I post the Dan Schutte composition above not to flout the Vatican statement but to offer an example of what change is being made here. It's likely that "You Are Near" will be written and published with a refrain along the lines of, "O God, I know you are, standing always at my side..."
No 'Yahweh' in songs, prayers at Catholic Masses, Vatican rules
By Nancy Frazier O'Brien of Catholic News Service
In the not-too-distant future, songs such as "You Are Near," "I Will Bless Yahweh" and "Rise, O Yahweh" will no longer be part of the Catholic worship experience in the United States.
At the very least, the songs will be edited to remove the word "Yahweh" -- a name of God that the Vatican has ruled must not "be used or pronounced" in songs and prayers during Catholic Masses.
Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli of Paterson, N.J., chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Divine Worship, announced the new Vatican "directives on the use of 'the name of God' in the sacred liturgy" in an Aug. 8 letter to his fellow bishops.
He said the directives would not "force any changes to official liturgical texts" or to the bishops' current missal translation project but would likely have "some impact on the use of particular pieces of liturgical music in our country as well as in the composition of variable texts such as the general intercessions for the celebration of the Mass and the other sacraments."
John Limb, publisher of OCP in Portland, Ore., said the most popular hymn in the OCP repertoire that would be affected was Dan Schutte's "You Are Near," which begins, "Yahweh, I know you are near."
He estimated that only "a handful" of other OCP hymns use the word "Yahweh," although a search of the OCP Web site turned up about a dozen examples of songs that included the word...
Limb said the company would be contacting composers to "ask them to try to come up with alternate language" for their hymns. But he said hymnals for 2009 had already been printed, so the affected hymns would not include the new wording for at least another year...
At Chicago-based GIA Publications, another major Catholic publisher of hymnals, no major revisions will be necessary, because of the company's longtime editorial policy against use of the word "Yahweh..." (This) policy, which dates to 1986, was based not on Vatican directives but on sensitivity to concerns among observant Jews about pronouncing the name of God.
Bishop Serratelli said the Vatican decision also would provide "an opportunity to offer catechesis for the faithful as an encouragement to show reverence for the name of God in daily life, emphasizing the power of language as an act of devotion and worship..."
"By directive of the Holy Father, in accord with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, this congregation ... deems it convenient to communicate to the bishops' conferences ... as regards the translation and the pronunciation, in a liturgical setting, of the divine name signified in the sacred Tetragrammaton," said the letter signed by Cardinal Francis Arinze and Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, congregation prefect and secretary, respectively.
The Tetragrammaton is YHWH, the four consonants of the ancient Hebrew name for God.
"As an expression of the infinite greatness and majesty of God, it was held to be unpronounceable and hence was replaced during the reading of sacred Scripture by means of the use of an alternate name: 'Adonai,' which means 'Lord,'" the Vatican letter said. Similarly, Greek translations of the Bible used the word "Kyrios" and Latin scholars translated it to "Dominus"; both also mean Lord.
"Avoiding pronouncing the Tetragrammaton of the name of God on the part of the church has therefore its own grounds," the letter said. "Apart from a motive of a purely philological order, there is also that of remaining faithful to the church's tradition, from the beginning, that the sacred Tetragrammaton was never pronounced in the Christian context nor translated into any of the languages into which the Bible was translated..."
(Go to CNS for the complete article.)
The US bishops also recently petitioned the Vatican to change one line in the Catholic Catechism for Adults. That petition and the line it concerns can be found at the US Bishops' web site.
I have read the blog, and find it difficult to understand. So let me just say this. I love this particular song and will surely miss the beauty in the words once it is changed. Yahweh I know you are near me. How perfect when sung from the heart.
ReplyDeleteI have been very sensitive to this since the late '80's; I worked with a pastor who would not allow us to use anything which included the word Yaweh. He explained to us the particular sensitivities of the word for the Jewish community. It always struck me as somewhat curious that things continued to be published using it, even as the dialogue between Christians and Jews became more common and advanced.
ReplyDeleteI've always loved this song and will probably continue to sing it in my heart as I've known it. I found the statement by the GIA representative as interesting since their last two hymnals published 1n 1994 and 1998 had "You Are Near" and their online HYMNPRINT service offers "You Are Near" for downloading. She also failed to mention that GIA's owner is Jewish. When viewed in this light, their sensativity is less than flattering.
ReplyDeleteCan someone fill me in on whether a version of the Passion reading from the Gospel according to John (heck, all readings from John) from which the anti-semitism has been removed has replaced the original for use in services? I hope so. To my eye, that's a much more egregious slap in the face to our Jewish cousins.
ReplyDeleteBeyond that, this puzzles me. I can see that if Jews were regularly invited to Catholic mass, then one might want to ensure that there is little reason for them to feel offense, but I know Jews who find Christianity itself offensive. Despite our common roots, we are a different religion.
Bear in mind that these comments are coming from someone who doesn't find the term "politically correct" an insult. I just don't get the priority of this one.
I do not see that there was any need to change the sentence in the Catechism. If I were Jewish, I would find the new sentence offensive. Are we purposely trying to alienate our Jewish brethren?
ReplyDeleteThe CNS article the post links to explains clearly the reason for this change: that Catholic Christians might misunderstand the covenants referred to and the role of Christ in the history of salvation. The suggested replacement from scripture, accurately and with more detail, speaks what Catholic Christians believe in this regard.
ReplyDeleteBesides which, the subject of the majority of the post (respect for the Jewish awe before the name of God) shows clearly that the Church is not trying to alienate the Jewish people.
Can someone fill me in on whether a version of the Passion reading from the Gospel according to John (heck, all readings from John) from which the anti-semitism has been removed has replaced the original for use in services?
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone has rewritten the Gospel according to John as yet. It is generally considered to be divinely inspired writing, and therefore not open to revision. New translations do come out, but they attempt to adhere as closely as possible to the original.
Anonymous, there are plenty of translations of the Passion acc. to John which clarify what the evangelist was saying while removing his cultural bias. We've used them on Good Friday at the Cathedral (St. Paul, Boston). This is not rewriting the Gospel but clarifying its message.
ReplyDelete"Divinely inspired" does not mean "dictated by the Holy One." Inspiration comes through the one who writes and who cannot be completely free from the bias of his/her time and culture.
If all of scripture were to be read without our minds being called in to separate the wheat from the chaff, the message from the milieu, then you wouldn't ever wear cotton/polyester blends, would you? Or mix milk and meat? Or allow women to speak in church?
There's wisdom in what Piskie says about polyester blends, mixing milk and meat and allowing women to speak in church.
ReplyDeleteAnd while I agree that "inspired" does not mean "dictated," there is a difference between approved and not approved translations of the scriptures. It seems from what Piskie writes that alternate renderings of the scripture are approved for use at St. Paul Cathedral. No such approval exists in Roman Catholic churches.
I will often make an explanatory comment before proclaiming a gospel text which stands in need of our understanding the religious/cultural milieu which infuenced John's gospel. In Holy Week, I place explanatory paragraphs in the worship aids to help worshipers understand what these texts say and why they say it the way they do.
Piskie,
ReplyDeleteIndeed, our minds are not free from our milieu. But as Concord Pastor says, explanatory paragraphs/introductions can place readings in context. I much prefer to have the material in front of me as (nearly) written as opposed to a redacted version.
This is not exactly what has been discussed above, but perhaps it is somewhat relevant. When I lived in Laramie, WY about 11-12 years ago, I attended the Newman Center for mass. One line of the Creed "for us men and for our salvation" they said "for us and for our salvation." I have been saying it the Newman Center way ever since!
ReplyDeleteChanging the wording of the words of the Mass is considered a liturgical abuse. It is of the same order of magnitude, I think, as rewriting the Gospel of John to respond to modern sensibilities. It is a pastor's job to faithfully convey the faith as it has been handed down, and to celebrate Mass in a reverent and liturgically correct manner. He cannot, at will, change the word to suit himself or his congregation.
ReplyDeleteThe words of the gospel of John, in Greek, cannot be changed. How those Greek words are translated into English changes as different translators translate the scriptures. In the Roman Catholic Church, only some translations are approved for use in the liturgy.
ReplyDeleteThe words of the Mass, however, have been, can and are about to changed yet again by the Church.
There are a number of places in the liturgy where the liturgical books offer a text or texts but also note that the priest may use "these or similar words." Ancient texts like the Creed or the Gloria do not fall into this category.
It's unfortunate that the new translation of the Creed (see the sidebar for a link to the new translations)continues to use "men" in the phrase "for us men and for our salvation." The Latin for this phrase, "Qui propter nos homines
et propter nostram salutem," uses the word whose Latin root is "homo" which is not exclusive of women in the same way that current English usage of "men" is.
Isn't there a phrase, "Say the black, do the red?" Some freedom, but within limits?
ReplyDeleteTo All Who Love God's Name:
ReplyDeleteThe new directive from the Vatican to stop using the Divine name YHWH (Yahweh) in songs and prayers has no authorization from Scripture.
The truth is, no one knows the exact pronunciation of even the Hebrew name "Jesus" which was most likely "Yeshua." This doesn't keep us from expressing the name of God's Son does it?
It goes without saying we must have deep reverence for God but where in Scripture are we authorized to pluck out God's name? We can't point to the traditions of the Jews because Jesus said they made the word of God "invalid" because of their man-made traditions. (Matthew 15:1-6)
Jesus, on the other hand, came to make God's name known. (John 17:26) He knew the third commandment tells us not to use God's name "disrespectfully" not to stop using it.
Beyond that, there are many Bible examples in the Bible of God's servants of old, like Abraham and David, using and saying God's name frequently in song and prayer. Apparantly the angels felt it was fine to praise God using his name. Hallelujah actuall means "praise Jah" Jah being an abbreviated form of Jehovah. (Revelation 19:1)
The LXX had God's name, YHWH, all over it before it was eventually removed. This can easily be seen by comparing LXX early manuscripts with later ones.
The big question is. Where were scribes given permission to do this? They weren't but did anyway. The Vatican should reexamine their decision to hide this most wonderful name that reigns supreme in the earliest, most sacred documents-the Holy Scriptures.
Nick Batchelor
nickhawaii@gmail.com