He who must not be named
If your parish’s musical director has Dan Schutte’s “You Are Near” or “Yahweh, the Faithful One” on heavy rotation, tell him or her to start looking for alternatives. As reported by Rocco at Whispers, Rome says no more calling God “Yahweh” during worship. This won’t require any changes to the rites, but if the Y-word has been slipping in to your hymns and petitions — cut it out. You’re on notice.
It’s been years since I heard any of these songs at mass — but I’ve also never heard anyone object to the use of the Name. So I was surprised to learn that it’s an issue, that it was discouraged officially back in 2001, and that GIA Publications has a “longtime editorial policy against the use of the word ‘Yahweh.’” Has this come up before in your parish or community? Has Catholics’ casual use of the Tetragrammaton been a pet peeve of yours for years?
Also, I wonder, do you agree with our old friend Bishop Serratelli, who frames this as “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”? We’ve been talking a lot about “the power of language” in worship lately. Does language get even more powerful if you refrain from using it? In this case, I’ve always felt remembering that God revealed Himself as Yahweh before we called Him Abba is a good way to remind ourselves of our Old Testament roots, and I worry that being discouraged from saying or using the Tetragrammaton will mean forgetting about it entirely. On the other hand, I only recently learned that when English translations of the Bible have “LORD” in all caps, it’s there as a stand-in for “YHWH.” I thought it was just a typesetting affectation. So if this directive does lead to better catechesis, I guess it’s worth losing “And the Father Will Dance” from our liturgical repertoire. What do you think?
I believe that the reason behind this is that the name “Yahweh” (YHWH) is a name that is sacred to the Jewish community, and our Church wants to be sensitive to this. The use of the name Yahweh became popular among English-Speaking Catholics with the publication of the original Jerusalem Bible in lthe 1960s. Orthodox Jews do not even use the name “God” in speech or in print. Check out the obituary page of the New York Times on a Friday morning, and on that page you will find the time of sundown on that Friday (when the Sabbath begins for devout Jews), and you will see “G-d” used in place of God.
I am not surprised at this directive not to use the Hebrew sacred name. Using other names for God instead will show a genuine sensitivity to our Jewish brothers and sisters. I will miss the hymn “You are Near,” but I trust the composer can come up with a version that uses another name for God.
Hi, Mollie, I can tell you that within the community of liturgical musicians, folks have been working to raise awareness and sensitivity about the issue for a number of years now, for the excellent interfaith reason that Ken Lovasik gives above. Bishop Seratelli’s point about the holy name of God is also worth reflecting on, istm.
It’s been a lot of years since I’ve encountered a dog-eared paperback copy of “Glory and Praise” in the pews, but I ‘ve always been partial to “I Lift Up My Soul” (“To you, ___________, I lift up my soul, O my God …”. Don’t use in mass anymore, though, for the reason under discussion here.
Shouldn’t Catholics also want to refrain from using the Name of God because it is a Name that is sacred to Catholics?
Hi Jim – I forgot about “I Lift Up My Soul”! I don’t know if that and the Schutte and Landry songs I mentioned above have fallen out of use in the places where I worship because of the “Yahweh” lyrics, or if they’ve just gone out of style generally (or maybe it’s just a function of where I’ve been living and praying in the last decade vs. where I grew up).
I always felt that using the name “Yahweh” in worship, and only in worship, was a way of showing reverence. I never gave it much thought till today, but I do feel like that name has a sacredness to it that sets it apart from other ways I’ve heard God named — for example, unlike a lot of other holy names, I haven’t gotten into the habit of using that one as an angry oath. I don’t know whether that’s in spite of the fact that it pops up in hymns here and there, or whether it’s a result of my experience singing and praying with it.
I’m all for sensitivity, of course, but I’d hesitate to frame this as just a matter of our avoiding giving offense; our use of the name should be shaped by its sacredness to us as well as to Jews. And of course it is sacred to us. I’m just wondering if it’s inherently more respectful for us not to use it at all — for Jews I think that holds true, since it’s so central to their faith tradition that it’s not in danger of falling victim to the out-of-use, out-of-mind effect. But I don’t think the God of the burning bush is as central as He could be in Catholic thought and prayer, and I’d hate to see that vision of God marginalized further. On the other hand, maybe this practice will draw us closer to our Jewish brothers and sisters and make us more aware of our shared roots. And I don’t go around yelling “Adonai” when I stub my toe, either, so maybe we can honor the Tetragrammaton by placing it off-limits and still make reference to the Old Testament revelation now and then.
I agree that it is better to avoid pronouncing YHWH and following the practice of most translators and using the LORD instead. My primary reason is respect for Jews and Jewish practice. However it is worth noting that the last syllable of Halleluia is generally thought to be the first syllable of the divine name (the sense of the Hebrew is “praise Ya”) and I don’t know of any objection to that. (Perhaps we should not tell Bishop Serratelli.)
We often sing, “Yahweh. I know you are here, standing always at my side, etc.”
I don’t know how banning this will increase reverence for the name of God.
I wonder if, as stated, this offends our Jewish brethren – if that’s so, why have we waited so long to do this?
It would be interesting to see some official cites from the Jewish community on this.
Clearly, readers of the bible know the title “Yahweh” is meant to underscore the completely ineffable power of the Almighty One.
We continue to struggle with our limited analogies and antrhropomorphisms to talk about Him, helped along by our belief in the message of His Love Incarnate in Christ.
I tend to think this directive is another “out of touch” beaurocratic move by folks who don’t have better things to do with their time.
It is a sad, silly day when the Vatican persists in making Monty Pyhthon’s version of religion so relevant to our daily lives … first, the return to the pathetic, breast-striking “my fault, etc., my most greivous fault” reminded me of the God of “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” who admonished people who were averting their eyes from him to stop groveling … NOW, one cannot but help but be reminded of the stoning-for-saying-Jehovah scene from “Life Of Brian” …
This is truly embarrassing.
Hi, Robert,
While acknowledging that the Vatican is immune from silliness – cf that curial instruction on how to drive on the road as a Christian – teaching us to pray in a way that doesn’t offend our elder brothers and sisters in faith strikes me as eminently worthwhile and timely.
Sorry, meant to say that the Vatican is NOT immune to silliness
“I’m all for sensitivity, of course, but I’d hesitate to frame this as just a matter of our avoiding giving offense; our use of the name should be shaped by its sacredness to us as well as to Jews. And of course it is sacred to us. I’m just wondering if it’s inherently more respectful for us not to use it at all — for Jews I think that holds true, since it’s so central to their faith tradition that it’s not in danger of falling victim to the out-of-use, out-of-mind effect. But I don’t think the God of the burning bush is as central as He could be in Catholic thought and prayer, and I’d hate to see that vision of God marginalized further. On the other hand, maybe this practice will draw us closer to our Jewish brothers and sisters and make us more aware of our shared roots. ”
Hi, Mollie, we’re touching on deep and troubling issues here.
It might be worthwhile to recall that this isn’t the only liturgical bone of contention between Catholics and Jews. The Good Friday prayer for Jews in the 1962 Missal has been controversial within the past year (cf http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=2164). Personally, I believe the Vatican had that dispute very much in mind in issuing these new guidelines.
And ultimately it raises the difficult issue, What exactly is our relationship with Judaism? Are they “other”, or are they related to us in some way, and if the latter, what is the nature of that relationship, and what reverence do we owe their practices and customs? Our skip through the Letter to the Romans this summer in the Sunday Lectionary shows us that St. Paul was trying to think these issues through nearly 2,000 years ago. SApparently we’re still thinking.
There’s also a significant difference between a Vatican directive on liturgical practices and a public stoning. When Rome starts endorsing the death penalty for saying the name of God (or anything else) in the privacy of one’s home — the “crime” committed by the unrepentant man at the center of that terrific Python sketch — then we’ll be in “Life of Brian” territory.
As far as I know, the directive on the use of “Yahweh” doesn’t actually say the motivation is “to avoid giving offense to Jews.” It’s likely that that’s a big part of it, and it’s a noble goal. But the move is at least officially based in the name’s sacredness to us, in our tradition as Catholics. That’s why I’m wondering about people’s experience with, and sense of, the name as it’s used, or not used, in Christian and Catholic prayer and worship.
Jim – if my memory serves me, Vatican II used language describing the Jews and the Old Testament has the “mother of our church”. Jesus was a Jew who came to complete the Abrahamic promise. Vatican II reaffirmed the scriptural fact that the Jewish people are the Chosen People and the life/death of Jesus did not replace that fact. Instead, it describes Jesus as the completion of the Old Testament journey. Language used by other commentators at that time described the Jewish religion as the ancestor to the Christian faith – related for all time. It went on to revise the condemnation language of the Middle Ages; it revised any type of prostelyzing of the Jews – it put them in a special category.
Given this announcement, it would have been helpful for a full explanation and history for why the Liturgical Commission is advocating for this change?
We of course have another holy name (which was even given a feast day). I’ve often noticed how the word “Jesus” is used in our sermons nowadays as if it were the only way of speaking of him. In the past (as witnessed to by, say, the sermons of such as Cardinal Newman if not by our own memories) preachers seemed to exert themselves to speak of him, in various contexts, as our Lord, the Redeemer, the Savior, and — certainly — Christ. But now it’s always a constant reiteration of “Jesus.”
I’ve wondered if this is an unintended result of the commendably stronger emphasis on New Testament study in the seminaries, where the name as used in scripture would naturally be the normal one used.
Am I alone here in preferring a certain reserve in “bandying about” the name of Jesus at which “every knee shall bow,” etc.?
As a practical matter, this change in liturgical practice only seems to affect a few hymns, none of which I have ever heard. I do recall reading somewhere Benedict saying that the use of a vocalized YHWH was regrettable. This is doubtless the origin of the new rule. I doubt the ICEL has any ideas of their own.
It was the Jerusalem Bible that made the use of the name commonplace. The NAB has not followed, but I believe the Jerusalem Bible is approved for liturgical use in some anglophone countries, not, of course in the good old U.S.
The fully vocalized form is common in the Anchor Bible, which has some Jewish contributors.
Roger – I hadn’t noticed the absence of other names for Christ from homilies, etc. But I do still reflexively bow my head whenever I say or hear “Jesus” during mass, just like Sister taught me back in first grade. (Outside of worship I guess it’s less likely; I think it depends on my expecting it.) That’s a habit that dies hard.
On the topic of that Holy Name, you reminded me that English-speaking people (at least the ones I know) tend not to use “Jesus” as a name for our own kids, presumably because it would seem grandiose and/or disrespectful. But obviously Hispanic Catholics don’t see it that way; they use the name (I assume) because they value it so highly. I wouldn’t name my kid “Yahweh,” either, but I’m still not sure it’s disrespectful to address God that way in Christian prayer — or that it’s more respectful not to.
Mollie
“Jesus” is a Hellenized form of a common name for Jewish males. The name YHWH has never been a name for human beings, but actually the first syllable is found as a part of some Hebrew names.
Thanks, Mollie. It is of course still a matter of church law that we bow our heads at the name of Jesus — and of Mary, and of the saint whose feast is being celebrated. This, like the bow in the Creed, is largely in disuse in this country for reasons that are unclear to me.
I too, bow my head at the name of Jesus — and at the others when I remember it — but not so obviously that others can see me and put me down as whatever they would put me down as, but as one of the most satisfying of my private devotions. But it could be a rewarding corporate devotion. I once attended an ordination where I wound up seated with a large African American contingent. The entrance song was “Alleluia! Sing to Jesus.” At the holy name, they went down like a field of wheat in a stiff breeze. It was very inspiring.
No, we don’t name our children Jesus, but we do name them Joshua, which is the same thing adapted from another language.
P.S. The attachment of some for naming kids after members of the holy family is indeed very striking in some cultures. I used to live in Barcelona, and I knew more than one Catalan couple in which the wife was called Maria Josep and the husband was Josep Maria.
How’s that for a rather sweet commonality?
I hope they go to church on the (usually) Sunday after Christmas.
Here’s another question. Why rule out Yahweh and say nothing of Jehovah? Is this banned as well? It ought to be if we’re consistent, right? And then what happens to the Jehovah’s Witnesses?
I’m with you, Mollie. However inadvisable on other grounds the use of Yahweh may have been, I’ve never experienced it as irreverent. Just the opposite.
I’ve never heard a soul curse with it either, and I wish I could say the same thing about the name of Jesus. (Thank you, Roger.)
I think the question was whether YHWH should be vocalized and pronounced in Catholic liturgy. As far as I know Catholic liturgy does not feature mentions of Jehova. As for the Witnesses, they make their own rules.
I’ve always assumed that “Jehovah” was a creation for the 1611 “authorized” or “King James” translation, with those remarkable scholars (perhaps the most successful committee in history) doing the best they could with vowels. I’m not a professional philologist, but I’ve enjoyed noting how consistent they were in their misapprehensions. In fact “Joshua” is another good example. If you change the vowels around, you get what I believe is now reckoned the correct transliteration, “Jeshuah,” which is closer to the “Jesus” that they derived from the Greek.
So far as I know, JEHOVAH was always a Protestant word. Both the Septuagint and the Vulgate decline to approximate The Name, settling for the semitic-like dodge, LORD. I know of only one use of JEHOVAH in Latin, and that was in a fine musical setting by the Protestant composer Purcell (of Westminster Abbey), “Jehovah, quam multi sunt.”
The aforementioned English translation of a Welsh hymn, “Guide me, O thou great Jehovah” is now commonly sung (as at the funeral of the Princess of Wales) as “Guide me, O thou great Redeemer.”
I’ve never understood why those attached to “Yahweh, I know you are near” couldn’t just sing “Lord” and satisfy everybody. I don’t know what its creators (preceding from a Society named for the Savior) would feel about that.
A little interesting background at Catholic Sensibility: Dan Schutte himself explains how he came to write “You Are Near” (and how he stopped using the Y-word shortly thereafter).
Mollie, thanks for hunting down that link to the Dan Schutte email, that is very interesting!
Roger
Sorry to disillusion you, but according to the Anchor Bible Dictionary the form is usually thought to have been disseminated by Petrus Galatinus, confessor to Leo X (!), who in 1518 combine the Latin (sic) form of the Hebrew consonants as jhvh with the vowels of Adonai. It is true that it has been used in Protestant Hymns and occurs in a few places in the King James Version. The author of the article gives a reference to a theory that this vocalization may go back as far as 1100 CE, but I am not at the moment in a position to pursue the reference.
The name YHWH actually is the original of “God” in Holy holy holy Lord God of Hosts. Usually “Lord” is substituted but where “Lord” precedes “God” is read to avoid repetition. I wonder if any version of the liturgy ever reverted to the original.
Roger
Re: Joshua. The Vulgate has Iosue, followed by Douai-Rheims The Septuagint has Iesous, where the e is as in the Italian “che”. Neither Latin nor Greek provide for the “sh” sound. The Hebrew consonants are yhsh”, where I am using ” to indicate a consonant that is said to be like a voiced Spanish jota. The y is followed be a shewa, the h by an o, the sh by a short u (as in put) and then comes an a (as in cat) before the final consonant. I suspect the KJV translators were influenced by Tyndale’s Josua.
Thanks, Joseph. But what is there to “disillusion” me in your fine and (to me) informative post? I don’t think I implied that there may not have been some single Catholic somewhere in the world who came up with that combination of letters. The fact that it became current in Protestantism is still there.
And, as to:
“The name YHWH actually is the original of “God” in Holy holy holy Lord God of Hosts.”
That may be, but I’d like to hear of any record at any place of time of Jews singing anything other than “Kadosh, kadosh, kadosh, Adonai Sabaoth.”
I’m especially grateful for Mollie’s link to the Schutte e-mail. He is clearly at least as sensitive to the issues as any of us can be.
You are right. Actually there is no true original to “Holy holy holy Lord God of Hosts etc.”. It bears some resemblance to the song of the Seraphim in Isaiah 6:3, but it is a pastiche rather than a Biblical text. The expression YHWH God of Hosts” does occur in the Bible as does “Lord YHWH of hosts” and it is in the latter that “God” is read rather than “YHWH” to avoit repetition of “Lord”.
As to the more general issue, the only Protestant Bible that I know of that adopts Jehovah generally is the ASV. It occurs seven times in the KJV in pasages where there is a point to bringing out the divine name. Tyndale used it at Exodus 6:3 but not generally. I do not know what Luther did. But the Catholics get no credit for not succumbing to Jehovah. After all they were bent on translating a translation of the original, i.e., the Vulgate, from Trent to Divino Afflante Spiritu. Is there any positive evidence that they understood “Jehovah” was a mistake? As for the Septuagint and the Vulgate, it is an anachronism to say they do not have “Jehovah”. The error could only have arisen from an effort to interpret the masoretic text!
Many thanks to Joseph Gannon for all of these helpful and interesting observations.
I had thought originally that the prohibition was intended to extend beyond worship. I see now that this is not the case.
I would also like to mention that “Yaheweh” appears in the glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the tetragrammaton is used in several places with no prohibition against speaking it.
Perhaps Oregon Catholic Press should not discard well-loved hymn texts precipitously. After all, they might be sung in contexts outside the liturgy.
Whispers in the Loggia has posted the official letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship laying out the case for not pronouncing the Name of God. No mention of our Jewish brothers and sisters, for what it’s worth. And it looks like “Jehovah” and other variants are also out! (I think we can still get away with “Alleluia.”)