Does anyone else have a problem with the words of
O Come, O Come Emmanuel,
and ransom captive Israel
that mourns in lowly exile here
until the Son of God appear.
Leaving aside the present day tragedy of Israel/Palestine, the word Israel, usually refers to the Jewish people. I know this hymn is a version of the O Antiphons, but it is a translation which reflects a Pre Vatican II theology of the Jewish people, a theology which was very negative. Since Vat II the Church has changed its theology and now regards Judaism in a much more positive light. Should we still be singing this hymn?
O Come, O Come Emmanuel
Moderators: Dom Perignon, Casimir
I have always thought this to be not just pre Vatican II but pre Christian, i.e. the Jewish longing for the birth of the Messiah.
My problem comes with the triumphal 'horse and rider thrown into the sea' at the Easter Vigil.
Welcome to the forum, Anne. I hope you will find it a friendly helpful place.
My problem comes with the triumphal 'horse and rider thrown into the sea' at the Easter Vigil.
Welcome to the forum, Anne. I hope you will find it a friendly helpful place.
You are very welcome here, Anne.
I too have always interpreted the words in the way that VML describes. Advent always feels like an Old Testament season to me, and this hymn encapsulates that better than any other.
I too have always interpreted the words in the way that VML describes. Advent always feels like an Old Testament season to me, and this hymn encapsulates that better than any other.
musicus - moderator, Liturgy Matters
blog
blog
-
gwyn
- Posts: 1148
- Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 3:42 pm
- Parish / Diocese: Archdiocese of Cardiff
- Location: Abertillery, South Wales UK
I've always read these words as refering to the abandonment of the chosen people until the Messiah comes.
Welcome Anne.
For us Messiah has come. This hymn refers back to the abandonment.
Look at 1 Kings 11 and the End of Solomon's reign. Solomon is left with one kingdom "for the sake of David and for the sake of Jerusalem". The tribe of Judah remains under Solomon's control "The sceptre shall not depart form Judah".
What was once "Israel" is now rent in two. The northen kingdom is called from thereon "Israel", and the southern kingdom (which contains Jerusalem) is called Judah.
Then the death of Solomon occurs his son Rehoboim (not to be confused with Jeruboim) (1 Kings 12). Rehoboim, now king, spurned the authority of Yahweh and takes instead the cousel of his friends. Guided by them he sets up an even more oppressive regime than his father Solomon had. Thus there was effectively a civil war between the two kingdoms that endured for centuries.
No sooner does Jeroboim assume power in the north (Israel) than he consecrates a golden calf and two special sacred sites and says "this is what led us out of the land of Egypt".
The northen kingdom (Israel) lasts about 200 years during which there are 20 kings - averaging 10 years each - some lasted less than 10 weeks! The 20 kings were form nine families each competing for ascendancy, lots of division, lots of rivalry and so no stability.
During King Ahab's reign he marries Jezebel who desires Israel to worship her gods.
It's about now tha a whole new line of prophets arise spear-headed by Elijah.
Meantine the southern kingdom of Judah maintains a certain stability with some Godly men running the show, the kingdom lasted about 350 years. While in the northen kingdom there were 20 kings from nine families, in the southern kingdom there were 20 kingws over a substantially longer period and all in keeping with God's law thus the dynastic succession of David remains intact, the house of David is preserved.
In 722 BC the northen kingdom fell to the Asyrian invaders, the people taken away captive. In 587/7 BC Jerusalem falls to the Babilonians. So from this period of division comes the great captivity. "Bleakness and darkness came upon the people". They had lost their heritage. As the prophet Amos would later declare, "The booth of David had fallen, the throne of David entangled with snares, weeds and rust, seemingly consigned to everlasting oblivion . . . But for God's promise to his servant David, tha he would establish his throne for ever. And as Amos said later, "God promises to restore the fallen booth of David.
All this points to 'mourning in lowly exile 'til the Son of God appear.' to whom thekingdom is given for ever ans ever.
Welcome Anne.
For us Messiah has come. This hymn refers back to the abandonment.
Look at 1 Kings 11 and the End of Solomon's reign. Solomon is left with one kingdom "for the sake of David and for the sake of Jerusalem". The tribe of Judah remains under Solomon's control "The sceptre shall not depart form Judah".
What was once "Israel" is now rent in two. The northen kingdom is called from thereon "Israel", and the southern kingdom (which contains Jerusalem) is called Judah.
Then the death of Solomon occurs his son Rehoboim (not to be confused with Jeruboim) (1 Kings 12). Rehoboim, now king, spurned the authority of Yahweh and takes instead the cousel of his friends. Guided by them he sets up an even more oppressive regime than his father Solomon had. Thus there was effectively a civil war between the two kingdoms that endured for centuries.
No sooner does Jeroboim assume power in the north (Israel) than he consecrates a golden calf and two special sacred sites and says "this is what led us out of the land of Egypt".
The northen kingdom (Israel) lasts about 200 years during which there are 20 kings - averaging 10 years each - some lasted less than 10 weeks! The 20 kings were form nine families each competing for ascendancy, lots of division, lots of rivalry and so no stability.
During King Ahab's reign he marries Jezebel who desires Israel to worship her gods.
It's about now tha a whole new line of prophets arise spear-headed by Elijah.
Meantine the southern kingdom of Judah maintains a certain stability with some Godly men running the show, the kingdom lasted about 350 years. While in the northen kingdom there were 20 kings from nine families, in the southern kingdom there were 20 kingws over a substantially longer period and all in keeping with God's law thus the dynastic succession of David remains intact, the house of David is preserved.
In 722 BC the northen kingdom fell to the Asyrian invaders, the people taken away captive. In 587/7 BC Jerusalem falls to the Babilonians. So from this period of division comes the great captivity. "Bleakness and darkness came upon the people". They had lost their heritage. As the prophet Amos would later declare, "The booth of David had fallen, the throne of David entangled with snares, weeds and rust, seemingly consigned to everlasting oblivion . . . But for God's promise to his servant David, tha he would establish his throne for ever. And as Amos said later, "God promises to restore the fallen booth of David.
All this points to 'mourning in lowly exile 'til the Son of God appear.' to whom thekingdom is given for ever ans ever.
-
docmattc
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:42 am
- Parish / Diocese: Westminster
- Location: Near Cambridge
Welcome to the forum Anne!
I think there is a problem with texts which use imagery of Israel which has only arisen since 1946 when Israel became a geographical reality. Careful explanation and catechesis are needed to ensure that everyone understands Israel here to mean all the people of God and not the state of Israel (potentially synonymous with Judaism?), which would not see itself as mourning in lowly exile.
See
http://www.icjs.org/clergy/albright.html#Anchor-3800.
Are we, in fact, mourning in exile as we wait for the messiah (eschatologically and commemoratively) or are we awaiting the Lord with hope and joy?
Are the chosen people abandoned until the Messiah comes? Which chosen people are we talking about here? The Jewish people, who remain the chosen people of God, or ourselves, grafted on as the chosen people through Christ?
I don't think either group would consider themselves abandoned, but waiting, in different ways, for the fulfillment of the Messianic age.
We'll be using Dan Schutte's setting of the O antiphons on both 3rd and 4th sundays of Advent (as these fall in the O antiphon period)
I think there is a problem with texts which use imagery of Israel which has only arisen since 1946 when Israel became a geographical reality. Careful explanation and catechesis are needed to ensure that everyone understands Israel here to mean all the people of God and not the state of Israel (potentially synonymous with Judaism?), which would not see itself as mourning in lowly exile.
See
http://www.icjs.org/clergy/albright.html#Anchor-3800.
Are we, in fact, mourning in exile as we wait for the messiah (eschatologically and commemoratively) or are we awaiting the Lord with hope and joy?
Gwyn wrote:I've always read these words as referring to the abandonment of the chosen people until the Messiah comes.
Are the chosen people abandoned until the Messiah comes? Which chosen people are we talking about here? The Jewish people, who remain the chosen people of God, or ourselves, grafted on as the chosen people through Christ?
I don't think either group would consider themselves abandoned, but waiting, in different ways, for the fulfillment of the Messianic age.
We'll be using Dan Schutte's setting of the O antiphons on both 3rd and 4th sundays of Advent (as these fall in the O antiphon period)
Oh come now, asb, I'm sure no-one round here thinks you're computer-illiterate. 
There was a persuasive article by Paul Inwood in a recent issue of Music and Liturgy pointing out the mismatch between the readings in the Office and the weekday Lectionary (on the one hand) and the Sunday Lectionary (on the other). While the O Antiphons clearly have their place in the Office for the last week of Advent, and the weekday readings at Mass reflect this, the Sunday readings are structured differently, such that the most appropriate Sundays for the hymn (Paul argues) are the second and third.
So it's possible to ease it in a bit sooner than December 17th, without necessarily making it a signature tune for all things Advent-related.
M.
asb wrote:And please, save this wonderful hymn until the latter part of Advent, when the "O" Antiphons form part of the Office !
There was a persuasive article by Paul Inwood in a recent issue of Music and Liturgy pointing out the mismatch between the readings in the Office and the weekday Lectionary (on the one hand) and the Sunday Lectionary (on the other). While the O Antiphons clearly have their place in the Office for the last week of Advent, and the weekday readings at Mass reflect this, the Sunday readings are structured differently, such that the most appropriate Sundays for the hymn (Paul argues) are the second and third.
So it's possible to ease it in a bit sooner than December 17th, without necessarily making it a signature tune for all things Advent-related.
M.
-
gwyn
- Posts: 1148
- Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 3:42 pm
- Parish / Diocese: Archdiocese of Cardiff
- Location: Abertillery, South Wales UK
Moses had just led his people in somewhat miraculous circumstances (remember they'd been captive for some time and treated with a little less dignity than that of horse manure) through a raging torrent and out of an awful captivity. I suspect he was just a tad euphoric. He sang a song about it (Exodus 15). Who wouldn't? It was a triumphal little number. What else could it have been? They took a leap of faith and it piaid off. They were free.
"I will sing to the Lord, Glorious is his triumph. Isn't it a pity that poor Pharaoh didn't make it through as well. Oh dear, and I do wish the man who wanted to enslave our children, treating them like so much rubbish could have made it through as well." Doesn't quite work. does it?
Trendy minimalist liberlaism at a time like that? I think not. No, this was real liberation form a real oppressor to whom the slow death of his captives, their womenfolk and children meant less than nothing. They were free. I'd have sung, oh yes, I'd have surely sung.
"I will sing to the Lord, Glorious is his triumph. Isn't it a pity that poor Pharaoh didn't make it through as well. Oh dear, and I do wish the man who wanted to enslave our children, treating them like so much rubbish could have made it through as well." Doesn't quite work. does it?
Trendy minimalist liberlaism at a time like that? I think not. No, this was real liberation form a real oppressor to whom the slow death of his captives, their womenfolk and children meant less than nothing. They were free. I'd have sung, oh yes, I'd have surely sung.
-
contrabordun
- Posts: 514
- Joined: Sun May 23, 2004 4:20 pm
Sorry...off topic a bit.