Catholics at worship should neither sing nor pronounce the name of God as “Yahweh,” the Vatican has said, citing the authority of both Jewish and Christian practice.
The instruction came in a June 29 letter to Catholic bishops conferences around the world from the Vatican’s top liturgical body, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, by an explicit “directive” of Pope Benedict XVI.
“In recent years the practice has crept in of pronouncing the God of Israel’s proper name,” the letter noted, referring to the four-consonant Hebrew “Tetragrammaton,” YHWH.
That name is commonly pronounced as “Yahweh,” though other versions include “Jaweh” and “Yehovah.” But such pronunciation violates long-standing Jewish tradition, the Vatican reminded bishops.
This is fascinating for any number of reasons, including that the practice of pronouncing YHWH as Yahweh was popularized more by its use in the Catholic “Jerusalem Bible” than anything else. A few years ago I attended a series of lectures at McGill University given by professor Alan Segal who is one of a surprisingly large group of Jewish scholars who have treated the New Testament seriously. There was quite a mixture of Jews and Christians in the audience. Throughout the first lecture he repeatedly referred to God as “Yahweh”. At the beginning of the second lecture he commented on this saying that he first heard Christians doing, and when God did not strike them dead he figured it was probably not the right pronunciation anyway!
I have never been comfortable using the the name, and have tended to follow the Jewish practice of simply using a synonym.
Jon R
This is amazing. As Grant points out, the Jerusalem Bible (English and French, with approval of the Church) popularised this. [url=http://www.vulcanhammer.org/rc/emmanuel/]It was used extenstively in Catholic music for a good while, as you can see here.[/url]
“Yaheweh In The Morning” sounds like a radio morning-drive show.
Fortunately, I will not particularly miss most of the hymns in question.
“All right, no one is to stone [i]anyone[/i] until I blow this whistle. Even — and I want to make this perfectly clear! — even if they [i]do[/i] say ‘Jehova.'”
How DARE they not be more inclusive!
#7 said “How DARE they not be more inclusive! ”
They are being inclusive: they are including the beliefs of Jewish folk in determining how Roman Catholic Christians should worship.
Since seminary days, when the divine showed up in anything I wrote it was always “YHWH”, which I always read as, “Adonai elohim”. It was the usage of Yehezekel Kaufmann that persuaded me. “Yahweh” only crosses my lips under duress. So, as is often the case with the Vatican these days, I am definitely with the program. Of course, there is the minor matter of the Jerusalem Bible, plus all those Weston Priory anthems. It’s worth reflecting on the difference between central authority and the complete lack of it.
Interesting – at a time when I understand Christians in Malaysia [I think] have been fighting battles in court in order to continuing to use the name “Allah”.
I am a Brazilian catholic who lives in England, the Jerusalem Bible, and others Catholic translation of the Bible in Portugues, and some himns used in the catholic church in Portuguese countries, translates YHWH as “JAVE” the J is pronounced as the S(sure) in LEISURE. By what I know with consent of the Santo Padre.
I have never been comfortable using “Yahweh” mainly because some of my earliest mentors were Jewish Christians, and they taught me the practice of the reading of Adonai for the Divine Name.
Then came the (original) Jerusalem Bible, which I loved (and still do!) for its poetic rendering of the Psalms and the Gospel of John. But because of the use of Yahweh, I put away and only use on rare occasions, or substituted “The Lord” when “the other” appeared. I hope this will foster a new edtion of the JB correcting this practice.
However, what really drives people around me crazy (Hi Fr. John at St. Peter’s!) is my refusal to say or sing “Jehoviah”, which my Jewish Chrisitan friends refer to as “the Name that Never Was”. I can’t stand that mistaken translation.
I’m still ok with “Jesus” as opposed to Jesu (Yay-su), which my friends say is very close to the Aramaic for Jesus. I can’t explain why, my guess would be continual use from infancy.
Shalom in Y’shua!
Jim Elliott <><
Well, of course Jesus is the Greek for Joshua (Yeshua). However to get a full flavor of the debate see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua_(name). And the divine name deserves all respect. But I have never understood omitting the “o” frm God as in G-d in some Jewish practice.
See this:
http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2008/01/o-lord.html
I am glad that Fr. Hunwicke “scooped” the Vatican on this matter.
Some years ago, I looked for the source of the pronunciation “Yahweh”. As far as I can tell, someone decided that’s correct, and it just caught on.
A friend who seems to know a great deal about Jewish mysticism informs me that the devil’s secret name is also YHVH, although pronounced with vowels different from that of God. He says that “Yahweh” is very close to the name of the devil, and wonders whether some rabbi, tired of having Christians ask him how to pronounce the Divine Name, gave them that pronunciation!
If one adds “shin” to the Divine Name, the result is YHShVH, which can be pronounced Yehoshuah, or Joshua.
I attended a Sedar at the Campus Episcopal Center once, that was led, by invitation, by the Rabbi from the Hillel House (Jewish Campus center). I was asked to be one of the readers for a portion of the service, and in looking over it noticed that one line had the Tetragramation for the name of God.
Well, when I got to it, I noticed that the Rabbi was kind of smirking, but that changed to a surprised grin when I read it as “The Lord” and kept going.
He later congratulated me for knowing what to do. However, I get the sneaky feeling that I was set up!
Peace
Jim E. <><
Jim,
I grew up Jewish, and converted to Christianity as an adult. There was never any Jewish prohibition against speaking the name “Jesus” or “Y’shua.” After all, that’s the name of Joshua, and we couldn’t have told the story of the Battle of Jericho in Exodus without that name 😉 !
All joking aside, I do appreciate the Vatican’s new directive. The name of God is holy – who are we sinners to bandy it about?
Sophy,
That’s not what I meant. Although I can see how it might have been taken that way.
No, my comment on the name of “Jesus” was the transliteration of the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek/Latin into English — i.e., giving the “J” sound when it did not exist in the first place.
In many Latin based cultures (i.e., Mexico), the name of Jesus is still pronounced “Yay-su” (spelled “Jesu”) from the Latin.
I laughed at a clueless missionary who went down to Mexico asking people if they knew “Jesus” (Hay-soos), and reporting “Not one person knew Jesus! They are unevangelized pagans down there!” He just could not grasp that people knew the Lord by “Senor Jesu Christu”. Since Jesus is a proper name, they thought he was asking directions!
Anyway, that was my comment re: the name “Jesus” vs. Y’Shua or “Iesu”.
Peace
Jim E. <><
When I say “I laughed at” him, I don’t mean derisively, just at his ignorance of the culture he was ‘called to evangelize’. He thought if he was called, then he didn’t need to study anything about the language or the culture — the Lord would provide.
Sadly, I’ve seen this in other organizations, such as Teen Challenge.
He needed a mentor for evangelism, someone who knew both the culture and the language (and the people) before he went off.
Listen to Arutz7 and you will hear God referred to as ‘Hashem’ regularly.
T
FYI:
Translation
“Ha’Shem” = “The Name”
Arguably, this is another step in the Holy Father’s campaign to encourage reverence in worship. I’ve read that his interest in making the Traditional Latin Mass more accessible was not that he thought it would return to wide use, but rather to bring it more to the center of the Church, where it’s natural reverence might have a wider effect on the Novus Ordo. The concern for a more elevated linguistic usage (posted here the other day) and accurate translation could be seen as part of this campaign. This pope, like the last one, has encouraged Eucharistic Adoration and a return of the Reserved Sacrament to the sanctuary of the church (6 Fort Worth parishes have restored the Sacrament to a central location recently). The pope has said Mass ad orientem and has established an interim arrangement to de-emphasize the person of the priest. And so on. Perhaps the liturgical silly season for Catholics really is ending.
Although I really do like the Jerusalem Bible psalms.
If one adds “shin†to the Divine Name, the result is YHShVH, which can be pronounced Yehoshuah, or Joshua.
Very interesting, Ralph. But of course YHVH has no shin. So what would be the theological meaning of placing it in there? Not being critical at all. Honestly. If Jesus is the name above all names it would only make sense that that name would be the foundation for the Name revealed to Moses. Any other idea seems to me frankly unChristian.
Two points:
1. If one follows what Words Matter wrote: “The pope has said Mass ad orientem and has established an interim arrangement to de-emphasize the person of the priest.”, then is returning the altar to the back wall and having the Priest stand with his back to the pews on the “to do” list?
2. There are many contemporary Liturgical songs that uses the Word Yahweh as part of the lyrics. Will these songs now be banned in the Catholic Church? It will be a tragedy if it happens.
Despite the strong theological (and usually correct) standing the Pope is known for, I think his attempts to return the Catholic Church to the pre-Vatican II days of format over context will fail. The CC has many issues it needs to address; worship style and language are not among them.
H
HowieG –
Wow, Catholics are usually pilloried for our poor liturgy and music. It’s hard to know how to reply.
I was Catholic nearly 20 years until I realized why Catholics are so vehement about liturgy: worship is the center of our life, and if that is off kilter, our attempts to address all the other issues will likewise be off-kilter. I take it you aren’t RC, but that’s why these things matter so much to us. Pope Benedict’s book The Spirit of the Liturgy is pretty much the textbook for a “reform of the reform”.
I’m not one who cares much about the direction the priest faces, but there’s an argument to be made that having him face us puts an undue emphasis on the priest as a person rather than his acting in persona Christi. Please understand that he is not facing away from us, but facing, with us, our Lord and God. He leads us, not leaves us, by facing east (liturgical east, that is, unless the church faces actual east. The symbolism of the priest facing the people is that of a closed circle; when the priest faces east with the people, the imagery is more open and forward moving.
I can’t think of any “Yahweh” songs I would weep to lose, but you have to know I consider the only real hymnals in the English language to be the Episcopal Hymnals 1940 and 1982. All the others are supplements or imitations. But that’s just me. 🙂
The problem with Roman Catholic and Episcopal theology, they both say that there other paths to GOD other than through Christ. Your PB says that you can’t put God in a box. The Catholic Church says that other faiths other than Christian can get into Heaven.
#26: “The Catholic Church says that other faiths other than Christian can get into Heaven.”
There is a profound difference between saying that “people who are not Christian can go to heaven” and saying “there are other paths to God than through Christ.” Few or none of the deeply influential Catholic theologians of the last century would say that one can get to heaven without Christ; most or all would say that people who are not explicitly Christian can (and do!) “go to heaven.”
Lutheran-MS,
Read Dominus Ieusus. The Catholic Church states definitively that Jesus is the only way to the Father. But Jesus loves and approaches every soul, regardless of its poor understanding and misconceptions. His love reaches into and through that faulty understanding and poor doctrine, and calls the soul who is turning toward the light (rather than away from it), to Himself. Jesus is very big. I hope you know I do not mean that in the liberal sense of being “broad”.
There were a lot of songs from the “Glory and Praise” days that used the name “Yahweh” in the songs. Michael Joncas and the St. Louis Jesuits in particular used it quite often. The one that I remember best is:
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwuKwmzCCGk]”Yahweh the Faithful One”[/url] by Dan Schutte, SJ, which has a beautiful message and tune. But, again, because of the use of “Y” I won’t sing it.
oops, not sure if Dan Schutte was “S.J.” or not. Shouldn’t have put him in the order if I wasn’t sure.
libraryjim –
I browsed Dan Shutte’s website, as well as others associated with the St. Louis Jesuits. Obviously, they were Jesuit seminarians back then, but the pages I viewed say nothing about whether they ended up ordained. They also say nothing about faith or ministry. Shutte’s biography, particularly, says nothing about ordination or continuing involvement with the Jesuits. He is, however, composer-in-residence at the University of San Francisco, a school in the Jesuit tradition.
To Words Matter,
Hello friend. First let me clarify a few things. I am a member of the Episcopal Church (questioning of the future relationship), but come from a strong Catholic background, including being a trained catechesist. I left the CC over several personal reasons, but with the current events in the Episcopal Church, I see the CC as a possible choice of Worship. I remember the pre-Vatican II days, and have no desire to see them returned to. I am also a musician (bass player) and I play for both my Church and my former CC on occasion.
I also recall when the Pope, when known as Cardinal Ratzinger, issued a number of declarations, supposedly with Pope John Paul ll’s ok, that created a number of challenges to the Anglican Communion, especially on Anglician Orders. I never could find the documents that Pope JP II wrote that actually expressed this position.
It is no secret that Pope B. is very conservative in the expressed mode of Worship. I too take the Liturgical Worship style very seriously; and find it egregious when it is mocked. I also find it irritating when things are added, changed, or removed, due to a personal preference. His recent comments on Liturgical music is very troubling (referring to the use of pre-20th century music styles).
My comment about returning to the days with the Priest standing with his back to the people stands. Worship is a Community event, but with a leader. That leader is the priest. The use of “Worship Leaders” (lay readers, cantors, the ‘Band’, etc.) has made my Worship even more personally satisfying. In all cases, I see no over-emphasis on the person of the Priest. I say again, any attempt to return the CC to the pre-Vatican II days will fail. I refer you to the earlier attempts to bring back the Latin Mass as a routine Worship service. It failed. The people in the pews didn’t go for it. Today, it is still a novelty where it is held.
Please know, I am not bashing the CC, but look at the reforms of Vatican II as a God blessed event (although the social agenda did get out of hand for a while). I appreciate the strong theology of the Pope, and stand with him. Yet, trying to bring back the old ways of doing something for the sake of bringing back the old ways is a action of futility. The numbers of active Catholics (like the Anglicans and Lutherans) is dropping faster than one cares to count. Let’s not give reason to make them drop even faster.
I appreciate your comments.
Yours,
H
HowieG –
Thank you for your reply.
The document to which Cardinal Ratzinger issued clarifications was [i]Apostolicae Curae: On the Nullity of Anglican Orders[/i], issued on September 18, 1896 by Pope Leo XIII. It’s on the Vatican website. If I recall correctly, the clarifications simply stated that yes, this is the Catholic Church’s position.
Now, on to the liturgy. The first thing to say is that you are entitled to your personal tastes, and I’m glad that you are Episcopalian, if that’s what you believe and what fulfills you. But I do think that you said some things that are factually inaccurate.
For one thing, Mass attendance has been dropping during the years since the liturgy was changed. Personally, I don’t think correlation equals causation in this case, but you certainly can’t [i]blame[/i] the Traditional Mass for the decline. It wasn’t there! I don’t think the decline in attendance is attributable to liturgy at all; neither has the new liturgy been helpful, particularly since it has been occasion for much foolishness. If the old liturgy could be routine and spiritually dull, the new one can be trite and… dull. I’ve been there. There are huge discussions among Catholics as to whether the new Mass encourages abuses and even heresies.
In fact, there are many stories of thriving Latin Mass communities, although I don’t have any statistics on it and it’s true that Latin is resisted in the wider Church. Personally, I don’t care one way or another, but a lot of people complain when Father tries to do more Latin. Still, I know our Latin Mass has increased in attendance from probably fifty 10-12 years ago to about 300 or more. That’s based on what I’ve been told; as I say, I am not a devotee and I don’t go to that Mass. Still, it’s simply false to say they aren’t popular. My attitude is the same as when I became Episcopalian during the trial prayer books leading up to the 1979 revision. I thought then (and now) that Rite I should have been the 1928 liturgy intact, for the pastoral care of those folks attached to it. In the exact same way, I think the Extraordinary Form (the TLM) should be available to those who want it. Fortunately, this pope and the last one agree with me.
As a point of fact, the pope has done nothing to promote the Traditional Latin Mass as the routine liturgy of the Church. John Paul II authorized the use of the old liturgy with the permission of the local bishop (I’m thinking in 1982). Benedict’s moto proprio [i]Summorum Pontificum[/i] moved authority to use the old liturgy from the local bishop to the priest (although liberal bishops are doing what they can to hold on to that power). He specifically refers to it as the “extraordinary form” of the Mass, in contrast to the Mass of Paul VI (aka Novus Ordo), which is the “ordinary form”. You know, the Council never mandated that the Mass be in the vernacular. This is from the conciliar document [i]Sacrosanctum Concilium: Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy[/i]
There is nothing in the teachings of the Council that mandate – or even address – how the priest stands at the altar. Most of the changes in routine Catholic practice came about after the Council.
As with other aspects of the reform, Pope Benedict’s comments on music are not only his personal preferences, but are in line with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. From [i]Sacrosanctum Concilium[/i]:
Here’s Article 30 from the same document:
A lot of folks have noted that a little more silence would be helpful to the worship of all. I tend to agree. Here are the articles leading up to 30, and I think they address your comments about lay ministers in the liturgy.
Therefore, I don’t expect the pope will be doing away with lectors any time soon. There is some concern about their doing the job in a reverent manner, properly dressed, but they won’t be going away.
I have to say, however, there’s an issue of ecclesiology here: certainly I can assist in administering Communion, take Communion to the sick,read the scriptures, assist at the altar (which happened pre-Vatican II, I believe). I can do all of these things, but my [i]real[/i] job as a layman is to carry Christ into my home and workplace. “Lay ministry” isn’t those jobs I do in the Church; it’s what I do in the rest of my life.
Again, you are entitled to your personal preferences. I do think an attention to facts is helpful in discussing these matters. Plus I have to say, most Catholics I know who are concerned about “any attempt to return the CC to the pre-Vatican II days” are often pro-choice and pro-gay marraige. That’s not meant to be snide; sorry if it sounds that way. And again, I am not a liturgical traditionalist by any means. I often wonder if I would have become Catholic pre-council. However, Pope Benedict has made clear he thinks we need a “reform of the reform”. And on that matter, I agree with him.
[i]I don’t think the decline in attendance is attributable to liturgy at all; neither has the new liturgy been helpful, particularly since it has been occasion for much foolishness. [/i]
My wife reports that the Episcopal church she grew up in was a few blocks away from a Catholic Church. When the “New Liturgy” came out, it was akin to the 79 (?) Prayer Book hitting the Episcopal Church.
She reports that many of her family’s friends who attend the Catholic Church all their lives were suddenly ‘shopping around’ for a new church, and some ended up in the Episcopal pews.
So, in her town, the liturgical reforms WERE a reason for declining attendance. (but frankly, why transfer from a church that is starting to do things ‘this way’ to a church that has always done those things ‘that way’? Aren’t you going into the same things that are bugging you about the new?)
Just an historical perspective.
By the way, while my family stayed, my mom often said she missed the Latin Mass, but unless she was in the hospital or we were on the road somewhere, we never missed Sunday Mass growing up (or the “Holy Days”, either). So the new liturgy didn’t keep us away.
Jim Elliott <><
Words matter:
Thank you for your comments. I have very little to disagree with you. Please know I am aware of the documents you mentioned as to their content and use. I am also aware of the uses and abuses that came from the implementation of the “reforms”.
Again, clarification is in order. I did not mentioned the specific documents by chapter and verse, or by name except for VC II because I didn’t think it necessary. I’ve read the 1896 document on Anglican Orders, I’ve also read what Pope JP II wrote (1998) from which Cardinal Ratzinger then used to put some salt on an old wound. Ratzinger’s comments were outside of that document.
I did not infer that the Latin Mass went away. I do know that they are held only in a few locations, and that people must travel to them. Considering the numbers, one would expect a larger number at a Latin Mass only because of the additive property of people coming from all over. I don’t believe any Parish could support just the Latin Mass. My opinion: Nostalgia is what is happening.
There are other things I would comment on as well, but, I want get back to what I was commenting on in my original post. From my days of “Catechists training”, one thing I learned is that while the official teachings of the Church are not in question, the issue was the failure of the Clergy (and Nuns) to correct some of the false teachings that were and are still very common. For example: I’ve seen this with my own eyes: food items placed in front of a statue of Mary. Why? Or in a case I remember hearing from a dear old Priest (my mentor): A women comes into the Church , genuflects and goes to the Statute of Mary, and prays,” Mother of God, please protect me from the wrath of your Son Jesus.” What nonsense!! (Note, I am not inferring anything against Mary.)
Why am I saying this? Simply, what is said as an opinion or a personal preference can easily get distorted into something not what the originator meant. Especially if that originator is the Pope!
My concern is the potential of removing the word “Yahweh” from the Liturgy or the desire to de-emphasis the role of the Priest can lead to more dramatic changes like the Priest with his back to the pews. The same can be said for music or the use of the laity. (Prior to Vatican II, the only laity involved with the Mass I recall were the Altar Boys. Musicians were in the back – bad idea.) The issue is the interpretation of and then implementing what the Pope or a Bishop is saying.
Two last points: The numbers of active members in the three mainline Liturgical Churches is definitely declining. The web lists a numbers of studies that show this. The Churches in Europe are all but vacant, with the notable exception of the non-denominational and evangelicals. There are more tourists in the great Cathedrals than locals. This is a serious problem. I would list the number one cause of this as the post-modern heresy known as moral relativism, and what it teaches. But this is a topic for another place.
You said: “…most Catholics I know who are concerned about “any attempt to return the CC to the pre-Vatican II days†are often pro-choice and pro-gay marraige (sic).” God, I hope this not true. To me, Vatican II was a God inspired and Holy Spirit driven Council. It introduced a number of needed reforms and clarified many others. When I refer to the pre-VC II days, I’m thinking of the closed box Church that more or less dictated what one was to believe without question. By the way, prior to the Council, Bible reading on a personal level was not encouraged. Check out a 1920’s edition of the Douay version of the Bible.
Finally, You are most correct when you say: “Lay ministry†isn’t those jobs I do in the Church; it’s what I do in the rest of my life. AMEN!
H
[i]one thing I learned is that while the official teachings of the Church are not in question, the issue was the failure of the Clergy (and Nuns) to correct some of the false teachings that were and are still very common. [/i]
I know why. As a new library DirectorWho is trying to instill some form of order to a library that for too long (five years) was under a director that valued ‘not making waves’ (now retired), I’m finding that in trying to a) get the shelves in order and b) trying to enforce the code of conduct and policies and c) make the library a destination place, Staff and Users will rebel when shown the way things SHOULD be instead of the way things are.
The most vocal are those who have gotten away with ignoring the rules for five years, and now all of a sudden are asked to NOT bring food and drink into the library; or please take the crying/screaming baby outside until he/she can remain in the library calmly; or please not look up porn on the library computers; or even observe the 30 minute time-limit because others are waiting in line; etc..
When I try this, I get letters of complaint (to the County Commission — my bosses) for being rude to them. It’s an uphill battle and very, VERY discouraging.
Or staff who now find that they are expected to work the hours the library is open, including rotating weekends and an evening shift — they actually called for my resignation less than a month after I was hired because I wanted them to act like a library staff and not a social club.
So it’s probably the same with the priests and nuns who tolerate incorrect practice which leads to incorrect belief. Why make waves when they are going to be leaving (transferred) in around two to five years anyway? Let the next shift handle it.
As to the direction the priest faces, yes, the original position was because he was leading the people both as one of them and as their spokesman in prayer to the Lord. So it made sense that he would face the altar, the destination of the prayers and sacramental action. Why else was the BACK of the vestment where the embroidery was?
So I have no problem with resuming that practice.
By the way, except for the songs mentioned above, I was actually not aware that the word “Yahweh” was used in the Mass.
Peace
Jim Elliott <><
Oh, PS, Bible READING was encouraged, just not private interpretation.
Pope St. Gregory I (died 604 AD)
“The Emperor of heaven, the Lord of men and of angels, has sent you His epistles for your life’s advantage—and yet you neglect to read them eagerly. Study them, I beg you, and meditate daily on the words of your Creator. Learn the heart of God in the words of God, that you may sigh more eagerly for things eternal, that your soul may be kindled with greater longings for heavenly joys.â€
[Letters, 5, 46. (EnchBibl 31)]
St. Isidore (560-636 AD)
Bishop and Doctor of the Church
“Prayer purifies us, reading instructs us… If a man wants to be always in God’s company, he must pray regularly and read regularly. When we pray, we talk to God; when we read, God talks to us. All spiritual growth comes from reading and reflection. By reading we learn what we did not know; by reflection we retain what we have learned. Reading the holy Scriptures confers two benefits.
It trains the mind to understand them; it turns man’s attention from the follies of the world and leads him to the love of God.
Two kinds of study are called for here. We must first learn how the Scriptures are to be understood, and then see how to expound them with profit and in a manner worthy of them. A man must first be eager to understand what he is reading before he is fit to proclaim what he has learned. The conscientious reader will be more concerned to carry out what he has read than merely to acquire knowledge of it… Learning unsupported by grace may get into our ears; it never reaches the heart. It makes a great noise outside but serves no inner purpose. But when God’s grace touches our innermost minds to bring understanding, his word which has been received by the ear sinks deep into the heart.â€
[Office of Readings, April 4…(Lib.3,8-10: PL 83,679-682)]
St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153 AD)
Doctor and Father of the Church.
“The person who thirsts for God eagerly studies and meditates on the inspired Word, knowing that there, he is certain to find the One for whom he thirsts.â€
[Commentary on the Song of Songs, Sermon 23:3.]
Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903 AD)
“The solicitude of the apostolic office naturally urges and even compels us…to desire that this grand source of Catholic revelation (the Bible) should be made safely and abundantly accessible to the flock of Jesus Christâ€
Pope St. Pius X (1903-1914 AD)
“Nothing would please us more than to see our beloved children form the habit of reading the Gospels – not merely from time to time, but every day.â€
Pope Benedict XV (1914-1922 AD)
“Ignorance of Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.â€
“… all the children of the Church, especially clerics, {are} to reverence the Holy Scriptures, to read it piously and meditate on it constantly….in these pages is to be sought that food, by which the spiritual life is nourished unto perfection…â€
Pax
Jim Elliott <><
P.P.S.
I wonder if the ‘injunction’ against reading the Bible is related to your example of clergy (Priests and nuns) allowing incorrect teaching to continue?
libraryjim
Thanks for the “official” teachings on Bible reading :-). However, what I read in that old family Bible was as I said. It was in the introduction pages. Yes, it did explain the reason as to improper interpretation, a problem without study guides, etc, but it was very clearly stated that the Bible should not be read privately by a lay person.
As for facing the wall, please consider that the Altar also symbolizes the table of the Last Supper. Unless you are facing the pews, with the Altar in front of you, how can you “gather around the table” to partake of the Eucharistic meal?
H
HowieG,
In case it’s not clear by now, I am close to being a liturgical indifferentist. As I said before, you are entitled to your opinions and preferences, the strength with which you hold them is arguably more “catholic” than my rather wishy-washy approach. On a Catholic blog, this thread would have at least 100 comments by now. What I don’t understand is how you can complain about how the Church is going to pot [i]and[/i] also about attempts at fixing the problem (which, from the Catholic standpoint, will always focus on liturgical issues).
I am arguing for factuality, not the old Mass. In fact, no one, including the pope, is arguing for a wholesale return of the old Mass, just a reform that brings it more in line with the actual texts of Vatican II, instead of the (ethereal) “spirit of Vatican II”. I completely agree that the people will not accept Latin back on a large scale. We tried to go with a Latin Pater Noster and they just wouldn’t have it. It didn’t help that the chant was too hard, also.
Well, I do think (very strongly) the choir needs to be in a loft in the back, heard, not seen. I can’t believe you think they should be up front and I say that as a chorister who has made it known that I will NEVER chant the Psalm from the ambo again, thank you very much! You want me to chant, it’s from the loft. But aside from that, I have made some of your arguments on more than one occasion. It’s just that there is another, entirely valid side of most arguments. For example, yes the Mass is a communal meal, but it is also a Sacrifice. Whether current practice adequately captures that duality is the debate.
I think LJim is on the money about discipline. Some Catholics commentators have identified the origin of the problem in a failure to respond adequately to dissenters from [i]Humanae Vitae[/i]; from there, it was open season on whatever. If you haven’t read it, this article is an excellent review of what went wrong, and hopeful things that are coming along.
Finally, it occurred to be today that if some parish really likes the Yahweh songs, it’s easy to change “Yahweh” to “Jesus” or “Savior” or some other 2-syllable word. “Jesus I know you are near” is a perfectly acceptable sentiment. Heaven knows, Catholics are good about changing words for lesser reasons: feminist critique, archaic forms, and sometimes for no reason at all. Who knows why “Fairest Lord Jesus” turned into “Beautiful Savior”? Personally, I think there’s a special pit in hell for the 3rd edition of the [i]Worship[/i] hymnal and have made clear that my funeral hymns will be sung from the Episcopal Hymnal 1982.
[i] “Jesus I know you are near†is a perfectly acceptable sentiment. [/i]
or “[b]O Lord[/b], I know you are near” works also.
“[b]Our God’s[/b] love will last for ever” “[b]Our God[/b] is a loving God” works as well.
as you say, there are substitutes that will work.
Peace
Jim E. <><
Words Matter, I think you are getting a bit hot under the collar, and totally missing what I’m trying to say. I agree on almost everything you’ve said. There are only a few things we don’t, and they are “preferences”. Let me make my last comment on this thread. I always accept a positive change. I object to making changes for the sake of the change. I’ve spoken to a number of Catholics who want to go back to the “old ways” because they heard about them, or are my age or older, without explaining themselves. There are groups out there who are pushing for a number of doctrines that may boarder on heresy (not just Catholic). I’m not complaining about “how the Church is going to pot”, but rather am expressing a concern that something that is not broken may end up being “fixed” – for the wrong reason. The law of unintended consequences is in play here. This goes for any Church situation.
I hold absolutely no disrespect for you, and honor you for your comments. I believe you hold the same for me. I truly enjoy discussions on these topics, but this will me my last entry on this thread.
To Jim, the concern I have as a musician is when a word is changed, you don’t change the meaning of the lyric. Changing “Yahweh” to “Jesus” may change the focus from “God, the Father” to “Jesus, the Son of God”. One must be careful with the Old Testament usage. I agree that suitable words, like Lord, can be found and used.
H
[i]I think you are getting a bit hot under the collar[/i]
Then you mis-read me. The bit about placement was the choir was intended as humor. The rest was written in response to your statements, which I found to be rather vehement. Best wishes.
Howie
I agree with you re: finding suitable words. the first sentence was a quote from WordsMatter, which is why I put it in italics. My comments following was an attempt to put the emphasis back on “The Lord”, i.e., the appropriate substitute for “Y” according to Jewish usage. We are on the same page, as I don’t think substituting “Jesus” would work AS WELL as the examples I gave.
🙂
Peace
Jim Elliott <><