reading error).

Ja? Is Young a Rastafarian? ;-)

11 posted on 08/11/2008 11:00:21 AM PDT by Pyro7480 ("If the angels could be jealous of men, they would be so for one reason: Holy Communion." -M. Kolbe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

Beats me. Don’t know the guy, usually use him when I’m too lazy to grab the Lexicon and the Greek Bible. It sounds old, though, 19th century American protestant scholar would be my bet.


12 posted on 08/11/2008 11:08:01 AM PDT by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother

What annoys me is that they took a lot of the fluffy songs and gender-normed them.


13 posted on 08/11/2008 11:17:55 AM PDT by tiki (True Christians will not deliberately slander or misrepresent others or their beliefs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Yeah: The word “Yahweh” is an invention of heretics, like “Jehovah,” which is similarly deemed inappropriate for church hymns. Now: can we ban having the congregation sing about God in the first person? Serious, “Christ, the Lord” would sound so much better than “I, the Lord,” anyway. (worst offenders: Here I Am, I Am the Resurrection, I Am the Bread of Life, Be Not Afraid)

I’m not slamming on the song-writing. “Be Not Afraid” is very beautiful to listen to when a soloist sings it. But it’s lousy as a choral hymn.


14 posted on 08/11/2008 11:21:07 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

Is Young a Rastafarian?

No Way!
Ja, Weh!


15 posted on 08/11/2008 11:22:54 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother

“Seems reasonable to me.

Why interpolate something into the liturgy that is not supposed to be there, and additionally greatly offends our Jewish brethren?”

How many of our Jewish brethren participate in our worship services?


16 posted on 08/11/2008 11:23:21 AM PDT by jagusafr ("Bugs, Mr. Rico! Zillions of 'em!" - Robert Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jagusafr
Well, my daughter's Jewish friends sometimes go to Mass with her (she's very ecumenical - her close college friends include fellow Catholics, a couple of Presbyterians (it is a Presby college, after all), two Jewish guys, and a Mormon.)

I don't think her Jewish friends are particularly observant and may even be Reform, but why offend them unnecessarily with something that is a modern (and unauthorized) interpolation into the liturgy?

17 posted on 08/11/2008 11:27:55 AM PDT by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NYer

A more precise answer: The very point of “YHWH” is that it’s unpronounceable according to Jewish phonemes. Ancient Hebrew did not include written vowels. Certain letter combinations implied certain possible vowels. Trying to fill in the vowels would be like trying to figure out which vowels belong between “q” and “t” in a name. You can choose “u” (”qut”) and pronounce it “cut,” but the truth is that isn’t really English.

And that’s for a reason: The only reason the word was ever used in Hebrew was precisely so that the Name of God could not be casually stated. For that reason, in English we construct a name from a word (”god”) rather than using an actual name.


18 posted on 08/11/2008 11:31:44 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jagusafr

>> How many of our Jewish brethren participate in our worship services? <<

It makes us look like we don’t understand God.


19 posted on 08/11/2008 11:33:04 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother; dangus

When I saw that, a line in Bob Marley’s “Is This Love” popped into my head: “We’ll share the same room, yeah! - for Jah provide the bread.” But as I just read/remembered, “Jah” is used in the Hebrew version of the Bible, hence “Hallelujah.” ;-)


20 posted on 08/11/2008 11:35:22 AM PDT by Pyro7480 ("If the angels could be jealous of men, they would be so for one reason: Holy Communion." -M. Kolbe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson