Rorate Caeli

First alteration in the Traditional Missal after the Motu Proprio


Andrea Tornielli reports today in Il Giornale that the prayer for the conversion of the Jews in the 1962 edition of the Missale Romanum will likely be changed "in the next few days", by decision of Benedict XVI - the opposite of what the secretary of "Ecclesia Dei" said just one week ago ("not an urgent problem"), but somewhat confirming the words of Cardinal Bertone shortly after the publication of the motu proprio.

Main excerpts:

Benedict XVI has decided to reformulate the text of the prayer for the Jews contained in the Tridentine Missal liberalized by the recent Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum: the publication of the new text, entirely reformulated, should take place in a few days. The reference to the "blinding" of the Jewish people should disappear. The new version will enter into effect already in the celebrations of the faithful who follow the ancient rite in the next Holy Week.
...
Benedict XVI has prepared a draft version of the new prayer, which should be published in the next few days by the Congregation for the Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments [sic]. According to some rumors, in the new version, though the passages considered offensive by the Jews have been omitted, the reference to the old aim of the prayer, that of conversion, would nevertheless remain.
_____________________________

The prayer for the conversion of the Jews in the Great Intercessions in the liturgy of Good Friday in the 1962 Editio Typica of the Missale Romanum is the following.
Let us pray: and also for the Jews, may our God and Lord remove the veil from their hearts; so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, Our Lord.

Almighty and everlasting God, who drivest not away from Thy mercy even the Jews: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people: that, acknowledging the light of Thy truth, which is Christ, they may be rescued from their darkness.
_____________________________

The text of the Second Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians (3:12-16), upon which the prayer is mostly based, is the following (Douay-Rheims):

Having therefore such hope, we use much confidence: And not as Moses put a veil upon his face, that the children of Israel might not steadfastly look on the face of that which is made void. But their senses were made dull. For, until this present day, the selfsame veil, in the reading of the old testament, remaineth not taken away (because in Christ it is made void). But even until this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. But when they shall be converted to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away.

129 comments:

poeta said...

So will they continue to change this prayer, one word at a time, until it resembles the Novus Ordo version?

Benfan said...

I'll believe it when I see it. Also when I see a papal signature with the alteration. We've been here before and we got the NO mass. This time no one is going to be fooled. Cardinal Bertone is obviously pushing this and has been from the start. One to watch closely me thinks.

Anonymous said...

Wow, that didn't take long!

At least we know who is in charge now.

Anonymous said...

I will still pray for the jews if this prayer is changed.

sacristy_rat said...

If there is any truth to this it will be extremely disappointing. It just does not seem to be like P.BXVI to "change" a text. This article seems so matter of fsact though. Right now it seems this is the only blog that is picking up on this.

LeonG said...

The 1962 version of The Latin Mass is heading for a new synthesis. If you do not believe it then you will when it comes. Ecumenism & inter-religious dialogue are the guiding principles of post-conciliar politics. This change to the prayer of the Good Friday service is a predictable kowtow to the current direction given above. There is more to come. With time, once most traditionalists are on board, the "reform" bandwagon will make significant in-roads on The Latin Mass, too. I have stated all the way along that the 1962 Latin Mass with Bugnini's alterations and his bowdlerised NO Latin edition with the eventual "vernacular only" protestant service make the Latin liturgy vulnerable to modernistic trends and tendencies. With papal authority at a minimum under the post-conciliar collegial regime and episcopal conferences having relatively more significant clout locally there is much danger ahead liturgically speaking.

The comment here about Cardinal Bertone is germane. His incompetence over the Fatima issue does not inspire any confidence whatever.

Anonymous said...

Cardinal Bertone is indeed someone to watch, but not for good reasons.
It is ridiculous to change one simple prayer. If I were a priest during Holy Week, I certainly would have more important things to think about that a simple prayer offending Jews. Most people don't care. There are no Jews attending the ceremonies to be offended.
Pope Benedict XVI would do well to ask the Jews if they are going to remove the "curses" and insulting references to non-Jews (specifically Catholics), from their own prayers? Or are they afraid of the Jews to ask for reciprocal acts of atonment?
The Jews have doen their best to destroy the canonization proceedings for Pope Pius XII, the one and ONLY figure in the world during the Holocaust who attempted to save Jews....and yet they have heaped so much trash and false accusations against Him. Disgraceful.
Cardinal Bertone is the typical Vatican II persona. Fortunatly, He is in his 74th year, and if Benedict XVI lives as Pope another 6-10 years (which we hope), Bertone will be too old to vote.
He is a progressive at heart....someone who Faithful or traditional Catholics should not trust.

Cosmos said...

I think, at this point in Benedict's papacy, if he decides to change the prayer, we at least need to read the new text before condemning or writing him off as some modernist or failure. Benedict has certainly not given us any reason to despair, but rather, he has provided us ample reasons to hope. What if he simply re-formulates the prayer to say the same thing in a differnt tone? What if the purpose of the new prayer is to re-affirm the Church's committment to praying for the Jews even if it drops the word "blindness"? What if the only real result is that it takes a little of the sting out of the constant distraction that this historically-contextualized prayer has become in some circles? Prudence and wisdom call for weighing situations carefully, and if THIS Pope, who is no push-over to an agressively liberal Curia, thinks it better, I will standby him without hesitation. Let's wait until he does something that is objectively destructive before we judge him- he has done too much good for the Church to expect less from us.

Paddy said...

Cosmos, I thank you for your sane comment! And I agree. Let's look on the positive side. This change will be an implicit declaration that the older form is alive and well. Also, publicity given to it will be publicity for the traditional Mass. Let's not get into a slippery slope mentality.

commentator said...

Hey, let's get our history right here! The prayer in the 1962 Missal, used by SSPX etc., is not the full traditional prayer, but a revision by Bld John XXIII which eliminated all reference to perfidia. There is a precedent for what Benedict may do. I imagine the change will involve simply replacing "pro illius populi obcaecatione" with "pro illo populo". Let's not lose sleep over that.

Athelstane said...

I'll believe it when I see it.

Anonymous said...

The Mass is a live and well when it is celebrated across the world on a daily basis, not when it's cut apart by the pope.

Jon said...

Although I agree with some of the statements about Cardinal Bertone (Third Secret), in his defense, he does seem to be the one that pulled the plug on the Tour Marini.

http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2008/01/vietato-marini.html

Michael said...

Silly question...

If the 1962 missal of John XXIII is edited, does that make it the 2008 missal of Benedict XVI?

Anonymous said...

The question is not whether or not the prayer can be changed -- prayers of the mass have always changed and developed. The sticking point here is whether it is prudent, at this time, to change this prayer; what kind of message is it sending the world? Would such a change effectively be stating that another, ultimately flawed, religion has the job of vetting the prayers of the one, true Church?

Anonymous said...

This is not particularly joyous news, but I will trust the Holy Father. The important thing is that the prayer clearly prays for the conversion of the Jews to the Catholic Faith. It will be easier to accept it so long as it truly remains a reformulation of the original that truly communicates the unity and neccessity of the True Church. May it please Providence to use this to quicken the restoration.

Anonymous said...

Pope Benedict has affirmed over and over his committment to the ecumenical movement as understood since the 1960's. Note his letter to the bishop of Assisi in which he calls the late Pope's ecumenical meetings of prayer as "prophetic". It should not surprise anyone that ecumenism should pervert the traditional liturgy. It is not just a question of changing prayers, which is bad enough, but of why they would be changed. The Jews object on the grounds that it is an insult for the Church to pray that they be converted to the Catholic Faith for that obviously means that the Old Covenant is finished and inefficious for salvation. Any change which diminishes the need for Jews to be Catholics in order to be saved is at the very least one which savours of heresy, even if it doesn't affirm it clearly. The Council of Florence already taught that the Jews cannot be saved if they do not enter ecclesiastical unity. The new idea that the Old Covenant is still valid for them is certainly a heresy. No traditional Catholic can accept any diminution in the necessary for the Church for salvation, including for the Jews. A simple prayer that they have some sort of moral conversion is insufficient; they must embrace the one Faith.

Anonymous said...

Predictable comments, I fear. If this is true the Holy Father is only doing what many of his predecessors did, including Pope John XXIII. The Latin Rite is not set in letters of stone

Benfan said...

Personally, I think expectation is being primed. There is no way one could anticipate B16 would have suggested this. Until I see proof of this I will assume it is coming from another source and not the Pope. Most likely Bertone. It should be ignored and dismissed. This is exactly the same technique used to open up the liturgy for abuse before.

Anonymous said...

To his credit (even though I still think he is not a traditionally minded Cardinal, and thus am happy he's in his 74th year and retirement is just around the corner), Cardinal Bertone did put an end to the Marini book-tour, which was turning into an "anti-Tridentine Latin Mass, anti-Motu Proprio, anti-Benedict XVI" exercise lead by Marini himself.
Marini is more dangerous than Bertone. Not only is he 8 years younger (66), but He is the figurehead/rallying point for a very aged yet powerful force in the Church representing the failed liturgical experiments of Vatican II.
By using his book tours to vent against the Motu Proprio, the Tridentine Latin Mass, Catholic tradition, and above all the Pope (as Marini has done on book stops in England etc.), Piero Marini has shown himself to be an enemy in need of silencing.
Good for Bertone (and probably the Pope), for doing so. The USA book tour is off...INDEFINITLY. I hope that reads as "perminantly".
The fact that Pope Benedict XVI is not going to Montreal, Quebec for the Eucharistic Congress is even better news....because that liturgical affair is under the leadership of Piero Marini in his new post as President (not Prefect), for Eucharistic Congresses. If Marini were estemmed and in good graces with the Pope, Benedict XVI more than likely would have gone. I would read this as a snub of Marini. Hooray!!!
As for the prayer about Jews in the Tridentine Latin Mass, I just read on another site that the reform of the prayer is not as bad as many traditionalists would think. Afew words which might be insulting will be gone, but the word "conversion" (referring to the Jews being converted to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah will remain.) So it's not as bad as all that....perhaps.
I was upset when I read this news too, but the two stories I read about Marini 1). that his book tour was canceled...probably by the Vatican, and 2). That the Pope will not be going to the Eucharistic Congress in Canada...organized by Marini...definitly a Papal snub...made me alot happier.

Adam Barnette said...

The prayer for the conversion of the Jews in the 1962 Missal stands out like a sore thumb in a Church that operates on the basis of the Vatican II document, "Nostra Aetate." That document, which limits its relation to Non-Christian religions to dialogue, cooperation for the common good and support of the seeds of truth in their faiths, with only token mention of preaching the Gospel, will have to be reflected in any prayer for Jews. I don't support such a change, but then again I don't support many of the weak documents of the Second Vatican Council either. If this report is correct, it only shows the incompatibility of the traditional Liturgy with the Second Vatican Council. For those of us who love and support the former, we must gradually write the latter off as a mistake. Otherwise, we must be ready for many more alterations of the ancient prayers.

fr.a said...

Michael, not such a silly question.

"What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful."

Anonymous said...

Let us obey the Holy Vicar not question his actions. We are not Protestants, Buddhists, Muslims, Lefebvrists but Catholics.

We obey Him on earth who is the sole chance of our Salvation.

Anonymous said...

The prayer is correct and accurate as it stands. Proof again that the old and new cannot co-exist. It's the modernists who are provoking an anti-semitic backlash.

servusmariaen said...

I read this with great dismay this morning and I hope and pray that it's not true. I do agree with the comments above however that such a move would be in line with the "spirit of Vatican II". I mean if there is to be no conversions of Russian Orthodox to Catholicism thanks to the new "ecumenism" why should we expect there to be a need for conversion on the part of the Jewish people?

techno_aesthete said...

Note his letter to the bishop of Assisi in which he calls the late Pope's ecumenical meetings of prayer as "prophetic".

Apparently, you don't recall how opposed Cardinal Ratzinger was to the Assisi meeting in 1996. He refused to participate in it and thought it was a very bad idea. As Pope, he may have said nice words to the bishop of Assisi, but as I recall he did not participate in a recent meeting held in Assisi. Also, note that he had named the current bishop of Assisi and moved him out of the Curia (or a nuncio position).

schoolman said...

Of course we should wait for some official Vatican statement on this, however, I don't see a problem on the face of it. It would seem that the notion of "conversion" of the Jews will be retained in any case -- and that will serve as a powerful re-affirmation for the conversion of all people to the Gospel. Secondly, I have no problem if they remove references to "blindness" or "veils over hearts" and the like. These prrases, however true, are often subject to manipulation by extreme factions -- and it would seem reasonable if the Pope were to remove the possibility that the liturgy be used as a political football. Thirdly, such phrases can imply a sense of "ill-will" on the part of all Jews -- and that may be another matter of consideration. Lastly, it demonstrates that we have a Pope who is in charge and that the TLM is not some fixed liturgical relic of the past...but is alive today. So let's have some hope and confidence in our Holy Father whatever may come of this.

Benfan said...

Anonymous (14:22) Why all the links with Marini? Is there a suggestion that Bertone reigns in Marini and the Pope does a deal with Bertone to change the prayer? Marini will continue to be supported by the wolves whether he turns up for little chats around the world or not. He speaks to his own converted. The TLM will always be problem for this group irrespective of the prayer for the Jews. It is a non-issue. Their issue concerns a complete rejection of the Catholic Mass and the theology underlying it.

Adam Barnette said...

"These phrases, however true, are often subject to manipulation by extreme factions -- and it would seem reasonable if the Pope were to remove the possibility that the liturgy be used as a political football."

The same could be said of these phrases mentioned by St. Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:13-16. If we cannot rob St. Paul of his mention of the veiled blindness of the Jews because somebody cries wolf, why should we do this to the Sacred Liturgy? The fact that Sacred Scripture is Divine Revelation and the Sacred Liturgy organically develops can be never be used as an excuse to make the latter a vehicle for people pleasing. Rather, the organic development constitutive of the Sacred Liturgy is in order to make it ever more reflective of the Faith of the Church.

"Thirdly, such phrases can imply a sense of 'ill-will' on the part of all Jews -- and that may be another matter of consideration."

The same excuse could be given to the entire history of our relations to the Jews prior to the Second Vatican Council. With your line of thought, our entire patrimony runs the risk of being revised.

"Lastly, it demonstrates that we have a Pope who is in charge and that the TLM is not some fixed liturgical relic of the past...but is alive today."

IMO, changing the Sacred Liturgy upon the demand of non-Christians is a sign of the worst decadence - the decadence of slavery to public opinion.

Anonymous said...

If the pope changes the prayer, he will loose all credibility as to his true intentions in Summorum Pontificum.

Its either Tradition or aggiornomentoism which will define a man's believing, the former in faith, the latter unto heresy.

To say the Jews by their a priori rejection of Christ and of reading the OT in the light of the Messiah Jesus Christ, is not blindness is blindness, perfidy, and heresy.

If the pope changes the prayer, his orthodoxy is suspect.

Anyhow, the prayer in the 1948 Missale is still in force, because it was promulgated by Quo primum, just as H. H. Benedict XVI himself said, so you can always use that one, whatsoeve changes are made to the Missale of 1962.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Anonymous said...

I can't see how snubbing Marini and changing the prayer for the conversion of the Jews are remotely equal in value. Next week no one will remember that a rather obscure cleric was "snubbed." The whole world will certainly take note when a Pope alters a prayer in the Latin Mass in favor of infidels. The latter (the infidels) are, as St. Paul says, blind. So if you follow the lead of the blind, what does that make you? (No disrespect meant to Pope Benedict XVI.)

Snubbing Marini -- Curial insider politics, forgotten next week.

Changing the prayer (IF it happens) -- a major concession to modern "ecumenism," to be remembered *whenever* the Motu Proprio comes up as a topic of conversation. It will be seen as a victory for the Modernists and neo-Modernists.

Ottaviani said...

Goodbye reconciliation with SSPX

The new religion of Paul VI is in full swing.

ED said...

If this happens then i will leave my FSSP parish and join the SSPX chapel. It will say that the Chair of Peter is held by Abraham Foxman and the World Jewish Congress. Welcome to the Catholic Holocaust!!!

coitus interruptus said...

There is a tension between the principle of dialogue with non-Christian persons and religions and the assertion that such persons are "blind." This is a tension between the theology of Vatican II and the predominant theological attitude before the Council. Arguably, the older attitude is more biblical and patristic.

Perhaps Benedict will at some future point revise the Novus Ordo Good Friday prayers to bring them into line with the revised extraordinary prayers, now praying again for the conversion of the Jews and all non-Christians but without reference to "blindness"? This could be an example of the two forms "coming together."

Novak said...

Are we going to censor Scripture now to please the ADL? I hope this is not true.

Charles said...

As a living rite the Traditional Mass will face minor alterations as it had between 1570 and 1962. This change - if it comes - will do the ancient rite more long term good than anything else.

Ottaviani said...

Let us obey the Holy Vicar not question his actions. We are not Protestants, Buddhists, Muslims, Lefebvrists but Catholics.

We obey Him on earth who is the sole chance of our Salvation.


Well I pity the Catholics who lived under Alexander VI...

coitus interruptus said...

charles,

I think many traditionalists would be open to minor alterations in the ancient liturgy that do not go to questions of doctrinal substance. Only the most retrograde (and their numbers admittedly are not negligible among traditionalists) have hardened into the unintelligent position that all change is per se bad.

The question of whether we pray publicly for the conversion of non-Christians to Catholic Christianity is important. It goes to questions about salvation, which are the most significant being contested in the Church today. The technical consistency of the newer prayers with the older should not be allowed to obscure the fact that Catholics no longer pray in their public liturgies for the converstion of non-Catholics to Catholicism - except in the about-to-be-updated old rite. What we do and do not say publicly, in religion much as in politics, is not to be discounted

Anonymous said...

Facts:
1.The Pope has the authority to revise or insert prayers in the liturgy of a "developmental" nature.

2. Changing the text in this prayer is fully within papal authority.

3. Change could actually improve the prayer.

Situation:
In spite of the facts above, it would be highly IMPRUDENT of the Holy Father, so soon after the MP has been effected to make any changes to the Ancient Ordo even a single word could be justifiably seen as a slap in the face to Traditional Catholics.

It would be justifiable cause for the SSPX to hold off on the normalization talks and process indefinitely.

Worse, it would tell the world that Catholic Tradition may be suspect and in need of reformation.

In short all the false impressions that the aggiornamento calumniated Tradition with in the 60s to the present day.

In one swift blow, the Holy Father would shoot his MP in the foot.

Holy Father, please do NOT do this. Do not set back Holy Mother Church. Let the Church re-unite under the banner of Tradition, and re-establish the light of Tradition. Now is not the time to alter even developmentally until the Church is once again healthy, growing in numbers and visibly worldwide in virtue.

The SSPX will remain the refuge for Sacred Liturgy until firm and measurable stability is the order of the day.

I hope this is only the political machinations of the Bertones, Sodanos and the other anti-Fatimid forces within the Vatican, and that HH BXVI will confound this effort in its conception.

Pray much for the Holy Father!

In JMJ,
Joseph John Francis

Anonymous said...

you'd almost think this guy wasn't pope!

Paul Haley said...

In my opinion the church would be much better off is She did not change her prayers based upon political considerations. Having said that what is wrong with saying: "We pray that those who have not accepted Christ as Savior will, illumined by His grace, come to that conclusion, particularly those to whom Christ came first, his blood brothers and sisters, the Jews."

Paul Haley said...

Edited version follows:
In my opinion the church would be much better off if She did not change her prayers based upon political considerations. Having said that what is wrong with saying: "We pray that those who have not accepted Christ as Savior will, illumined by His grace, come to that conclusion, particularly those to whom Christ came first, his blood brothers and sisters, the Jews."

Larry said...

The last comment is uncharitable. "changes the dough of his mind"? Leave personal attacks on the successor of Peter out of this. Like others have said, I'll believe it when I see it.

Joe B said...

Oh, no, not another denial of the faith to appease those who hate it! What good will come from this? Will the Jews convert because of it? No, it will just divide the faithful even more. Dividing rather than unifying - the smoke of Satan in the Vatican.

Past Popes changed the Mass to make it more Catholic, not more Jewish.

This is going to separate the trads from the merely dissatisfied Novus Ordo types. Which communities will go along with the change? Remember, the old form is forever valid, too, and will certainly not be forbidden.

No, it isn't OK. It is valid, not OK. This is why the SSPX is wise in not doing business with the Vatican until they acknowledge and reject the errors of Vatican II. Once again, the Holy Archbishop is shown to have been right!

Anonymous said...

Ottaviani said...

Well I pity the Catholics who lived under Alexander VI...

What a blessing to live under such a saintly, misrepresented and much maligned, Holy Vicar of Christ.

Shame on you: how dare you impugn the name 'Ottaviani'. Cardinal Ottaviani would have laid down his very life in submission and obedience to our Sweet Jesus on Earth.

Jordan Potter said...

The online tempest that has arisen today at the merest suggestion and unsubstantiated rumor that the Holy Father will change the prayer for the Jews gives me further reason to believe that this story is bogus. Obviously many want the prayer to be changed, and I've said myself that I'd be happy if the prayer were tweaked just a little, so as to avoid if possible a tone of hostility and spiritual pride -- but it would be imprudent in the extreme to make any changes in the 1962 Missal so soon after it was derestricted, and before the SSPX had been reconciled and regularised. So, I'll believe this when I see it.

Anonymous said...

Everyone calm down.

This is just another example of the media trying to disingenuously influence the outcome of events through the pretense of reporting them. We haven't seen that before have we?

Schoolman- Quit equivocating for ten seconds. This is absolutely terrible.

JJF- You are correct but too charitable. This wouldn't be "imprudent" but "stupid" and "destructive." It will only reinforce the "indult divide" and alienate traditionalists from the Holy See. Of course the pope has the authority to do it, but he has authority to do all sorts of incompetent, nonsensical crap.

New Catholic said...

The last sentence of the translation was incomplete, and we had been unable to update it for several hours.

The aim of "conversion" would remain in the reformed prayer, but the article does not include the exact text of the prayer.

stambrose said...

Benedict XVI has prepared a draft version of the new prayer, which should be published in the next few days by the Congregation for the Divine Worship.


Isn't it strange for something pertaining to the old missal to come through the CDW? Wouldn't it rather come through Eccelsia Dei?

New Catholic said...

Yes, stAmbrose, that is strange - which is why we included the sic caveat right after that Congregation is mentioned in the article: the article truly includes that information, as strange as it may sound.

Here is a thought: maybe Tornielli's source for this rumor is someone from inside the CDW; and perhaps it started as a parallel effort by some inside the CDW to influence the Traditional Missal, which would explain why Mgr. Perl would be completely oblivious to the move by the reformers...

Just a thought...

Iosephus said...

This is horrible news, if true

schoolman said...

"The aim of "conversion" would remain in the reformed prayer..."

Exactly. And that's why I don't see this as such a big deal. It would seem silly to create schism over such a matter.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
you'd almost think this guy wasn't pope!

Hmmmmmmm,

Jordan Potter said...

Isn't it strange for something pertaining to the old missal to come through the CDW? Wouldn't it rather come through Eccelsia Dei?

Another good reason to doubt that this rumor is correct. I've no doubt there are those in the CDW who want such a change, but under the law it is Ecclesia Dei that must issue any changes of this sort, not the CDW. My take on this is some folks are playing games, trying to gin up media momentum to influence the Church to change the prayer. Hopefully, prayerfully, any such machinations will fail. I think changing the prayer for the Jews any time this year, or any time the next decade at least, would be very harmful to the Church.

Anonymous said...

It would seem silly to create schism over such a matter.

Who's talking about creating schism, Schoolman? Why can't you just admit that this change would be stupid and wrong because it will not produce any positive effect in the Church's relationship with the Jews and would only further complicate the relationship between the Holy See and traditionalists?

JAT

Anonymous said...

I think changing the prayer for the Jews any time this year, or any time the next decade at least, would be very harmful to the Church.

Absolutely. I don't think anyone with the least bit of intellectual seriousness can really get upset at the pope making such a minor change as this: The problem isn't with the change itself, but with its timing and the apparent yielding on the part of the pope to the pressure of ecumenical lobbyists.

This would completely undermine the beginnings of trust which this pope has so virtuously created.

JAT

Mark said...

I found it strange that this story should surface today, the beginnig of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.

Father Anthony Cekada said...

Have the Jews who pushed for this change laid their eyes yet on the Good Friday Matins (Tenebrae) readings that those who use the John XXIII Breviary (FSSP, ICK, etc.) will be chanting?

"But O ye, his own Jewish people, ye in full truth did kill him. And how did ye kill him? With the sword of the tongue. For like a sword ye whet your tongue. And when did ye strike the blow, but when ye cried out : Crucify him, crucify him?"

For a translation of the whole text, see:

http://www.breviary.net/propseason/passiontide/propseasonpass206.htm#Matins

Stanislas said...

This change will blow up all reconciliation efforts with the Society of St. Pius X, which upholds Roman Catholic doctrine unblemishedly, without any conciliar compromises.

It is typical to see the neoconservative neo-Catholics praising the pope for this (apparent) gesture.

Tornelli is well informed, he can surely be right.

This is a sad report. To state that the Jews are not blind, is to pervert 2 Cor 3:14-20 in an illicit way.

The Old Law is void.

By the way: several locations of the Institute of Christ the King and the Society of St. Pius X use either the old prayer including 'perfidis' (unfaithful), or (ICK) the pre-1955 liturgy of Holy Week.

Again, this quick change and swap proves that other forces are at work inside Vatican bureaucracy. And not the Holy Ghost, but some other "ghost" and his helpers.

Why always diplomacy and compromise.

For the Jews with the Old Law which is null and void and without worth in sanctification since 33 AD (Mystici corporis, 29), there is also the first and foremost obligation to join the Roman Catholic Church which alone is necessary for salvation (Humani generis, 27), as there is no salvation outside Christ and His one, true Church.

There is no separate way of salvation.

Note, Fr. Cekada (sedevacantist), however that even the Paul VI 'Liturgy of the Hours' on Good Friday prays for the conversion of the Jews still. This means that one cannot construct that the "revised" pseudo-Roman liturgy of Paul VI is wholly dispensationalist-ecumenist and therefore modernistic. But still there remain these problems.

I predict many will flee to the Work of Archbishop Lefebvre if this 'change' is implemented, as it is an official attack against Roman Catholic Tradition.

The traditional prayer is not anti-Semitic (racist) nor 'anti-Judaic'. It is anti-Talmud, anti-unbelief of course. Pro-conversion. But perfidiam means unbelief (see the clarifications of Pius XII who ordered that "perfidious" be changed to "unfaithful" in the American translations around 1953). And the Jews' hearts sadly are veiled.

Let us pray for their conversion to Christ.

poeta said...

The CDW "angle" makes me wonder if there couldn't be some confusion in the reporting:

What if (and wouldn't this be appropriate!!) the newly composed prayer were in fact being issued for use in the NOVUS ORDO?

Anonymous said...

I am not aware of Pope Pius XII's intervention in the translation of "perfidis." However, as a trained Latinist, I must say that the proper definition of "perfidis" is "faithlessness" in the sense of "treachery, untrustworthiness." Lewis and Short define perfidia as "fithlessness, dishonesty, treachery, falsehood, perfidy." When the Romans referred to the Carthaginians' "perfidia," they did not mean their lack of the theological virtue of Faith. Jewish "perfidy" would encompass both lack of Faith and the betrayal of Christ in handing Him over to the Romans: He came unto His own and His own received Him not. The Old Testament Jews were unfaithful insofar as they betrayed the Messias. Once again, I am not aware of Pope Pius' intervention, which I would need to read in order to understand.

Joe B said...

A lot of what-if's about it being false.

What if it's worse than rumored? What if there's an explanation that even suggests the Old Covenant is still valid for them? Oh, that's right, they already did that one.

We've been down this road so many times since that council that the betting man would do well to put his money on it being accurate or worse, just like on the rumors of alter girls, evolution, and a paper on limbo.

Anonymous said...

"Let us obey the Holy Vicar not question his actions. We are not Protestants, Buddhists, Muslims, Lefebvrists but Catholics."


This quote taken from a contributor is misleading.
"Lefebvrists" is a derogatory and insulting term from 1.5 million people who ARE Roman Catholic .
Don't junk them in the same group as the other three mentioned....especially the first one.

Joe B said...

Right. So alter girls are a good thing?

Anonymous said...

Don't mean to get distracted, but if the Old Covenant was "null and void and without worth" since 33 AD, why would the Letter to the Hebrews say that it is "becoming obsolete" (8:13)? Clearly the epistle was written well into the New Testament era.

It seems to me that the Old Covenant has salvific value for a Jew if he is invincibly ignorant of the true faith. That's how I understant the Holy See's statements on the subject.

That being said, I am no neocon. I find these statements reprehensibly confusing and needlessly scandalizing. By ignoring the Church's traditional position toward Judaism, they undermine the continuity of Catholic doctrine.

JAT

Anonymous said...

It's amazing how ultramontanism rides tandem with sickness, stupidity, ignorance, and quite possibly, malice.

Should the New Testament also be changed so as not to hurt precious Jewish feelings, by excising any references to their blindness?

Spiritual pride, Jordan Potter?? What hubris you display!!!

Pius XII should have been disobeyed. How dare even a pope engage in such intellectual bankruptcy.

Cosmos said...

Josephus,

I ask this in all sincerity; do you really think that Pope Benedict XVI would do something that is "horrible" for our faith? Perhaps you are expressing your confidence that he will not change this prayer because you believe that to do so would be horrible? I ask this because when I read this man's work, I simply lose confidence in my ability to judge him. He seems too patently intelligent, humble, faithful, and even holy to do something "horrible."

Could he make a mistake? Of course. But it seems like there are very few on Earth who have the expereince or the wherewithal to condemn his prudential judgments a priori. But again, perhaps you are merely expressing confidence that he would never make such a judgment because it seems so obviously misguided to you.

Anonymous said...

First of all, if this change is enacted, the S.S.P.X should discontinue all negotiations with Rome. Secondly, the S.S.P.X should then revert entirely to the 1958 Mass, effective on the First Sunday of Advent of this year. That liturgy would restore the adjective 'faithless'. How accurate it is.

Only the masoretic infidels would have the nerve to tell us what to pray. Next, they'll be telling us what to think. But they already do that. It's called political correctness, and it emanates from the media they control.

Fortunately, most traditionalsits don't speak Latin. Therefore, if these changes are made, nobody will even notice. We shall simply continue reading the 1962 text from our old and not-so-old (Baronius Press) Missals. When they wear out, our internet sites will simply provide downloadable 1962 Good Friday Service booklets in Latin and English.

As for those of us who do understand Latin, headphones are the answer. Keep in mind that Good Friday is not a holyday of obligation. Therefore, we do not fail to fulfil that obligation by not hearing part of the official text.

Of course, since the Sacred Triduum liturgies can only be said once per place according to the normative form of that place, it is only at personal parishes (all fifteen worldwide) and a handfull of non-parochial churches set us for the 1962 lituriges that we shall even hear non-1970 Good Friday prayers. Most of us shall never hear them in any event. This is all a tempest in a teapot. But the masoretes--and the N.O. liberals who are using them to attack us--must get their pound of flesh.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Typical Cekada: Come in, drop a bomb and gone in a flash.

Why do those who accuse the Jews of deicide always forget the most important magisterial statement on the subject?

Roman Catechism: "We must regard as guilty all those who continue to relapse into their sins. Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify the Son of God anew in their hearts (for he is in them) and hold him up to contempt. And it can be seen that our crime in this case is greater in us than in the Jews. As for them, according to the witness of the Apostle, "None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." We, however, profess to know him. And when we deny him by our deeds, we in some way seem to lay violent hands on him"

All mankind is guilty of deicide. It was historically a conspiracy of Gentiles, Jews and Christians, namely Judas.

JAT

Anonymous said...

First of all, if this change is enacted, the S.S.P.X should discontinue all negotiations with Rome.

There are no negotiations to discontinue. (1) Libralize the mass, (2) lift the excommunications, (3) engage in theological dialogue, (4) negotiate an amicable canonical solution.

Only the first step has been fulfilled, but if this rumor proves true, perhaps this will need reconsideration.

Secondly, the S.S.P.X should then revert entirely to the 1958 Mass

What you are suggesting is that the SSPX should be as faithless as everyone else. SSPX has always kept its word.

Anonymous said...

Spiritual pride indeed.

Anonymous you sooner trust Il Giornale and its sources (whoever that might be) than the Holy Father.

You advocated disobeying a pope whose legitimacy is universally recognized in the same breath as you accuse others of "hubris" and "intellectual bankrupcy"?!

Why don't you go meditate your hypocrisy and complete disregard for the Catholic faith? We may be anonymous to one another, but not to God.

JAT

PS. Jordan Potter, I apologize on this man's behalf. Your posts manifest to much intelligence and insight to have to deal with such noise.

dcs said...

The first time I saw this post there were 27 comments. When I checked back there were 38 comments. When I checked back again there were 49 comments. The next time I checked there were 59 comments (breaking the pattern). But now the pattern has returned as there are now 71 comments (present comment excluded of course).

Anonymous said...

what is wrong with you people, you'd strain a nat and swallow a camel...go back to the 1958 Missal..while were at it why don't we go back to the original liturgy in Greek hmmm?? And by the way His Holiness St Pius V amended 'Quo Primum tempore' the morning after its promulgation. The lack of faith,hope and charity displayed by some of you is a shocking disgrace. Catholics?, some of you act like protestants in Catholic clothing. If anyone of you had spoken of the Vicar of Christ in the way I've just read...during the Ireland my father knew, a Catholic Ireland, not one of you would have made it home in one piece.

Anonymous said...

As the poster said earlier, this isn't the venerable traditional prayer "Oremus et pro perfidis Judaeis". That prayer (dating to the VIIth Century) was altered in 1959 to remove the term "perfidis", or "faithless".

So the "blindness" which applied to the "faithless Jews" in the traditional prayer was now left to apply to all the Jews. This is problematic, given that Jewish converts to the Catholic Church remain Jews by virtue of blood until they die, but they are now faithful and believe in Christ, and can hardly be said to be any more blind than the rest of us can be. So rather than remove a calumny, the change to the traditional prayer added one. The Holy Father is apparently about to rectify this injustice.

Many will argue that the older form should be restored in its entirety, but even Archbishop Lefebvre did not demand the immediate restoration of the traditional elements of the liturgy that were removed in the years preceding 1962.

Still, the old prayer is venerable and good for Catholic worship, when said with the mind of the Church. Perhaps we could say the traditional prayer as a novena for the conversion of the Jews this year in the days before Good Friday, to make up for the years when so many Catholics did not clearly pray for their conversion at all.

Anonymous said...

JAT said:

"You advocated disobeying a pope whose legitimacy is universally recognized in the same breath as you accuse others of "hubris" and "intellectual bankrupcy"?!

Why don't you go meditate your hypocrisy and complete disregard for the Catholic faith?"

How dare you misrepesent the catholic faith!! Show me which defined dogma, or non-defined infallible teaching (i.e., of the ordinary infallible magisterium) obliges a catholic to render absolute obedience to the pope??

None what soever, and for very good reason: when the pope commands evil, we are to disobey. And I am also, probably unlike you, a trained latinist. Pope Pius was acting in an intellectually bankrupt manner when he ordered people to mistranslate the Latin of "perfidis". You are the hypocrite, not I; you are also guilty of hubris in talking about something - the mistranslation of perfidis - of which you obviously know nothing.

How dare you, you pious twit.

You owe me a public apology.

Joe B said...

Dump the race trick. We're talking about the faith here. You're either Catholic or your toast. Get it?

Anonymous said...

"Roman Catechism: "We must regard as guilty all those who continue to relapse into their sins. Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify the Son of God anew in their hearts (for he is in them) and hold him up to contempt. And it can be seen that our crime in this case is greater in us than in the Jews. As for them, according to the witness of the Apostle, "None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." We, however, profess to know him. And when we deny him by our deeds, we in some way seem to lay violent hands on him"

Rubbish, this is not the most important magisterial statement on the subject. The patristic statements attributing the guilt of deicide to the Jews were, and are.

But the whole problem is that charges of deicide have never caused Jews to be expelled from Gentile nations, the alleged mistreatment that they typically complain about, but their own criminal, Talmudic behaviour.

VITANDUS said...

Beloved--let us hope and pray that this report is unfounded. Benedict is a brilliant man, a pheonomenologist of the first water, but he is clearly flawed. In the past year, he has given further indication of his unsoundness on baptismal regeneration (the limbo fiasco and the locution of last week). Five years ago, he accepted the anaphora of Addai and Mari, which lack any words of institution, as a valid confected sacrament. Ten years ago, he concluded what amounted to a treaty of peace with Lutheran soteriology based, more or less, upon the 1541 Ratisbon agreement. He seems to be a sincere quasi-catholic of the Reginald Pole/Paolo Sarpi stripe.

Anonymous said...

Whoa, such venom in some of these remarks. If it occurs, B16 isn't changing anything that offers prayers for the conversion of the Jews, but language that has to do with their blindness, and until we see even that, who cares? Time to cease the sifting of grains of sand, the pharasetical scrutiny on every Church action not approved by "traditionalists".

David L Alexander said...

"Everyone calm down. This is just another example of the media trying to disingenuously influence the outcome of events through the pretense of reporting them. We haven't seen that before have we?"

Now that's the first sign of good sense I've read in this combox. That and the Lewis and Short commentary (which is what I've been saying all along about "perfidi.") Anyway, this all sounds more like typical intra-curial posturing to me. Like those guys don't have anything better to do. I'll believe any of this if and when I see it.

(Hey, Moderator, if somebody gets on my nerves, can I call them a "pious twit" too?)

schoolman said...

"So the "blindness" which applied to the "faithless Jews" in the traditional prayer was now left to apply to all the Jews. This is problematic..."
====================

This is true. Furthermore, it seems unjust to attribute "blindness" and "veils over hearts" to all Jews without distinction. For example, those of "good-will" (some even among the elect!) actually have open hearts rather than hearts closed or covered by veils. Therefore, in addition to the sensibilities of Jews, there could be a legitimate reason to enhance the formulation of the prayer.

Jordan Potter said...

Rubbish, this is not the most important magisterial statement on the subject. The patristic statements attributing the guilt of deicide to the Jews were, and are.

Patristic statements may or may not be magisterial, and usually are not magisterial in a formal way.

The Scriptures teach us to love our enemies, to bless and curse not, to return not evil for evil, blow for blow, smiting for smiting, and to regard others as better than ourselves, to see ourselves as the worst of sinners. But many seek to give a "Corban" excuse so they can justify their neglect of these things.

But the whole problem is that charges of deicide have never caused Jews to be expelled from Gentile nations,

Saying that doesn't make it so.

the alleged mistreatment that they typically complain about,

"Alleged"???

but their own criminal, Talmudic behaviour.

Since when do two wrongs make a right?

You see, it's statements like yours that confirm Jews in thinking that Catholics generally, and Catholicism in particularly, are anti-Semitic and do not have any love for them, do not have their best interests at heart.

Jordan Potter said...

So the "blindness" which applied to the "faithless Jews" in the traditional prayer was now left to apply to all the Jews. This is problematic, given that Jewish converts to the Catholic Church remain Jews by virtue of blood until they die, but they are now faithful and believe in Christ, and can hardly be said to be any more blind than the rest of us can be.

That's a good point. However, for better or worse, neither observant Jews nor Christians generally regard Jewish converts to Christianity as "Jews." So the revised prayer is still unmistakeably a prayer for the conversion of non-Christian Jews, especially when we see the remainder of the prayer and the surrounding context of the other Good Friday prayers. It's impossible that anyone would see that prayer and seriously think, "How could they claim that Jewish converts to Christianity are spiritually blind and don't believe in Christ?"

Pablo said...

We are not Protestants, Buddhists, Muslims, Lefebvrists but Catholics.

Anonymous:
Did you know Archbishop Lefebvre? Have you been to an SSPX Seminary, say for example, Winona Minnesota? Have you sat in on any classes there? Have you traveled, say for example, the United States and visited 'Catholic' Churches and Seminaries? Seeing is believing. You should take time to park your behind at Mass, or the Rosary, or Compline sometime at an Archbishop Lefebvre Chapel sometime. Don’t know what Compline is or need to brush up on your Rosary because your ‘Catholic’ Church doesn’t do that any more? Only someone who enjoys going to ‘Clown Masses’ and the such would make a remark of that kind. Your statements placing the Archbishop with the avowed enemies of Christ is worthy of excommunication.
Good or bad, the Pope is still the Holy Father; good or bad, Priests are still in the Order of Melchizedek. We may argue all we like with them and spend many years suffering their wrath. We must, even when things are said in the heat of battle, apologize as needed.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre deserves an apology from you; and you need to go to Confession.
The Jews have many problems; "Let His blood be upon us, and upon our Children". When they retract this statement, maybe we should consider doing a little something for them.( John Paul the Great should never have taken down the Crucifix and dismantled the Carmelite Convent at Auschwitz for the Jews).
I am going to incorporate the prayers in the article into my public and private Rosary.

I thank the Jews for encouraging me to do so.

Jordan Potter said...

Some anonymous person said: Spiritual pride, Jordan Potter?? What hubris you display!!!

You're welcome to your opinion, whoever you are. Leveling personal attacks and accusations impresses me not in the least. I've stated many times that my preference, and my conviction, is that we pray explicitly for the conversion of the Jews. But that doesn't mean we have to do it in a way that might needlessly offend, or that could seem to have a tone like that of the Pharisee in the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican. However, these are matters for the Church to address, not me, not you. I don't think it would be a good idea to start altering the 1962 Missal so soon after it has been derestricted, and I am extremely skeptical of any reports that this is imminent.

Anonymous said...

Jordan Potter said:

"Since when do two wrongs make a right?

You see, it's statements like yours that confirm Jews in thinking that Catholics generally, and Catholicism in particularly, are anti-Semitic and do not have any love for them, do not have their best interests at heart."

The irrationality (and quite possibly malice - born of pride) of this statement is a thing almost beyond belief!!!

The Jews, being a minority who believed in a criminal ideology (i.e., the the legal code known in the west as the Babylonian Talmud) which was a COMPREHENSIVE denial of the NATURAL LAW, were unfit - and dangerous - to dwell with those for whom the natural law was a foundation principle of their social inter-relations. The common good of society dictated that they be removed from it - hence the expulsions (not to mention the confiscation of their ill-gotten gains acquired through usury). Now, Jordan Potter, are you going to protest against the imprisonment of criminals in general on similar grounds to your protest against the expulsion of the Jews? Or how about the expulsion of unlawful non-citizens from a country or extradition of criminals?? You might as well, because similar considerations apply.

Somehow, I don't think you will.



AND GUESS WHAT?? For the first time in history, Muslims are in a similar situation to that of Jews in Europe throughout centuries past. For similar reasons, I predict that in the fullness of time, you will see muslims expelled from Western nations too. And it'll serve them right.

I hope you're not a police constable, Crown prosecutor (district attorney in the USA), magistrate, judge, immigration official, customs officer or anything like that.

Anonymous said...

See the overall utterly disgraceful chain of comments concerning this topic at The New Liturgical Movement.

It's absolutely disgusting.

Anonymous said...

Let people see for themselves how the talmud negates the law of nature:

http://www.come-and-hear.com/index-2.html

This is a compilation of exactly the kind of "traditions of men" used by the pharisees to nullify God's law, that Christ condemned. And the talmudic spiritual descendants of the pharisees continue to do the very same thing to this day.

Anonymous said...

Are there plans for a revision of the 1962 latin missal?

Poperinghe said...

I do wonder at why the SSPX chapels use the 1962 latin missal when it is altered, albeit modestly, nevertheless contradicting the encyclical of Pius V? Can someone please explain or justify this action to me? (I am not attempting to subtextually defend "the nine")

Anonymous said...

This is why we need to pray for the Jews:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15xbtK7r-SA&mode=related&search

It shows what they are really like when they think no-one's listening...

Eric G said...

I say the Holy Father call a day for prayer and fasting for the conversion of the Jews to Catholic Christianity. Maybe we can start such an effort here on the blogosphere?

Anonymous said...

Jordan Potter,

Does the New Testament needlessly offend Jews by St Paul speaking of them having a veil over their hearts?? If not, there's no reason to change the prayer.

The logical alternative is a blasphemous claim that "offensive" passages should be excised from the New Testament.

Vincent Uher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Vincent Uher said...

I look forward to the wisdom of our Holy Father on this matter and will greet with joy whatever he decides. If it remains the same, Pope Benedict will make it a moment of profound catechesis. If the Holy Father changes it, I look forward to praying a prayer wrought through the genius and prayerfulness of our Pope.

Anonymous said...

If the rumour is true then this is a wonderful opportunity for Catholics to show their loyalty to the Holy Father and to the Church by embracing the change.

Anonymous said...

for better or worse, neither observant Jews nor Christians generally regard Jewish converts to Christianity as "Jews."

That's right, Jordan. Ultimately, it is a denial of the Jewishness of Christ, and a distortion of the meaning of the word "Jew". God willed that He come into the world as a Jew, born of a Jewess in Bethlehem of Judaea. This is an important truth which many find inconvenient. It is impossible under Jewish law for a Jew to cease being a Jew. It is also impossible under Christian theology to deny the Jewishness of converts.

Eventually the Jews will convert in great numbers, and these will not cease being Jews, but come into the fullness of Judaism which is its consummation in the recognition of the coming of the Messiah.

Anonymous said...

If the rumour is true then this is a wonderful opportunity for Catholics to show their loyalty to the Holy Father and to the Church by embracing the change.

First, by no means does the change require a denial of the faith. The pope could for example remove the reference to blindness (the Latin actually means "complete or total blindness" and change it to St. Paul's term "veil over their hearts". Which would be more correct, because some Jews are non a priori deniers of Christ's Messiahship, they are just ignorant and in good faith.

But we must not mistake or attempt to recast the sense in which Jews is used in the Liturgy: it does not refer to the race, to Israeli citizens, but to the observers of the Talmudic Religion. An atheist who is Jewish by race is not included in the Good Friday prayer for the Jews.

So it does not offend, either, the Catholics who are Jewish.

That being said, if the change goes silent about blindness and veil, then Catholics have every right, and indeed a duty, in accord with the 4th anathema of Nicea II to dispise and refuse to use the new version:

"If anyone rejects any written or unwritten eccclesiastical tradition, anathema sit!"

Anyone means all of us, even the Pope.

O BTW, the word is not "perfidia" or "perfideosus", but "perfidus", which does not mean "perfidious" but "convenant- or trust-breaker" and it is not said in reference to their character, but to their religious creed which requires the rejection of the Only Messiah.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo
www.franciscan-archive.org

THX1138 said...

I agree that we should not rush to judgment over this. I believe the Pope will retain the aim of the prayer and take the 'sting' out of it. I think the Pope knows what he is doing.
Also, the 1962 edition may need to be updated with new saints, feast days,prefaces anyway.

Adam Barnette said...

I'm surprised that some have defended this rumored change as being appropriate because the mention of the veiled blindness of the Jews may "offend" them.

Will we censor Sacred Scripture next?

Will we hide the words of Pope Innocent II, who upon being given a role of the law by the Jews covered with a veil, remarked "Auferet Deus omnipotens velamen a cordibus vestris" ("May the Almighty remove the veil from your hearts!")?

My friends, we're seeing the first confrontation of the new liberal ecumenism with the traditional Roman Liturgy. As can be plainly seen, the new emphasis on dialogue that seeks to not "offend", while only providing token mention of preaching the Gospel and a vague mention of finding the "fullness of truth" is contrary to how both St. Paul, Pope Innocent II and all others before Vatican II expressed their Faith.

In short, the liberal ecumenism inaugurated by Vatican II (e.g. Unitatis Redintegratio, Dignitatis Humane and especially pertinent to this discussion, Nostra Aetate) leaves us with a watered-down Faith. It leaves us with a tamed expression of Faith that in order to gain the adherence of the faithful has to hide what our forefathers said, prayed and did. How can such a beast be called "Catholic" and how can it be said to be in "continuity" with the past? It cannot unless one wants to display true faithlessness and claim that our Church was ignorant for much of its history.

I would also add that those who say that we are making a big deal about such a “minor” change are missing the big picture. If we remove mention of the veiled blindness of the Jews from the Good Friday Liturgy, do you honestly think it will be allowed to be mentioned anywhere else? Consistency will win the day and before we know it, the traditional Roman Liturgy will be neutered of anything “too harsh.”

For those who are trusting the Pope as if he will undoubtedly make the best choice here, it helps us to remember that Pope Benedict XVI came of ecclesiastical age during and after Vatican II and has yet to raise a complaint about the de facto banishment of the aspects of our Catholic heritage that are not ecumenical, so we shouldn’t expect him to suddenly preserve the traditional Roman Liturgy from such compromises. Without provoking a firestorm, let’s just say that I trust others with the cultivation of the traditional Roman Liturgy. Few people in authority at the present time are able to see beyond the failed mirage of Vatican II to appreciate and understand what authentic organic development of the Sacred Liturgy is and entails. Therefore, the 1962 Roman Liturgy should remain unchanged until Tradition is fully restored in the Church.

Anonymous said...

"That's right, Jordan. Ultimately, it is a denial of the Jewishness of Christ, and a distortion of the meaning of the word "Jew"."

Emotive claptrap. You'll peddle any rubbish to justify your stupid position.

"It is impossible under Jewish law for a Jew to cease being a Jew."

Jewish law has been abrogated. It is therefore irrelevant, except as an historic curiosity due to the fact of its nullity and voidness.

The above quotations were two pieces of nonsense in one paragraph.

dcs said...

In middle school I had a Jewish teacher who stated that if he ever converted to another religion his parents would mourn him as if he were dead. So no, observant Jews do not regard Jewish converts to Christianity or anything else as Jews. They view them as dead.

Caritas said...

Father, forgive them, for they know not what they write. But they, dividing His Church, cast lots!

Caritas

Anonymous said...

Br. Alexis, yes, the word in the old form of the prayer is "perfidis," which is a form of the word "perfidus." But that adjective may indeed be translated as "perfidious," which is synonymous with "covenant-breaker." Furthermore, that adjective etymologically means "someone guilty of perfidia," so the definition of "perfidia" is quite relevant.

Yes, this conversation has gotten out of hand, I must concur. More heat than light. I hope the reference to spiritual blindness remains, I wish "perfidis" had never been removed. But I admit that even the current Novus Ordo prayer is orthodox, if ambiguously worded. So I shall prayer that the prayer stays the same, but if it is changed I won't turn sedevacantist.

Anonymous said...

The more I think about this story, the less likely it seems.

Would someone from Ecclesia Dei be ignorant a week ago of a prayer to be released in the next few days? More importantly, would Benedict wish that the first change to the Missal in 40 years be the watering down of a 1600 year old prayer for ecumenical reasons? Would he make such a change given the SSPX's (and most traidtionalist's) disgust with false ecumenism and the watering down of our faith and liturgy? And can he seriously think a minor edit in the Missal will satisfy a group of people who responded to JPII's apology for the holocaust with "that's not enough"? This story can't be true!

jbrown said...

I would truly hope that PCED has or will be consulted about this change before it happens, for reasons so obvious they need not be stated. I am wondering if the Pope could not simply devise an OPTIONAL alternate prayer that removes some language but retains the actual purpose and Scriptural basis for the prayer. I would think that the older form could be used as a roadblock for any prelate or Roman official to use it during Holy Week due to bad press. Whether or not this is justified is a wholly separate matter, but I could understand it being an option for those who don't want to use the precise langauge. But to IMPOSE a change, with no consultation, on such a sensitive issue, especially for SSPX, would be an injustice of incalculable damage. Since I trust the Holy Father not to do something like that, I must presume that there is more to this than is being printed.

Anonymous said...

Satan said it best, "I will not serve..." What was once Sacred and passed down through the centuries in Holy Church, has become bastardized. Falsity rules in Rome at present, but only for a time. St. Pius X, St. Vincent F, Pray For Us!

Jordan Potter said...

Some anonymous person spluttered: The irrationality (and quite possibly malice - born of pride) of this statement is a thing almost beyond belief!!!

Sorry, the only malice I see here seems to be coming from you, and is directed at the Jews. It's impossible that any Jew could interpret your comments as borne of charity, even if they are.

The Jews, being a minority who believed in a criminal ideology (i.e., the the legal code known in the west as the Babylonian Talmud) which was a COMPREHENSIVE denial of the NATURAL LAW,

Sorry, I don't believe you've done any serious reading and study of either the Talmud ha-Bavli or the Talmud ha-Y'rushalmi. Anyone who really knows anything about the Jewish Talmuds would know they're not legal codes at all, nor do they comprehensively deny the natural law. (And forgive me, but I hope you don't respond to that statement with the usual spurious quotes and out-of-context cites that circulate among online anti-Semites.)

The common good of society dictated that they be removed from it - hence the expulsions (not to mention the confiscation of their ill-gotten gains acquired through usury).

I question whether expulsion of whole populations and seizure of their possessions is the most effective means of bringing a people to accept Jesus as Lord and God.

Now, Jordan Potter, are you going to protest against the imprisonment of criminals in general on similar grounds to your protest against the expulsion of the Jews?

The Jews were not imprisoned, they were driven out en masse. They were, at various times, harassed, mocked, exploited by Christians in need of cash, regarded as having demon-infested souls, hereditarily and irresistibly given to treachery and dishonesty and greed, seen as collectively and individually guilty of Christ's crucifixion, and falsely accused of sacrificing Christian children and mixing their blood with their Passover matzot.

I hope you're not a police constable, Crown prosecutor (district attorney in the USA), magistrate, judge, immigration official, customs officer or anything like that.

You don't have to worry about that.

Another (?) anonymous person asked: Does the New Testament needlessly offend Jews by St Paul speaking of them having a veil over their hearts??

No.

If not, there's no reason to change the prayer. The logical alternative is a blasphemous claim that "offensive" passages should be excised from the New Testament.

That doesn't follow at all. The liturgy is not divinely inspired scripture. All scripture is true, but not everything in divine relvelation must be explicitly acknowledged and proclaimed in a liturgical prayer. Scripture cannot be altered in any way, but the liturgy does change over time. If the Church decides there's a good reason to change this prayer, well then, that's the Church's judgment to make. They might be wrong about it, but that decision is "above my pay scale" as the saying goes. Anyway, I again repeat that I don't believe this rumor is true, and I'll believe it when I see it.

Another anonymous person agreed with one of my comments, saying: Ultimately, it is a denial of the Jewishness of Christ, and a distortion of the meaning of the word "Jew"."

I agree. However, it is as I said, most Jews and Christians do not regard Jewish converts to Christianity as Jews anymore. In the proper sense, and in the biblical sense, they are mistaken -- Jewish converts to Christianity are still Jews, in fact are more Jewish than they used to be (as St. Paul said, he is a Jew who is one inwardly, whose circumcision is of the heart and not the flesh). But it is nevertheless the case that if Christians pray for the conversion of "the Jews," it is understood that it's not a prayer for Christian Jews, but for non-Christian Jews.

As for your statement that under Jewish law, a Jew remains a Jew no matter what, that is incorrect. In Jewish tradition, a Jew remains a Jew UNLESS he becomes a Christian. Even atheist Jews are still accepted as Jewish, but not Jews who convert to Christianity. No, it doesn't make any sense, but then Judaism is, after all, a false religion that originated at least as much in a rejection of the Gospel as it did in a desire to be faithful to the Law of Moses and Jewish tradition.

Then another anonymous person (probably one of the Anonymi to whom I've responded in this comment), replied that the other anonymous' comment is Emotive claptrap. You'll peddle any rubbish to justify your stupid position.

And who could possible gainsay such compelling arguments? Such lack of charity indicates a lack of desire, and perhaps of ability, to engage in serious and substantive discussion and defense and exposition of one's position.

Jordan Potter said...

JBrown said: I would truly hope that PCED has or will be consulted about this change before it happens, for reasons so obvious they need not be stated.

Indeed, under church law Ecclesia Dei must not only be consulted, but they must be the ones to issue any such change in the 1962 Missal. As of last week, Ecclesia Dei had no such plans to make this change, and Tornielli's rumor incorrectly says the CDW is revising the prayer and will issue it.

Unless I learn otherwise, I regard Tornielli's rumor as bogus.

Anonymous said...

To the anonymous who called me a pious twit,

"It (the Council) declares furthermore that this power has always been in the Church, that in the administration of the sacraments, without violating their substance, she may determine or change whatever she may judge to be more expedient for the benefit of those who receive them or for the veneration of the sacraments, according to the variety of circumstances, times and places" (Council of Trent)

"Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world" (Vatican I)

The only public apology you will get is in the original sense of the word "apologia," that is a defense of the faith against one so brash as to deny it in a traditional Catholic forum. If you continue to deny these dogmas, you will only show yourself as a heretic.

JAT

Anonymous said...

Has anyone considered reforming the prayer so that it ACTUALLY reflects the actual allegory from that passage from 2 Corinthians? It doesn't speak of the "veil" as reflecting that which was worn by Moses. And it refers directly to the Christocentric import of the Old Testament.

The 1962 Good Friday prayer takes the term out of this context and simply makes Jews look stupid. Jews are only wearing the veil of Moses. Was Moses stupid or "blind"? Why not pray "that the veil of Moses can be lifted from their vision so that they can, with us, see the things concerning Jesus Christ in their Scriptures."

Such a prayer would be more scriptural and less Antisemitic.

JAT

hopingforheaven said...

So if the Holy Father changes the words of a prayer, his orthodoxy is suspect!!! Give me a break here--for those more Catholic than the Pope.

A number of popes have tweaked things in the Mass, added, deleted and changed mostly small things. (not speaking of the totally 'new' liturgy of the novus ordo). The smaller changes did not make folks threaten to leave the church.

I am reading that if the Holy Father changes some words in a prayer than occurs once a year that they will leave the church permanently! Wow, easy mark for satan there. Rather like my liberal aunt who says she will leave the church if the new bishops who is trying to restore her dissenting diocese to Roman Catholicism does one more thing she does not like. magine 'sister' can no longer preach the homily!
Who does that bishop think he is?
And then on the other side is. who does that pope think he is? The Vicar of Christ or something?

Anonymous said...

"Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre deserves an apology from you; and you need to go to Confession."

This Archbishop chose a path of blatant disobedience when other ways could have been sought. He formed his own church and is an excommunicated bishop.

Excommunicated.

We owe him no apology or following.

The anger, bitterness and vitriol of many of his followers make for excellent argument to stay as far away from the SSPX as possible. Most such followers, claiming to be the one church, will continue to drift outside of Rome as do other protestants. I, for one, am tired of their ceaseless demands and criticisms.

No, I have never seen a 'clown mass' and because somewhere some priest engages in such sacrilege does not mean that is all everyone outside of the SSPX does.

The unmitigated pride!

Jordan Potter said...

Anonymous said: Jewish law has been abrogated. It is therefore irrelevant, except as an historic curiosity due to the fact of its nullity and voidness.

Jewish law is more than a historic curiosity, as it is still the basis of belief and practice for many Jews. The Sinaitic Covenant ceased at Calvary, so although it no longer binds those who are in a covenant with God, the beliefs and teachings of the Jewish religion must be taken seriously by Christians who hope to evangelise the Jews and bring them into the Catholic Church.

JAT said: Why not pray "that the veil of Moses can be lifted from their vision so that they can, with us, see the things concerning Jesus Christ in their Scriptures."

I like your proposal. Of course any prayer for Jewish conversion will be seen as offensive by non-Christian Jews, but I would favor any formulation of a prayer for their conversion that minimises any unnecessary offense while remaining true to Catholic teaching, uses Scriptural language, and (unlike the current prayer) is not capable of being misinterpreted as implying that Jews do not need to accept Jesus as Messiah but are ordinarily saved by keeping the Law of Moses. If the prayer in the 1962 Missal is to be revised, the Church needs to be sure to avoid the kind of language in the new prayer.

Anonymous said...

St. Pius V declared anathema anyone who would change the sacrifice of Holy Mass. Vatican II made radical changes. No Catholic can deny this at anytime after 1969, self-evident truth. Radical changes have never, never been acceptable to the Roman Catholic Church, never! Luther tried it early 16th century and he was anathematized. Vatican II a pastoral council has weak sails drifting futher and further into anarchy and chaos-self-evident truth.

Anonymous said...

"Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre...is an excommunicated bishop...the bitterness and vitriol of many of his followers make for excellent argument to stay as far away from the SSPX as possible."

Pride and hatred is not consistent with the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ. I would by far prefer to suffer the pain of attending a so called valid "Clown Mass" than the heresy of being associated with a handful of excommunicated hence schismatic Bishops. Notwithstanding, the Goebbles' like propaganda of a few but very vocal Petain and Laval nostalgic followers, Jean-Marie Le Pen voters, and other well known anti-semetics (Sorry if you are unwanted in Holy Mother Church until you repent, but we are not going to Hell for a single one of you).

Of course, the above comment does not apply to the majority of SSPX priests and its followers. That’s why we prayed so that they could enjoy the beauty of the TLM in unity with the Holy See.

This Good Friday prayer story is the ultimate test. We will soon recognize the unionist from the blind fascist followers. By then we will have to clean the name of St Pius X and rehabilitate Monseigneur Lefebvre.

Many who respected him thought he got poorly influenced by the very same few in 1988.

In the end, it’s a choice (like millions of protestants out there). It is the choice between Heaven or Hell! With or against the Holy Father.

Guess what mine is?

Adam Barnette said...

"Scripture cannot be altered in any way, but the liturgy does change over time. If the Church decides there's a good reason to change this prayer, well then, that's the Church's judgment to make."

It is not a good reason to change the Sacred Liturgy in order to move it away from its currently accurate reflection of Sacred Scripture. Trying to soften the blow of St. Paul's words in 2 Corinthians is a sign of corruption in the highest degree. No true organic development moves the Church away from her Tradition (and its manner of exposition) but seeks to be more faithful to it. Like I said above, if this rumored change happens it will be a compromise to our Catholic patrimony and will be placed alongside the other shameful compromises of the past 40 years.

"I agree. However, it is as I said, most Jews and Christians do not regard Jewish converts to Christianity as Jews anymore. In the proper sense, and in the biblical sense, they are mistaken -- Jewish converts to Christianity are still Jews, in fact are more Jewish than they used to be (as St. Paul said, he is a Jew who is one inwardly, whose circumcision is of the heart and not the flesh)."

I've never heard traditional Catholics (before the disaster of Vatican II) say that converted Jews are "Jews" in any sense. The Church has always used the word "Jew" in relation to the religion, not the race. This is the reason we pray for the conversion of the "Jews" in the traditional Roman Liturgy. Of course, a converted Jew finds the fulfillment of his faith. However, such persons cease to be members of their religion and are truly "Catholics."

poperinghe said...

How can any self-respecting Catholic speak ill of His Excellency Marcel Lefebvre? Regardless of what one thinks of the contemporary SSPX, if it were not for Lefebvre we would not have traditionalism at all today. It would be the ever dwindling Roncalli-Montini periti Church if the Archbishop had not taken the actions he did. Anyone in the FSSP or Instituite of Christ the King or any other "integralist" order should thank God each night before he goes to bed for the Spirit-infused courage of the Archbishop.

Ioannes A. said...

"By the same infallible authority we know, beyond doubt, that Marcel Lefebvre, having betrayed the Holy Roman Church, is lost."



What a foolish thing to say! I cannot believe you are serious. No one knows the eternal fate of Archbishop Lefebvre. Even if he did sin in doing what he did, he still could have repented before he died.

Adam Barnette said...

Poperinghe,

That was a wonderful comment. You're absolutely correct. The holy Archbishop is unpopular because of what happened in 1988, but moreover he is unpopular because he said the things people didn't want to hear. He causes one to think seriously about their Catholic Faith and just how much has been changed, ignored and even downright opposed. The neo-conservatives don't like to hear this because it removes the walls from their neat little (even if uncanonical and ultimately, unCatholic) "The Pope says it thus it must be Catholic" box.

~

I think Archbishop Lefebvre's actions in 1988 were justified, even if technically uncanonical. He wasn't seeking to create a new Church. If this was his intention, why didn't he give the four bishops jurisdiction, reject the 1983 Code of Canon Law, reject the official changes to fast/abstinence, re-introduce the traditional Handbook of Indulgences, etc.?). These facts show that whatever Arch. Lefebvre intended, he didn't intend to create a new Church.

A more likely reason why he proceeded with the consecrations is because he feared that the cause of Catholic Tradition would end with him. Can we blame him? Pope John Paul II (or the Awesome) never ensured that Tradition would have any future before 1988 (and let's face it, he didn't do much after that either). Modernists got cardinal hats and heretical bishops have never been replaced. There are plenty of FSSP and other traditional priests, who could be made bishops, and Bishop Rifan could be made a Cardinal, but neither has happened. These omissions speak more eloquently than words do to how modern Rome sees the cause of traditional Catholics. We are part of the big tent, whose ultimate purpose is to help create a more "traditional" version of liberalism. Appealing, eh? The actions of 1988 ensure that this won't happen, and this ruined Ach. Lefebvre's good name in the majority of the Church.

Arch. Lefebvre (and the Society he founded) once stood alone in saying that the traditional Roman Liturgy hadn’t been abrogated and there was no shortage of neo-conservatives who smugly corrected him. Now, his stance has been proven to be the correct one. In coming years, more of his stances will be justified, even while people still label him a schismatic. Never was it known that willful schismatics could hold such correct opinions even when these opinions are supposed have been part of the motivation for their schism!

I know that this comment isn't going to change anybody's mind about how much true significance the "excommunications" have (only the Pope can resolve that issue), but if it can help people be a little more honest about why the consecrations occurred and encourage people to really examine the work of the Arch. Lefebvre and not what rag boards say about him, then I'm pleased.

Adam Barnette said...

"The 1962 Good Friday prayer takes the term out of this context and simply makes Jews look stupid. Jews are only wearing the veil of Moses. Was Moses stupid or "blind"? Why not pray "that the veil of Moses can be lifted from their vision so that they can, with us, see the things concerning Jesus Christ in their Scriptures."

Are you even Catholic? Catholics don't criticize their patrimony in this fashion. Besides, I'm not sure how someone could read 2 Corinthians 3:13-16 and not conclude that St. Paul is referring to the Jews having a veil that keeps them from seeing Christ (thus causing them to be in darkness to the light) and which will be removed only when they repent upon being moved by grace. Such is the traditional interpretation of the Church.

Anonymous said...

Yikes. The MP now looks like it was a Jewish plot to do away with the Indult, which had been saying this prayer for a couple of decades in peace.

Better to be under a "laissez faire" Indult than a hyper-regulated Rite.

Sigh. Be careful what you ask for, I guess.

Anonymous said...

Adam Barnette wrote: "I've never heard traditional Catholics (before the disaster of Vatican II) say that converted Jews are "Jews" in any sense. The Church has always used the word "Jew" in relation to the religion, not the race. This is the reason we pray for the conversion of the "Jews" in the traditional Roman Liturgy."

I must not be as old as you are, Adam, to remember what Traditional Catholics said before 1962. But I do know what some of them wrote. The authors of the Catholic Encyclopedia wrote (in 1910):

"Of the two terms, Jews and Judaism, the former denotes usually the Israelites or descendants of Jacob (Israel) in contrast to Gentile races; the latter, the creed and worship of the Jews in contrast to Christianity, Mohammedanism, etc."

And to reiterate from my earlier comments, in the Traditional Roman liturgy, we prayed for the conversion of the "perfidis Judaeis", or the faithless Jews. This was changed in 1960 to remove "faithless", so for only 2 years before the publication of the 1962 Missale were Catholics praying for the conversion of "the Jews" on Good Friday. The more traditional prayer modifies "Jews".

Anonymous said...

Yiking Anonymous,

It is this kind of freemason / zionist paranoia in Monseigneur Lefebvre's entourage that led him in 1988 through his disobedience to betray Holy Mother Church.

At a time everyone thought there would be a solution coming from Rome, the poor man was old and vulnerable enough to believe idiotic conspiracy theories like yours. Sometimes I even wonder if the devil somehow... Anyhow, as Ioannes A. stated, no one knows the eternal fate of Archbishop Lefebvre (R.I.P.) we can only pray for him and his followers to repent.

Reality is that until today, SPPX is not in full union with the Roman Catholic Church. That's the most frightening thought for a Christian! Again, repent!

Finally, there is no room in the Roman Catholic Church for racism, anti-semetism or any other form of prejudice. Sorry!

Anonymous said...

As the Human Genome Project and Genealogical-based DNA testing** advance, it will be interesting to see what the religious spread will be for those who are scientifically "descendants of Jacob" ("DOJs"). Since many DOJs converted to Christianity in the first century and since many of those who we commonly call Jews today are the product of intermarriage with DOJs, or conversion of whole non-DOJ peoples, the results may surprise. (And which group is the "Jews" referred to in Apocalypse, DOJs or believing and practicing Jews at the end of time?)

**See e.g. http://dna.ancestry.com/welcome.aspx

Jordan Potter said...

Adam Barnette said: Are you even Catholic? Catholics don't criticize their patrimony in this fashion.

I don't know what sort of Catholic you have in mind, Adam, but in my experience there are hardly any Catholic who don't criticise their patrimony in one way or another.

Besides, I'm not sure how someone could read 2 Corinthians 3:13-16 and not conclude that St. Paul is referring to the Jews having a veil that keeps them from seeing Christ (thus causing them to be in darkness to the light) and which will be removed only when they repent upon being moved by grace. Such is the traditional interpretation of the Church.

It is therefore evident that you and JAT are in agreement in this point.

Jordan Potter said...

Adam Barnette said: It is not a good reason to change the Sacred Liturgy in order to move it away from its currently accurate reflection of Sacred Scripture.

Of course any change in the liturgy ought to accurately reflect Sacred Scripture. But Sacred Scripture teaches many things, and it cannot and need not all be explicitly incorporated into the liturgy. And the Church has divine authority to make changes in her liturgy that might shine more light on one teaching of scripture and less light on another teaching.

Trying to soften the blow of St. Paul's words in 2 Corinthians is a sign of corruption in the highest degree. No true organic development moves the Church away from her Tradition (and its manner of exposition) but seeks to be more faithful to it.

Scripture says a lot more about the Jews than that they are blind to their Messiah and are faithless. St. Paul didn't just address Jewish rejection of the Gospel in II Corinthians. He also talked a great deal about it in Romans 9-11, where he had some positive and very hopeful things to say about unbelieving Jews.

I've never heard traditional Catholics (before the disaster of Vatican II) say that converted Jews are "Jews" in any sense.

Yes, it probably was extremely rare to find Catholics prior to Vatican II speaking of converted Jews in the same terms that St. Paul speaks of them. But pre-Vatican II Jewish converts to Catholicism, such as Holocaust survivor Karl Stern (who told of his conversion in his autobiography The Pillar of Fire), tended to see themselves as Jewish Catholics. That is, they understood they were still Jews, but Jews in the New Testament sense of being members of the Israel of God and citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, the Mother of us all.

The Church has always used the word "Jew" in relation to the religion, not the race.

But Jewishness involves both religion and race, because the Jews are descendants of the Chosen Race of Israel, to whom God gave a religion and commanded them to be faithful to it. It's really not possible to isolate religion from race, or race from religion, when it comes to non-Christian Jews.

Of course, a converted Jew finds the fulfillment of his faith. However, such persons cease to be members of their religion and are truly "Catholics."

That's very true. But we also look to the example of St. Paul, who still identified himself as Jewish long after his conversion.

New Catholic said...

Any other comment on the events of 1988 in Ecône, Switzerland, will be deleted.

Anonymous said...

I for one, publically state that I do not believe what Archbishop Lefebvre did in establishing the SSPX or in ensuring the continuation of the celebration of the Sacraments in the Ancient Roman Rite was sinful.

As for his heart, only God can be the judge of that. We'd commit an act of great malice by condemning any man with certainty to hell; it is not our perogative. And God rarrely reveals the fate of such men.

I'd suggest to his critics to have the justice and common sense to read his biography first; innocent til proven guilty, no?

As for the deeds of Paul VI and John Paul II in regard to the late Monsignor, I do not see how they can be just when H. H. Benedict XVI says that the entire Church must hold fast to the ancient liturgies as a means of remaning faithful to Her Founder.

Now it is reported, that the Holy Father is forbidding his personal staff from using the term "schism" in regard to the SSPX.

Let us follow his lead of charity.

As regard my former comment on "His faith should be considered suspect", I said that not in regard to any change in the prayer whatsoever, but only in regard to the application of the general error, that to accomodate the sentiments of unbelieves what they consider offensive should be removed from the Ancient liturgies.

Nor did I every say that such an act would give reason for leaving the Church; that's utter nonesense. There is never any justification for schism or heresy or sedevacantism.

Christ will protect His Church, but let us each do our part in charity AND truth...

Br. Alexis Bugnolo