Rorate Caeli

URGENT
NEW PRAYER FOR THE JEWS
IN THE MISSALE ROMANUM OF 1962

Note of the Secretariat of State

In reference to the dispositions contained in the Motu proprio «Summorum Pontificum», of July 7, 2007, on the possibility of using the last edition of the Missale Romanum prior to the Vatican II Council, published in 1962 with the authority of Blessed John XXIII, the Holy Father Benedict XVI has ordered that the Oremus et pro Iudaeis of the Liturgy of Good Friday in the aforesaid Missale Romanum be replaced with the following text:
Oremus et pro Iudaeis. Ut Deus et Dominus noster illuminet corda eorum, ut agnoscant Iesum Christum salvatorem omnium hominum.

Oremus.
Flectamus genua.
Levate.

Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui vis ut omnes homines salvi fiant et ad agnitionem veritatis veniant, concede propitius, ut plenitudine gentium in Ecclesiam Tuam intrante omnis Israel salvus fiat. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.

Such text is to be used, beginning in the current year, in all Celebrations of the Liturgy of Good Friday with the aforementioned Missale Romanum.

From the Vatican, February 4 2008.

__________________________

A possible translation (only the Latin text is to be considered official):

Let us pray, and also for the Jews.

May our God and Lord enlighten their hearts, so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, saviour of all men.
Let us pray.
Let us kneel.
Arise.

Almighty and everlasting God, who desirest that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of truth, mercifully grant that, as the fullness of the Gentiles enters into Thy Church, all Israel may be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.
__________________________

Notes:
-L'Osservatore Romano
is always released in the previous afternoon, that is, today.
-The origin of the prayer is obviously the Epistle of Saint Paul the Apostle to the Romans, xi, 25-26.
-For new readers: the Missale Romanum of 1962 or "Traditional Roman Missal" is the authorized book for the celebration of the Holy Mass according to the Roman Rite, in its Traditional, ancient, or extraordinary form, according to the norms established in the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum.
Tip: Andrea Tornielli

192 comments:

Gleb said...

This doesn't look as bad as I had feared.

If Benedict would impose this also on the Novus Ordo, on balance we'd be improving.

Anonymous said...

Source?

Anonymous said...

Actually, enlighten their hearts is really saying the same thing as "removing the blindness" -- it just doesn't sound quite as confrontational. I'm impressed again by the Holy Father.

Joe B said...

Translate, please. My Latin is untrustworthy.

Anonymous said...

This is quite good. But you know, some still aren't going to be happy.

Gleb said...

Anon 16:01- yes, I agree. This prays for the same outcome in a way that sounds less hostile to outsiders (though we all know the old prayer was not hostile in the least, but sublime charity).

The ultimate goal, is of course conversion of the Jews, and being perceived as charitable is important to encourage their openness to conversion.

schoolman said...

Impressive. Of course some segments of the Jewish community will whine about this too...but the Holy Father will simply say: "What I have written I have written..."

Joannes Christophorus said...

Possible revision to your translation of "ut plenitudine gentium in Ecclesiam Tuam intrante omnis Israel salvus fiat.":

". . . that, the fullness of the peoples having entered into Your Church, all Israel may be saved"

Thanks for posting this!

schoolman said...

It seems to me that the Holy Father could also be using this formulation in part to clear up any misconceptions relative to the eschatological dimension of the "irrevocable covenant".

New Catholic said...

Joannes,

Your observations have been noted and partly used. We will keep "Gentiles" in our translation for historical reasons, and also because the origin of the prayer (Romans xi) is traditionally translated thus.

Please, keep sending us your suggestions and observations.

Anonymous said...

The prayer is fine, the politics unsavory. But unlike many trads in the blogosphere, who tend to see the main problem in political terms (a treasonous concession to the evils of modern "ecumenism", etc. etc.), the biggest problem to my mind is in the decision to mothball the *Scriptural* language of the old prayer. Had this prayer not been a sort of Pauline-Johannine "cento", its replacement wouldn't have given me great pause. There is nothing necessarily *untouchable* in the verbal formulation of our liturgical prayers. There is of course a great presumption in favor of antiquity, but this presumption is not a dogma of the faith. Prayers have developed and changed, and no doubt they will continue to do so. I am deeply skeptical of absolute claims (something trads are very adept at making...) that the liturgy was *never* altered for this or that type of reason; a good historian will be able to gainsay almost any generalization in this respect. There are certainly many political advantages of making a change now, both ad intra for the further rehabilitation of the traditional Mass and ad extra in the "court of public opinion" -- and don't forget that changes to this particular prayer have been in the works for the better part of a century. I am willing to trust Benedict on this one. But I do regret what it could be taken to imply, namely, that the Church is somehow lacking in confidence in the divine inspiration of every jot and tittle of her written revelation. From the perspective of fundamental theology, quite a lot stands or falls on this point. Of course, Benedict knows all this because he knows his Augustine and his Thomas, and this is clearly not his intention. But the difficulties will not just disappear. At the end of the day, I'm glad that I didn't have to make the call myself. Now I will give some thought to how to understand this in the best possible light, pro bono traditionis. The change will certainly provide opportunities for traditionalists which would otherwise be closed to us. It is now our task to exploit them, especially this Lent/Easter, when the issue will be very much in the public view.

Richard

Gregor Kollmorgen said...

It's in the OR now:

Nota della Segreteria di Stato



Con riferimento alle disposizioni contenute nel Motu proprio "Summorum Pontificum", del 7 luglio 2007, circa la possibilità di usare l'ultima stesura del Missale Romanum, anteriore al Concilio Vaticano II, pubblicata nel 1962 con l'autorità del beato Giovanni XXIII, il Santo Padre Benedetto XVI ha disposto che l'Oremus et pro Iudaeis della Liturgia del Venerdì Santo contenuto in detto Missale Romanum sia sostituito con il seguente testo:
Oremus et pro Iudaeis
Ut Deus et Dominus noster illuminet corda eorum, ut agnoscant Iesum Christum salvatorem omnium hominum.
Oremus. Flectamus genua. Levate.
Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui vis ut omnes homines salvi fiant et ad agnitionem veritatis veniant, concede propitius, ut plenitudine gentium in Ecclesiam Tuam intrante omnis Israel salvus fiat. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.
Tale testo dovrà essere utilizzato, a partire dal corrente anno, in tutte le Celebrazioni della Liturgia del Venerdì Santo con il citato Missale Romanum.
Dal Vaticano, 4 febbraio 2008.

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/or_quo/text.html#3

Anonymous said...

I am afraid that this likely means the end of any chance of the SSPX dealing further with Rome for now. After a mere 5 months, the 1962 Missal of John XXIII has been replaced by the 2008 Missal of Benedict XVI. I am very sad that the Pope felt it more urgent to give in to demands of the Jewish rabbis (who would never think of removing some of the vile prayers against us in their religious texts) than to the 40+ years of struggle that the SSPX has had to put up with.

Ager Flandriae said...

I think this is part of Benedict's way of proclaiming the traditional Faith in somewhat more positive terms (i.e. "enlightening their hearts" vs. "removing the veil").

I don't have a problem with the 1962 prayer (being from St. Paul and all), but if Benedict was going to do it, he has done a fine job.

It also shows, in my estimation, and in that of some other Catholic traditionalists, that the TLM is here to stay if Pope Benedict is doing this.

schoolman said...

Anon 16:52, I would not be so pessimistic in regards to the SSPX. This is a golden opportunity for the SSPX to demonstrate their solidarity and humble obedience to the Holy See. Such a gesture could actually promote further progress and ultimately the lifting of the excommunications. Be of good cheer...

Mike said...

1. There was nothing wrong with the original prayer.

2. It has NEVER been the policy of the Holy Catholic Church, nor the Vicar of Christ, to change liturgical prayers at the dictate of Abraham Foxman.

3. Catholics have every right to put up an enormous fight about racist Jewish prayers which are not, as Catholic Good Friday prayers, acts of charity.

4. I don't see how the recitation of the traditional prayer, because it is an act of charity (and because it is true) could be punished.

Anonymous said...

It all boils down to this: does the Pope have the authority to make this change, and is this change intrinsically evil?

No doubt the SSPX will bring up the "lawful disobedience" card, but ask yourselves: where do we draw the line between lawfully disobeying the Pope, and just disobeying any ecclesiastical changes we don't like?

Anonymous said...

I think some of you give Abraham Foxman way too much credit.

I don't think Abe Foxman would be too thrilled about a prayer that contains a petition to enlighten the Jews to accept Christ and come into his Church.

Anonymous said...

I think I represent quite a few of us in saying, "I think it is dumb to change it, but Benedict is the Pope and I will obey"

dcs said...

It all boils down to this: does the Pope have the authority to make this change

An ultramontanist would say that he does, even if he takes issue with the change itself. But it is worthwhile to point out that no Pope changed any prayers of the Missal before Pius XII.

My own personal opinion is that while the new prayer itself is quite beautiful it is a mistake for the Holy See to make this change and insist upon it at this time.

Anonymous said...

It's not WHAT this prayer now says, it's why it was changed. It was changed to make Abe Foxman and Jews happy at the expense of our Faith and that is just sad. Way to go again, Rome.

Mazel Tov.

schoolman said...

I agree that we should not give too much credit to the ADL-types for this change. The Holy Father is not one to give in to pressure groups like that. He has his own reasons for ordering this change -- and I suspect that it has little to do with Abe Foxman.

Tom McKenna said...

Amen... dumb, imprudent, sinful, scandalous, even, to change a scriptural text solely to kowtow to a bunch of secularist Jews; but alas, there is no basis not to obey such an unfortunate, gutless, change.

Let's hope it's the last such politically correct change in the offing.

Idler said...

Please do not overlook one major implication of this change: that the traditional liturgy is ALIVE. Any thinking liberal will be infuriated by the fact that the old missal is out of the mothballs and limbering up. Soon we will also have new prefaces and new feasts. The Pope wouldn't be doing this for a form of Mass that has no future. Please God the good folk of the SSPX will see this, and give their support to the Holy Father. By the way, I didn't want the change either, but I think this is a real case of following Peter.

Anonymous said...

You want the SSPX to now come into full communion? This is only going to entrench them more. This old missal WAS taken out of mothballs. It was just changed and is no longer the 1962 missal -- it's the hybrid 2008 missal.

niphredhil said...

The SSPX has indeed been given a chance to choose its future, and Pope Benedict knows that. Since the theology of the prayer is unassailable, and the Holy Father has the authority to mandate such an action, the Society will have to choose whether its proclaimed loyalty to the Pope supersedes a preference for no change, of any kind, at any time, for any reason.

Anonymous said...

"My own personal opinion is that while the new prayer itself is quite beautiful it is a mistake for the Holy See to make this change and insist upon it at this time."

Agreed.

It's startling to think about the implications this will have on the traditionalist movement. There has always been a mistrust between them and Rome and this new change will only consolidate that mistrust.

I only wished to point out that if some traditionalists are going to refuse to go along with this change, to ask themselves on what basis are they going to disobey? Either the new prayers are intrinsically evil or the Pope does not have the authority to make the change in the prayer. A positive answer to the former would lead to the defection of the Church or sedevcantism - for the true Church cannot promulgate evil liturgical rites. A positive answer to the later would also lead to sedevacantism, or an even more subtle danger with severe implications for the papacy in the future: that is the mentality that it is lawful to disobey a command not evil per se, but just because we personally judge it to be imprudent and contrary to what we believe to be the best.

During these hard times I think we need to look to the example of two modern day saints who have suffered at the hands of the Church: Sr. Lucia and St. Pio. Sr. Lucia was forbidden to reveal the third secret of Fatima in 1960 (as Our Lady wanted), and even though she could have disobeyed because she personally would have found it to be for the greater good of the Church to reveal it, nevertheless she followed ecclesiastical authority who had the power to make that command even though it wasn't for the best. Same thing went with St. Pio; he was forbidden to hear confessions and to speak with his own confessor, and even though he too could have disobeyed on the basis that it would have done more spiritual good to hear confessions and have contact with his spiritual director, he nevertheless obeyed.

We would do well to follow their example.

Anonymous said...

THIS IS TREASON!!!

Mornac said...

“Enlighten” in place of “remove the veil”? That’s like someone saying “let some light in here” rather than “put the shades up”. I’m not sure I see any substantial difference.

Also - Does anyone think it’s beyond the realm of possibility that the Holy See ran this one by the SSPX in advance to see if was going to cause a problem?

Anonymous said...

All of you SSPX "experts" forget that they do use the 1962 missal, not the pre-62 missal like most sedavecantists and other break away groups. This fact alone was one of the main reasons that deceiving priests who formed the SSPV did so.

This demonstrates that the SSPX recognizes that the pope has the authority to make changes to the missal.

Mike said...

1. This sets a dangerous precedent, as others have noted. There are also prayers for schismatics and heretics; are those next on the chopping block?

2. As others have noted, the traditional prayer is an act of CHARITY towards the Jews.

Disobeying an order that you refrain FROM AN ACT OF CHARITY would be a strange thing to condemn.

3. If traditional Catholics continue to use the prayer and are condemned for it, I don't see what keeps the curial officials from then retroactively condemning Saint Paul's words in, say, 2 Corinthians 3:14-16 and Ephesians 4:18 (re: "darkness" and "blindness").

This would of course be absurd, and such is the point; how can saying a prayer based in the very words of the Apostle of the Gentiles be an act worthy of condemnation?

4. If not the pressure of Abraham Foxman and secular Jews, what else could possibly have motivated this change?

5. Saint Thomas teaches: "Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things." (ST, II-II, q. 104, a. 5).

As the first prayer had no offense against the Faith, truth, or charity...why is it being changed?

GD said...

A slightly revised translation:

Let us pray also for the Jews:

May our God and Lord enlighten their hearts, that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Saviour of all men.

Let us pray.
Let us kneel.
Arise.

Almighty and everlasting God, who desirest that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, mercifully grant that, as the fullness of the Gentiles enters into Thy Church, all Israel may be saved. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Note: the present participle 'intrante', 'entering', not 'having entered'; a smoother trans. might be:

...grant that with the entry of the fullness of the Gentiles into Thy Church, all Israel may be saved.

WraithX said...

Will the SSPX advise their priests to use the new formula? I know for certain (having seen it with my own two eyes) that many SSPX still refrain from using the genuflection that was added in 1962 at the prayer for the jews.

New Catholic said...

Thank you, GD. That certainly looks similar to our first tentative translation...

Anonymous said...

Why can't the Pope simply leave the 1962 Missale Romanum alone?

Anonymous said...

So since now it's not missal 1962 - it's missal 2008. Missal of Benedict XVI.
/Mogrim

father anthony cekada said...

The change in the prayer is the nose of the camel under the tent, folks, and ecumenism is riding the camel.

Wait till Abe Foxman figures out what FSSP clergy and other users of the John XXIII Breviary will be chanting during the Second Nocturn of Tenebrae on Good Friday:

“We know what was the gathering together of the froward amongst Jewry, and what was the insurrection of wicked doers. How were they wicked doers? In that they desired to kill the Lord Jesus Christ. … Let not Jewry say : We did not kill Christ. For they delivered him up to Pilate's tribunal in order that they should themselves seem innocent of his death. Thus when Pilate said to them : Take ye him, and crucify him : they answered : It is not lawful for us to put any man to death. So it was that they sought to cast the guilt of their crime upon a human judge : but by this could they deceive God the Judge? … But if we hold him to be guilty who did it against his will, shall they be innocent who did force him to do it? By no means. … 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?”

That's St. Augustine. Perhaps the Vatican will rewrite Migne as well.

Petrus Radii said...

The supposed new prayer for the Jews is theologically unacceptable. While it is not so readily suspect of heresy as the one imposed by Paul VI in the Novus Ordo, its blatant ambiguity favours a Dispensationalist interpretation, by which it could be said that, in order to be saved, the Jews need not believe in Jesus Christ, or be baptised and enter into the Catholic Church. This is reinforced by the phrase about the "Gentiles" entering into the Church, without the same expectation for the Jews. The prayer can also be interpreted to request the "salvation" of the Jews only at the end of time, since it is only then that the "fulness of the Gentiles" will have entered the Catholic Church. What about the poor Jews living now?

And who or what is "Israel", anyhow? It is not specified by the prayer. "All" Israel cannot be saved, as those who have died outside the Church are already in hell. It is also unclear whether "Israel" is a political, ethnic, or religious term---whereas "Jews" is relatively clear.

Such a prayer NEVER would have been accepted while Cdl. Ottaviani was alive---or any sane Catholic prior to Vatican II. And that is simply because the text is so ambiguous, and consequently theologically erroneous.

We also do not know that the Pope even read or was aware of the prayer, since approval "modo ordinario" can be a mere verbal approval to a stack of stuff. No mention is made by the Freemasonic Secretariat of State regarding "modo speciali approbatus". This may be a coup d'etat by the Secretariat of State.

Consequently, it is urgent that all believing, traditional Catholics rise up in protest and appeal directly to the Pope personally against this decision. To acquiesce is to give consent by silence not only to the futile political machinations of the Vatican, but---infinitely worse---to a theologically incorrect "prayer" in the Sacred Liturgy.

The Supreme Pontiff may be reached at "benedettoxvi@vatican.va".

Anonymous said...

Forget the SSPX -- I spoke with a traditional order priest here in the U.S. in full communion with his diocese and Rome who told me the entire order would ignore this change.

Why? Because they were ordained under JPII and given full permission, a universal indult to use the books of 1962.

This, in their opinion, is no longer the missal of 1962 so they will not be complying.

Also, and i'm saying this not to imune the Holy Father because I think this is the work of someone else in the vatican, but this weak-kneed garbage reminds me of Bill Clinton. All kinds of symbolic meaning but no substinance.

Anonymous said...

I for one recognize the authority of the Roman Pontiff to change any such non-essential prayer in the Missale Romanum, and yet think that he has erred in servile obedience to the enemies of the Church, opened the door to the rampages of liturigical revisionists, and to separating the Law of Prayer from the Law of Faith, seeing that the traditional prayer of 1948 had nothing more than the words of Jesus, Sts. Peter and Paul, the one of 1962 at least retained those of Jesus and St. Paul, the new prayer his founded on those of St. Zachary(?).

I for one believe that if you don't have the courage to use Our Lord's and the Apostles' words in your prayers, they you are failing in faith.

For that reason, on account of the scandal this necessarily leads to, I'll keep to the prayers of the 1948 Missal, on the basis that the Pope has no authority to impose infidelity upon the Church, or conform Her to the desires of Her enemies.

Such is false charity, which we must all oppose if we are to be saved.

Remember, the old prayer was not said out of hatred; it was the Jews of old who killed their Messiah out of hatred and persecuted us out of hatred. No Christian has ever persecuted Jews as a christian, a racist maybe, but a christian never.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo
www.franciscan-archive.org

benedict ambrose said...

Actually, in that it removes a potential stick with which all and sundry may beat the '62 missal without changing the nature and scope of the prayer, this alteration of the text is not "dumb" at all. Yes, the old prayer was charitable, but it didn't necessarily sound it. The new one is just as charitable, though, because the intent is preceisely the same, but changing it shows a further charitable intention that it not be misunderstood. The Pope is thus clearly seen to be going the extra mile to avoid unfortunete misunderstanding over an issue which, like it or not, would have continued to have been used against the Church - and all this without a single change of principle or giving an inch doctrinally.

The argument that the prayer is bad because it is less "scriptural" just strikes me as a little silly. There are lots of bits of potentially relevant scripture we wouldn't stitch into liturgical prayers if we were writing them afresh - none of which implies that we don't think they apply to the petitions in question.

But, as usual, those looking to create stumbling-blocks out of this sort of change will in part succeed just by making a "scandalised" noise about it - ironically so, given the Pope clearly intended this change to remove a potential stumbling-block to acceptance of the old rite.

Ken said...

Who does this please?

The Jews are still upset and I can't imagine it being helpful with the SSPX. This is a lose-lose.

benedict ambrose said...

ken

The scope and intention of the prayer remain entirely unchanged; the Pope is seen to be going the extra mile to avoid even the perception of offensive language to one of the most historically ill-treated peoples on earth, but without going any further than any reasonable person would request.

Any further criticism, from any quarter, of the Church's teachings on the Jewish people can be treated with the contempt it desrves. Also, nly those who are determined by their own entrenched positions that this should be seen as a watering down of the faith will see it as such, and such people will never be satisfied.

Seen this way, it's win-win.

viking said...

Agreed Ken. It must be obvious to all trads that the Church is in a deep crisis, and that not obeying this new prayer is an act of charity. It opens up for a whole lot of other changes.

Mornac said...

Abe Foxman weighs in:

"It is less offensive in its language but it still is in contradiction to changes that the late Pope John Paul brought about," said Abe Foxman, national director of the Anti Defamation League in the United States.

"John Paul taught that the Jewish people are the older brothers of Catholics and that Judaism has its own merits and viability. The language is better but it's still troubling," he told Reuters by telephone.

Stanislas Wojtiech said...

1. I would be lauding the current pontiff if this prayer had been inserted into the Novus Ordo Missae. But it is not, and probably will not be.

2. I think you all can be sure that the SSPX and other groups will not be committing the liturgical crime of using this prayer instead of the prayer the Roman Rite prescribes since immemorial times (since before the 5th century A.D.).

3. I think this "gesture" is a gesture towards the enemies of the Faith, to Zionist and other ADL calumnists, that the traditional prayer of the Roman Rite for the conversion of the Jews was a) anti-semitic, b) deficient, and c) incorrect.

It also proves that Zionists and ADL politicians controll the liturgy of the Conciliar Church and not sound reasoning or arguments.

For a solid explanation of the traditional prayer, which is not antisemitic or even polemically anti-Jewish at all if the Latin is understood well and translated correctly into "unfaithful" instead of "perfidious", I refer to: Dr. Heinz-Lothar Barth (2007) "Ist die traditionelle lateinische Messe antisemitisch?" Bonn: Sarto.

4. There is again a tendency in itself not heretical, but loved by neomodernists and the followers of John Paul II's alternative theology, which can be called "universalism", stressing the universal desire for salvation of God instead of (also) pointing out human sins (Iudaeorum perfidia e.g.)

5. I can see how schoolman and other neo-conservative and neo-traditional pro-Vatican-II-renewal Catholics are already defending this action, but in fact this is a pure capitulation to the pressure by Jewish lobby groups, to politics. What is next? Forbidding to pray for the conversion of Russia after Putin's diplomats come on over complaining? (And thus the emission of the Prayers after Low Mass, which are "pro Russia" as per A.A.S. 142 (1932), Pius XI.)

6. This prayer is not formally heretical, and better than I feared, as to its content, but still a capitulation and decapitation of traditional societies like Campos, Institut du Bon Pasteur etc. etc. Also it spreads and reinforces the Marxist, Zionist and Liberal notion that the ancient Roman Rite's (original) prayer wás antisemitic or in some way wrong, that therefore the Church's liturgy, even the Tridentine edition of the Roman Rite, is or can be defective, and that liturgy can be "fabricated on the spot" or changed at the spot, a thing Cardinal Ratzinger previously allegedly lamented in "Geist der Liturgie".

7. It delivers the Roman Liturgy wholly to the assent of unfaithful, schismatics, heretics, Jews and atheists, makes out of it a political statement, and is in the end a politicization of the Church. The post-V2 conciliar Vatican promotes sadly separation of Church and state (cfr. Benedict XVI's "healthy laicism" speeches), but it allows states (Israel) or state-affiliated pressure groups to make noise and problems about the Church internal matters, liturgy.

When is the Vatican going to chastise Islam for its anti-Christian passages, when is Benedict XVI going to condemn Talmud "Judaism" for the hateful religion it is (Maimonides, the "great" scholar, calling for Christians to be decapitated as idolaters under a Jewish Law state)?

I am not waiting for it.

The prayer is not heretical, this gesture amounts to no public heresy, but it does amount to a comparison with Saint Peter in the court yard, denying he knew Our Lord in front of the Jewish followers and fanatics of the Caiphas court.

The overall evaluation is eschatologically apocalyptic, and very negative, in my view.

Despite all the neocons praising the pope.

Anonymous said...

So the second time around the 1962 rite only last five months: first time around it lasted two years.

Hopefully people will start waking up and have the good sense to cast the 1962 rite into the trash can and return to the Traditional Roman Rite as protected by Immemorial Custom for all time.

benedict ambrose said...

Disobeying the change as an act of charity? That kind of attitude to a perfectly sound prayer for the conversion of the Jews (for that is explicitly what it remains) is precisely the entrenched view that will lead to further disunity in the Body of Christ. Nothing the current Pontiff has done or is likely to do would make that kind of attitude towards his ruling even remotely appropriate.

The crisis is real enough alright - but it is a crisis of internal unity caused by just this sort of hard-minded over-reaction. Please, in charity, consider what small beer this change really is and respond respectfully, obediently and appropriately.

John Hudson said...

The media fuss and the comments of some Jewish activists have made the timing of this unfortunate, but I suspect the Holy Father would have made exactly the same changes to the prayer anyway. One has only to read his writings to realise that he is a man who is always seeking the compassionate expression. The 1962 prayer, itself an innovation, was rhetorically somewhere between the harshness of the earlier prayer and the gentleness of the new prayer. All three forms express the same desire for conversion, and we as Catholics may understand the underlying charity that informs that desire, but how that desire is expressed does matter, especially since the prayer involuntarily involves non-Christians whom are only likely to come to an understanding of that charity through conversion.

schoolman said...

"Abe Foxman weighs in..."
=============

And now this new prayer provides a fresh opportunity -- a teaching moment -- to clarify what the Church actually teaches relative to the Jews and the "irrevocable covenant" with Israel. The ADL response to the change already confirms this view. Any so-called "traditionalist" who would reject the change outright is really thinking in a small-minded way.

Stanislas Wojtiech said...

Quoting Padre Domenico:

"At least maybe traditional Catholics will now see that this Pope is not as traditional as the spin doctors make him. It is interesting that the prayer places the emphasis on the end times, after the gentiles have all come in; so much for converting the Jews now. It is all part of the idea that the Old Covenant is still valid for them. I won't be using this prayer on Good Friday."

I advise all priests to follow the former truly traditional, Roman Catholic priests' footsteps.

Stanislas Wojtiech said...

Another jewel by Fr. Domenico (Roman priest)....

"The two prayers (old and new) are definitely not saying the same thing. The older one stresses the present blindness of the Jews and thus the immediate need for their conversion. The new one, while quoting St. Paul, puts the problem within an eschatological perspective, i.e. the End times when Israel shall convert only after all the number of the gentiles has been filled. Of course Israel as a whole shall only convert at the end, but the Church has always striven to convert the Jews before the end, for there is no salvation outside of Christ. One needs to read "One Covenant, many religions" of Cardinal Ratzinger to see that he thinks the Jewish covenant has not been abolished. For them, salvation is [allegedly]] still possible through their particular covenant; but this is not true of course [addition see Mystici Corporis, 1943, par. 29]. The Covenant only has relevancy as foreshadowing Christ and the Eternal Testament. This action of the Pope is very important as it shows the world that he views the liturgy of the Church as a negotiating tool with other religions. If I were Cardinal Kasper, I would be at the Pope's door today asking how it is that we can change the prayer for the Jews and still call our non-Catholic separated brethren "Heretics and schismatics" in the 1962 Missal for that too has changed..."

Another poster at Angelqueen forum mentions the following disturbing resumé:
"[The prayer] is biblical in itself and not [yet] formally heretical, but it lacks the mention that the Jews of TODAY also have the obligation to convert to Our Lord Jesus Christ, not just in the End Times, when indeed the fullness of them will enter the true Church, but also now. The Old Covenant is nót "still valid temporarily for a while" for the unbelieving Jews. And that is what this prayer - I fear - also contains and which will be exploited by Walter Kasper, the German liberal bishops, by dispensationalist heretics claiming they are Catholic, and even by liberal Jewish pressure groups claiming "well, not yet for now, we are not converting yet". Remember Saint Paul teaches prophetical future facts, this prayer should however call for [present] action upon grace, not be prophetical per se, but pleading for conversion even now already by the unbelieving Jews remaining.

The sédévacantists might even use this pattern to justify a claim that Benedict XVI is in fact expecting an earthly "Messiah" in the future, one who will be accepted just like that by the present unbelieving Jews. This person will be the Antichrist. Benedict XVI therefore might even be preparing the roads for the Antichrist [in the interpretation of the sedevacantists]. And then Abe [Fox] will enter the "Church" (ecumenical pluralistic Church of darkness, communion of the unholy, at Rome, prophesied by Bl. Anna Katharina Emmerick)

After all, not yet the fullness of the Gentiles have entered. Chinese are pagans, atheists, and many former Christian peoples are once again pagan, and many pagan peoples still left in pagan darkness (Mongolians, Japanese, Cambodians, Malaysians, most INdonesians, Indians, Nepalese, Saudi Arabs)."


- I sincerely hope these people I quoted are too negative and pessimists, but I already presume the worst. I have seen enough documents, decrees, actions and troubles in the last fourty years in the "revised" Vatican City.

Anonymous said...

Judas lives...

Stanislas Wojtiech said...

And now even people are here and there alleging that the SSPX is to blame for all the internal disunity and theological, liturgical and doctrinal abuses in the Church for the last fourty years. That they are "refusing communion" and other trads being disobedient over these grotesque unilateral Vatican-imposed changes.... Etc. etc. It is grotesque how neoconservative neo-Catholics are promoting a view blaming all on the "traditionalist" Roman Catholic faithful and clergy who changed nothing and will not accept this prayer just like Benedict XVI did not accept the Tiara coronation.

It is ridiculous to blame the troops of the St. Athanasius of Alexandria of the 20th century, of the spread of current Arianism (to which I also count dispensationalist heresies).

Anonymous said...

Introducing novelty is an effective way of dividing and conquering a people. The Protestants did it, and divided Europe. Because they rejected Rome, however, they failed to divide the Church. The Spiritofvaticantwoists made sure not to make that mistake again, and did indeed succeed in dividing the Church. Where they slipped up was to introduce the Novus Ordo instead of persisting with the corruption of the existing order of Mass. This gave traditionalism something to cling onto. This change to the 1962 Missal learns from that mistake.

Mornac said...

More views:

Rabbi David Rosen, chairman of the International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultations, said: "It is a disappointment.

"While I appreciate that the text avoids any derogatory language towards the Jews, it is regrettable that the prayer explicitly aspires for Jews to accept the Christian Faith, as opposed to the text in the current universal liturgy that prays for the salvation of the Jews in general terms.

"All I can hope for is that through further dialogue, the full implications of the Second Vatican Council's affirmation of the eternity of the Divine Covenant with the Jewish People might lead to a deeper understanding of the value of Torah as the vehicle of salvation for the Jewish People."

David Gifford, chief executive of the Council of Christians and Jews, said: "I am saddened. They could have gone much further and built on the work of the Second Vatican Council."

He said this will add to the "suspicion and dismay" already created by the restoration of the Tridentine Rite, which can now be celebrated without permission of a bishop. "I am extremely sad that another opportunity has been missed."

(From TimesOnline)

Anonymous said...

t

Petrus Radii said...

Dear Benedict Ambrose:

The prayer is NOT "perfectly sound". It is theologically erroneous and favours the heresy of Dispensationalism.

schoolman said...

"The prayer is NOT "perfectly sound". It is theologically erroneous and favours the heresy of Dispensationalism."
===================

Petrus, are you sitting down? I mean, are you speaking from the chair on this?

Anonymous said...

"And who or what is "Israel", anyhow? It is not specified by the prayer. "All" Israel cannot be saved, as those who have died outside the Church are already in hell. It is also unclear whether "Israel" is a political, ethnic, or religious term---whereas "Jews" is relatively clear."

Your problem then is with St. Paul:

"For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery, (lest you should be wise in your own conceits), that blindness in part has happened in Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles should come in And so all Israel should be saved, as it is written: There shall come out of Sion, he that shall deliver, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob." (Romans 11: 25-26)

ExecutiveEditor said...

The prayer is NOT "perfectly sound". It is theologically erroneous and favours the heresy of Dispensationalism.

Yes, what was the Holy Father thinking? If only Pope Benedict would pay less attention to the Bible--for instance, Romans 11:25-26:

25 For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery, (lest you should be wise in your own conceits), that blindness in part has happened in Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles should come in.
26 And so all Israel should be saved, as it is written: There shall come out of Sion, he that shall deliver, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.

Peter M said...

Well, the prayer is "ut agnoscant Jesum Christum salvatorem omnium hominum"; actually, the change highlights the need to confess Jesus Christ as The (only) saviour of all men - no other Way to salvation than Him. Almost as taking the dust away from extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. There is indeed no reason to be unhappy, it's indeed part of the restoration going on for the entire Church, not only the (unfortunately) few (at least now) who have the possibility of hearing Mass according to the Extraordinary form of the Roman rite.

Petrus Radii said...

"All Israel" in St. Paul, to my knowledge, does not have a literal meaning. I am unaware of any of the Fathers or Doctors of the Church---or any Pope either, except possibly JPII---who claimed it to mean literally every Jew and Israelite would be saved. To claim they all will be saved---and apart from belief in Christ, no less---is the heresy of Dispensationalism. The prayer as written can be interpreted in that heretical manner because of its ambiguity.

Anonymous said...

The Jews will probably still be outraged! : )
The prayer says basically the same thing, and calls on them to acknowledge Jesus Christ as Sacior of all mankind.
I admire Benedict XVI, for not producing some wimpish "love, peace, forgiveness and brotherhood" type prayer thay probably would have come out 3-4 years ago....or doing away with the idea of "conversion" altogether like the liberals wanted.
Jews will still whine and cry.
Should we care? No.

Benfan said...

I would be very shocked to hear that Pope Benedict wrote this. It is not his style. He is quite precise. Further, Israel means those who accept Christ. It is the faithful people. The Catholic Church is the new Israel. This has always been understood. The prayer is very strange and given that it has come from the secretary of State well...

schoolman said...

The 2nd part of the prayer is intended to be prayed within the context and following the first part:


Let us pray, and for the Jews.

May our God and Lord enlighten their hearts, so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, saviour of all men.

Taken together, this prayer for the Jews is complete and avoids the possibility of misinterpretation. That's why Abe and his friends are still upset...

Anonymous said...

The business about the "Gentiles coming into the Church" could refer to Protestants converting to the fullness of the Catholic Faith...which if read this way would be offensive to them.
Since Protestants are by their beliefs and actions ipso facto "heretics", this is a good reference in the prayer.
If I were a Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopalian etc. (as well as a Jew), I would be offended.
It stands up for the True Faith....and that's a good thing all round.

Stanislas Wojtiech said...

The "Israel" saved in the Fulness of times during the final times, means only the at-that-time-living, unbelieving Jews as an sociological-ethnic-religious entity.

Of course not all Jews of the past who consciously rejected the Messiah Jesus Christ were saved. On the contrary. Outside the Church there is no salvation. Those who consciously rejected the Church after due information, apologetics and a convincing case had been made to them, are damned to eternal fire indeed. A sad fact, but divine justice.

(Of course individual innocently ignorant Jews of good will in isolated situations, and innocent children from Talmudic couples, are saved or at least in an eternal perfect state of perfect natural happiness. They are not to blame. But informed rabbis like Rabbi David Rosen, or zionist politicians like Abe Foxman, in fact áre guilty. Abe is even validly baptized. Like Stalin, Hitler and Julian the Apostate of course. The latter Roman Emperor being another accomodator to the rabbinic form of "Judaism" in his age at the expense of the Church of the Messiah.)

Cosmos said...

Viva il Papa! I feel as if he, once again, used a difficult moment as a brilliant teaching moment:

To the traditionalists:
"We will never change the substance of the faith, please have a little faith (and a little patience)."

To the Jews:
"We care about you enough to listen and respond to your concerns (even when they might seem nitpicky), but not so little as to stop praying for your conversion. ie. You need to convert. "

To the liberal Catholics:
"Sorry guys, we are still preaching the faith that was handed down to us from the Apostles."

And while theological debate and criticism are ussually good things, it is odd to tirelessly criticize the Pope's prudential judgments in the name of orthodoxy. There has to be some practical meaning to submission and obedience. While one might hypotheticall spend an entire lifetime in "loyal opposition," there is a knee-jerk cynicism that seems more characteristic of the enemy than of zealousness.

Arieh said...

I think this is very much in line with the thinking of then-Cardinal Ratzinger. He was very concerned with the traditional liturgy appearing as though it were a fly stuck in the amber and the domain only of those on the "fringe" (traditionalists). He had mentioned at the liturgical conference in Fontgombault in 2001 that the 62 missal needed to come back under the authority and direction of Rome by modest changes, so that once again the missal was a part of the living Magisterium rather than a museum piece. The Holy Father has in Summorum Pontificum allowed English scripture readings and has now changed a prayer in the mass itself. It no longer is a "relic of pre-Vatican II" spirituality but is now a post-conciliar liturgy--it is now modern (just without any modernism).

Petrus Radii said...

Dear Cosmos:

I am not as brave as you. I do not presume to read the interior thoughts of the Supreme Pontiff. I confine myself to analysis of the hard theology of the written Latin text, which---even taking into account "agnoscant"---is still too ambiguous to be considered a clearly Catholic text.

schoolman said...

"Let us pray, and also for the Jews.

May our God and Lord enlighten their hearts, so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, saviour of all men."
=======================

This clearly states the necessity of conversion to Jesus Christ...for all those Jews living today -- here and now. Now some thoughts on the 2nd part:
=======================

"Let us pray.
Let us kneel.
Arise.

Almighty and everlasting God, who desirest that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of truth, mercifully grant that, as the fullness of the Gentiles enters into Thy Church, all Israel may be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen."
========================

Here we are dealing with the end times...when the number of the elect has reached its fulness. In these days the veils of darkness will finally be lifted from the eyes of the Jews and they will recognize Jesus Christ and His Church -- they will be converted and all Israel will be saved. Recall that Paul teaches that even the blindness of the Jews has its distinct role to play in the conversion of the gentiles...it will finally be lifted once the number of the elect has been accomplished...

Anonymous said...

Arieh,

There are many, MANY ways he could have done this that didn't involve dropping a prayer. He could have restored the pre-1955 Holy Week or introduced some of the Novus Ordo prefaces.

Anonymous said...

"...the Holy Father Benedict XVI has *ordered* that the Oremus et pro Iudaeis of the Liturgy of Good Friday in the aforesaid Missale Romanum be replaced with the following text..."

Will he "order" the Bishops to allow the EF in every parish?

Will he "order" the liturgical abuses to stop?

Might as well be Orthodox at this point...

Anonymous said...

Cosmos,

To the traditionalists:
"The Church values the concerns of the ADL more than she values yours"

To the Jews:
"OK, you win. Please don't destroy us."

To the liberal Catholics:
"Sorry guys, it's the Jews's turn now."

Anonymous said...

"All Israel" in St. Paul, to my knowledge, does not have a literal meaning.

But St. Paul never said "Oh, BTW, don't take the word 'all' too literally." One would assume, then, that since the prayer is explicitly taken from St. Paul's words, that the sense of the meaning of the prayer is the same.

Petrus Radii said...

Dear Schoolman:

To "acknowledge" or "recognise" is not yet to accept. Therefore, the intention of the prayer is not clearly the conversion of the Jews. But even if this announcement of the prayer intention were as clear as you say, the second part (the actual prayer) does not pray for their conversion, not least because it refers only to "Israel" at the end of time.

Words mean things. It is not correct to interpolate what is not in the text.

Anonymous said...

Schoolman,

Stop twisting the prayer.

the first invocation is the intention, but the second is the prayer which is what is asked for. Clearly conversion is asked for, but clearly it is asked for at the end of time, not now.

This is not the teaching Sacred Tradition hands down regarding what we ought to be doing now.

It is also uncharitable to say, "I'm praying that you convert, but not now!"

Its like that Cardinal who said, "We're interested in conversions, but not that many!"

Anyone who thinks that obedience to the Pope means he must accept such errors is an idolator, not a Catholic!

idler said...

Arieh, yes, the traditional liturgy is once more ALIVE!

The insertion of the name of St Joseph into the canon was a much more significant change that that proposed here, and there was no fuss about it.

Petrus Radii said...

Dear Idler:

St. Joseph in the Canon is not theologically erroneous. This new prayer for the Jews is.

Anonymous said...

Where is this PAPAL DECREE ORDERING the use of the new prayer???? A newspaper or the secretary of state????

Where is the ACTUAL PAPAL DECREE???

Joe B said...

Where do "Let us kneel" and "Arise" come from? We don't say that in the TLM.

Nothing but useless novelties and tinkering.

It's only going to get worse. Hang in there, SSPX.

schoolman said...

"But even if this announcement of the prayer intention were as clear as you say..."
=====================

I think it is as clear as day for those who do not have veils over their eyes.

GD said...

Dear New Catholic, may I be a little fussy about the translation? 'et pro Iudaeis' means either 'also for the Jews' or 'even for the Jews' - but not 'and also', which contains a double translation of 'et'!

'Salvatorem' is predicative of 'Iesum Christum' after 'agnoscant'. The Jews do not just have to acknowledge Jesus Christ in any sort of way (e.g. as a prophet), they have to acknowledge him 'as the Saviour of all men'. The translation as it stands could be read as follows: 'that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ (however they may like to do so), (whom Catholics consider to be) the Saviour of all men.'

Thanks for your excellent reporting. But I pity you having to read all these tiresome comments!

Petrus Radii said...

Dear Schoolman:

Good show! It has taken only one critical comment for you to descend into a barbarous "ad hominem" attack. Such is the practice of those bereft of intelligent argument.

Your insinuation that I am an unbelieving Jew is defamatory and requires a retraction. Please read our Lord's words in St. Matthew about those who say to someone, "Fatue!" More circumspect on your part would be appreciated.

New Catholic said...

Thank you, GC. We will leave it as it is for the moment.

The "and also" has been a common, though not exclusive, translation of the "et" in some of these Great Intercession prayers, though we are aware of its "double translation" problem.

As for the "Salvatorem", we just think that it flows better that way. In any event, it is only a possible translation.

schoolman said...

pr, I think if one does not clearly see a call for the conversion of Jews -- here and now -- then he has something coloring his vision (perhaps peering through the lenses of an unheathy hermeneutic of rupture). Even Abe Foxman and his friends can see this for what it is...yet somehow certain "traditionalists" miss the picture entirely. Strange.

Stanislas Wojtiech said...

Quote "anonymous": "But St. Paul never said "Oh, BTW, don't take the word 'all' too literally." One would assume, then, that since the prayer is explicitly taken from St. Paul's words, that the sense of the meaning of the prayer is the same."

If you hold that those individual Jews who pertinaciously rejected the Lord Jesus with full knowledge and consciousness and after being fully informed, are nevertheless all saved during the entire 2,000 years after the Lord's Passion and Resurrection, then you are an heretic who denies the dogma of Faith defined de fide at the Council of Florence, which clearly states Jews must enter the Church in order to be able to attain the Faith. If you think all Jews, unbelieving or believing, mortally sinful or saints, share some "magic" racial trait or theological supremacy, by which they can sin, become heretics and blaspheme and reject Jesus, and yet be all saved, you are nothing less than a person infected with heresy and dispensationalist errors and Talmudic supremacist ideas.

The "whole of Israel" means the full number of Jews who will enter Christ's Church at all, and it means the fullness or largest part of the Jewish people in the End of Time. Not all Jews, always and everywhere are all in heaven being saints, just because they belong to the "elect" (no longer) "race" (inexistent but still). Yet you hold this.

I know Jews and have Jewish ancestry. But I do not believe your ridiculous mythic interpretation of St. Paul. As if there are no Jews in hell or able to damn themselves by free choice of evil.

Let's hear Saint Paul (Rom 11) himself: "19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.

20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again."

Being finally broken off by one's own unbelief means:
"If anyone does not remain in Me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned." (Gospel of St. Johm, 15: 2)

Do you think the unbelieving Jews "remained in Jesus" also by some racial advantage of theirs as you claim?

Petrus Radii said...

Dear Schoolman:

Your interpretation is simply that, and not supported by the Latin words themselves. Abe Foxman is not the measure of Catholic orthodoxy. He will be unhappy with anything which does not explicitly state that the Jews do NOT have to convert to be saved (assuming they believe in an afterlife to start with!).

Your inability to apologise and retract your statement about me (and others of like thought)---which due to its textual reference seems clearly meant to insult and defame---is behaviour simply unworthy of a Catholic.

Syriacus said...

” Radio Vaticana 05/02/2008 16.30.41

Il Papa modifica la Preghiera per gli Ebrei, della Liturgia del Venerdì Santo, contenuta nel Missale Romanum del 1962

Viene pubblicata oggi su “L’Osservatore Romano” una nota che informa della disposizione del Papa di sostituire il testo della Preghiera per gli Ebrei, della Liturgia del Venerdì Santo, contenuta nel Missale Romanum pubblicato nel 1962 dal Beato Giovanni XXIII. La sostituzione decisa dal Papa intende rispondere ad obiezioni sollevate dopo la pubblicazione del Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, del 7 luglio 2007. Documento pontificio che, ricordiamo, regolamenta la possibilità di usare l’ultima stesura del Missale Romanum, anteriore al Concilio Vaticano II.

Il nuovo testo della Preghiera per gli Ebrei, secondo una nostra traduzione non ufficiale, recita: “Preghiamo per gli Ebrei. Il Signore Dio Nostro illumini i loro cuori perché riconoscano Gesù Cristo Salvatore di tutti gli uomini. Dio Onnipotente ed eterno, Tu che vuoi che tutti gli uomini si salvino e giungano alla conoscenza della verità, concedi propizio che, entrando la pienezza dei popoli nella tua Chiesa, tutto Israele sia salvo”. Va sottolineato che l’ipotesi che venga utilizzato il Missale Romanum del 1962 durante il Triduo Sacro è comunque del tutto eccezionale e riguarderebbe solo gruppi particolari. ”

http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/it1/Articolo.asp?c=184628

schoolman said...

"...the first invocation is the intention, but the second is the prayer which is what is asked for. Clearly conversion is asked for, but clearly it is asked for at the end of time, not now."
===================

Anon 21:21, certainly the "prayer" has an eschatological aspect -- as derived from its original context in Romans. Yet combined with the context of the "invocation" we clearly see that the "prayer" is relevant today -- in the here and now. Therefore, the prayer is for the conversion of the Jews today...even if the salvation of Isreal will not be fully realized until the end times. It's not either/or here but both/and.

Anonymous said...

"Do you think the unbelieving Jews "remained in Jesus" also by some racial advantage of theirs as you claim?

The answer to this is simple, stanislas, and that is no, I never claimed that.

"The "whole of Israel" means the full number of Jews who will enter Christ's Church at all, and it means the fullness or largest part of the Jewish people in the End of Time."

This is what I believe St. Paul and the new Good Friday prayer refers to. We are praying that all nations may come into the one true Church so that as St. Paul says all of Israel may be saved.

Syriacus said...

"Apart from the deletion of the word "blindness," the new prayer also removes a phrase that asked God to "remove the veil from their hearts".
But the new prayer hopes that Jews will recognize Christ. "

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/951488.html

Anonymous said...

This is unfortunate. In the end, it will cause more dislike of the Jews. They seem to be the only ones who get heard and this quickly! $$$$$$$$$$

Petrus Radii said...

All the myriad interpretations are merely proof of my point that the prayer is so ambiguous as to be theologically erroneous and favoring heresy. If the text were as clear as some claim, then (nearly) all would agree on its meaning. But this Medjugorje-like discernment of the inner meaning is as remote from true Catholic theology and Liturgy as is Pentecostalism.

Mike said...

1. Has anyone been able to confirm how the FSSP, ICKSP, or SSPX priests will be reacting? Any plans for them to keep the old prayers?

2. If a prayer was changed which had absolutely nothing wrong with it, does not a consistent absurdity demand that they next attempt to change the unchangeable Sacred Scriptures, from whence the traditional prayer arose?:

"And looking round about on them with anger, being grieved for the blindness of their hearts, he saith to the man: Stretch forth thy hand. And he stretched it forth: and his hand was restored unto him." (Mk 3:5)

"Then Jesus answered and said: O unbelieving and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I suffer you?" (Mt 17:16)


"But the unbelieving Jews stirred up and incensed the minds of the Gentiles against the brethren." (Acts 14:2)

"But even until this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart.

16 But when they shall be converted to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away." (2 Cor 3:15-16)

Anonymous said...

Well who knows, perhaps Rome will hear the cries of the faithful and allow another indult to use the older form for the intercession of the Jews?

schoolman said...

"All the myriad interpretations are merely proof of my point that the prayer is so ambiguous as to be theologically erroneous and favoring heresy."
========================

pr, there is no confusion or ambiguity here. This is a prayer for the conversion of *ALL* Jews. Simple as that.

Anonymous said...

Mike said...
1. Has anyone been able to confirm how the FSSP, ICKSP, or SSPX priests will be reacting? Any plans for them to keep the old prayers?

Yes, i confirmed it with a priest from one of those groups (not the SSPX). Don't want to say which group.

This priest tells me that he and his society were given a universal indult to use the books of 1962. And they will continue to do so.

However, this prayer is not in the books of 1962. It's in the B16 missal of 2008. Therefor, they will ignore this change.

Petrus Radii said...

Dear Schoolman:

Asserting the conclusion is a logical fallacy: one into which you have just fallen. Perhaps you see no ambiguity in the text, but---again---you are following a chimera. There is no prayer for the Jews' conversion here---which I would demonstrate in detail, if I had more time this evening. In fact, you will not find one word about their conversion to Christ, as has been shown repeatedly.

One might also argue that Jesus Christ, while Redeemer of all, is the Saviour only of the elect, of the "many", since many others---including many Jews---reject Him as their Saviour and only Lord.

schoolman said...

My understanding is that Summorum Pontificum has superceeded all previously existing "indults" relative to the TLM. This new order simply replaces the Good Friday prayer in the EF. The change would seem to apply to all Catholics using the EF.

Anonymous said...

Well, schoolman, I know the priest i talked to and, no offense, but he's a traditional priest and one of the few making the determination for an entire order. So i'll stick with what he told me.

Prof. Basto said...

This raises an interesting question.

Pope Benedict decided to replace the 1962 prayer used in the extraordinary form.

Yet, He chose not to replace it with the same prayer - that terribly composed prayer - contained in the ordinary form Missals of 1970, 1975 and 2002.

The prayer now composed is - I believe we can agree on that - better than the prayer contained in the 2002 ordinary form Missal. At least it asks explicitly for the conversion of the Jews.

We have a situation in which the extraordinary form prayer, to be used as an amendment to the 1962 Missal, is of more recent composition (2008), than the prayer contained in the ordinary form Missal.

Shouldn't then the Pope also order that the newly composed prayer be used not only in the extraordinary form, but also in the ordinary form, that is, amending not only the 1962 Missal, but also the 2002 Missal?

Isn't the prayer used in the ordinary form in more urgent need of change? Why is it that the 2008 prayer, now composed, is considered suitable for the extraordinary form, but is not also imposed on the ordinary one?

Deacon Augustine said...

" schoolman said...
My understanding is that Summorum Pontificum has superceeded all previously existing "indults" "

And the canonical basis of your assertion is what exactly?

Petrus Radii said...

Dear Schoolman:

Let us take the FSSP as an example. They have a proper law through their papal decree of erection, which includes the exclusive use of the 1962 liturgical books. According to canonical norms, a particular or proper law must be specifically derogated, obrogated, or abrogated. A general decree is not adequate to remove its legal force.

Therefore, even assuming that there is a legal decree mandating the new prayer, it is not binding on the FSSP or others in similar circumstances.

Tom Piatak said...

This is a prayer for the conversion of the Jews, and one based on biblical language. I trust Benedict XVI far more than I trust anonymous posters seeking to sow discord and division.

Anonymous said...

It is extremely concerning that the Ecclesia Dei Commission may not have been even consulted, let alone the traditional communities, prior to this change. To whom is this directed? It has no official English translation, but is directed primarily at English speaking Jews? I fail to see how an imposition of this nature, coming from the Secretary of State's office and not even a liturgical arm of the Church, not to say the entity specifically charged with implementation of Summorum Pontificum, is justified based solely on complaints of Jewish rabbis and leaders, and some liberal Catholics. Complaints have been made to Rome for DECADES about the incorrect and misleading translations of the 1970 Missal, the failure to implement even the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei, etc., and yet these have still not been addressed. We are STILL waiting for an interpretive document of Summorum Pontificum's latent ambiguities and imprecise language, after waiting for a year for the document itself to be produced. The majority of bishops are on record as restricting the application of SP in illicit ways, and yet Rome has instead changed the Good Friday prayer for Jews?!? I pray that the damage being done by this with relations with traditionalists around the world, and particularly people of good will in the SSPX, will be quicky undone by the merciful providence of God. In particular, I hope for a clear explanation of the DOCTRINAL reasons for this change from the Pope himself, AND some kind of reasonably quick action in actually clarifying the meaning of the motu proprio which engendered this change in the first place.

Caper said...

Joannes Christophorus: You translated "intrante" as a perfect active participle (which doesn't exist in Latin), when it is a present participle. "Intrante" = "AS the fullness of the nations enter"

Jordan Potter said...

If a prayer was changed which had absolutely nothing wrong with it, does not a consistent absurdity demand that they next attempt to change the unchangeable Sacred Scriptures, from whence the traditional prayer arose?

No, it doesn't, because the liturgy is not divinely-inspired, inerrant, and unchangeable scripture. The liturgy can and does change over time, and the Council of Trent explicit says the Pope has the authority to change the liturgy.

You're making two mistakes: assuming that it is absurd to change a prayer that incorporates scriptural language; and assuming that if something based on scriptural is changeable, then unchangeable scripture may also be changed.

Well, as I've indicated before, my personal opinion, which is worth little if anything, is that this liturgical reform is imprudent and untimely if not unnecessary. But I've also said I would personally prefer it if the old prayer for the Jews were tweaked a little. This new prayer is tweaked rather more than I would have liked, but it's still scriptural and orthodox and, most important of all, it explicitly prays that the Jewish people become Christians. (And not just as an eschatalogical hope, but it prays that they be converted while the ongoing conversion of the Gentiles continued.) I'm very happy that the Holy Father chose to base the new prayer on Rom. 9-11.

Thurifer said...

You are Peter and on this Rock I will build My Church...whatever you hold bound on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you hold loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Just a thought... if Peter can decide who gets into heaven and whose sins are forgiven or not does it not stand to reason that he can change the way we pray? How could he have power over salvation and not over prayer?

Furthermore, if St. Pius could suppress valid forms of prayer could not Benedict alter others?

When someone can demonstrate that Peter, Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, etc. celebrated Mass the same way we did in 1962, or 54 or 48 or whenever, let me know and then I will accept the argument that the mass has never been changed. By the way, was is it not the Pope who added the fillioque? Oh yeah, he did, that's partly why the Churchs split because the East was disobedient to Peter over him changing the Mass, and not just the Mass, but THE CREED CODIFIED BY THE FIRST TWO OF THE GREAT ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. Hmmm, if Peter can do that, what else do you think he can do?

Finally, as others have noted, I doubt very seriously that anyone who has here commented could match Joseph Ratzinger in intelligence, knowledge, or theological and liturgical understanding, so a little pride check is in order for us all... and we all know from whence pride comes.

schoolman said...

"They have a proper law through their papal decree of erection, which includes the exclusive use of the 1962 liturgical books."
==================

Yes, but this change impacts the 1962 missal. The missal is not something fixed for all time -- it is suject to organic development.

Anonymous said...

Thurifer- RIGHT ON!!!!

latinmass1983 said...

Thurifer,

While the logic behind your argument is O.K., the history and the method is not.

The adding of the Filioque was not the main nor only thing why the East split. The East has always had very big problems which concern theological imprecitions or things that touch the margin of heresy - if only by the fact that they do not want to speficy anything to prevent "legalism."

While it is true that the Popes of the early centuries of the Church and Christ Himself did not say Mass the way we did in the 40's, 50's and 60's, it is also true that they did not say it the way it is done now.

AND what did St. Paul say to St. Peter when he, too, was letting himself be pressured by the Jews of his time? Do you really think that St. Peter was correct? NO! And he had to admit it by declaring the opposite (regarding circumsicion) later one.

Please, people, be better informed!

Jordan Potter said...

"All Israel" in St. Paul, to my knowledge, does not have a literal meaning.

That's not a very clear or accurate way to express things. It sounds like you're saying those two words are, in effect, the only words in the Bible that don't have a literal meaning. But I suppose what you mean is that "All Israel" in Rom. 11 does not refer to the Jewish people, but instead refers to the Church. That is one possible interpretation, though I'm not sure it's the right one.

I am unaware of any of the Fathers or Doctors of the Church---or any Pope either, except possibly JPII---who claimed it to mean literally every Jew and Israelite would be saved.

I'm also an unaware of any Fathers of Doctors or Popes, including John Paul II, who claimed it referred literally to every single Jew, or that it affirmed that no Jew will ever be damned. That's not what the biblical expression "all Israel" or "the whole House of Israel" refers to. It refers to the Jewish people, but not in a hyperliteralist sense. It means the Hebrews in their corporeal integrity as a people, not to each and every single Israelite. It's like St. Paul's "all have sinned" or "in Adam all die" or "It is appointed unto all men once to die." We know that Jesus and Mary are exceptions to "all have sinned," and it is possible that Mary is an exception to "in Adam all die" (just as the Christians alive at the Second Coming will be exception to the "all die" rule). Thus, even if "All Israel will be saved" means the physical people of the Hebrews rather than the Church, the New Israel, it does not follow that no Jews have ever been or will ever be damned.

To claim they all will be saved---and apart from belief in Christ, no less---is the heresy of Dispensationalism.

True -- but the new prayer cannot by any stretch be interpreted as affirming or even possibly implying Dispensationalism, or the possibility of Jewish salvation apart from Christ. The prayer explicitly prays that the Jews acknowledge Jesus as Savior of the world.

The prayer as written can be interpreted in that heretical manner because of its ambiguity.

Any and every prayer can be interpreted in a heretical manner. The old prayer for the Jews can be wrongly interpreted to mean that Jews are genetically predisposed to dishonesty and disloyalty, or to suggest that Jewish sin and unbelief is worse than Catholic sin and unbelief. Ambiguity is just the nature of human language. No matter how clear we strive to be in our language, there can always be confusion or misunderstanding, or unintentional or deliberate misinterpretation. Nevertheless, the new prayer clearly prays for the conversion of the Jews, both today and in view of the Eschaton.

Jordan Potter said...

Yes, but this change impacts the 1962 missal. The missal is not something fixed for all time -- it is suject to organic development.

The traditional Roman Missal is not something fixed for all time, Schoolman, but the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal IS something fixed for all time. Any prior edition of the Roman Missal is not the 1962 edition, and any subsequent edition of the Roman Missal is not the 1962 edition. If any priestly fraternity or society has an indult to pray the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal, then they have an indult to pray the 1962 version of the prayer for the Jews. Summorum Pontificum affirms that all Latin Rite priests have the right to celebrate Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal, but it does not abrogate the indult that, for example, the ICK has to pray the 1955 edition of the Roman Missal. Thus, this new prayer for the Jews would be mandatory for Latin Rite priests in general, but not those comparatively few who have a special indult to use earlier versions of the prayer. There is nothing in Summorum Pontificum that abrogates those specific indults; therefore they remain in force.

Unless, that is, you have the text of the decrees abrogating those indults, in which case you should produce them. Otherwise, you should admit your mistake and move on.

Jordan Potter said...

AND what did St. Paul say to St. Peter when he, too, was letting himself be pressured by the Jews of his time?

To be precise, the pressure came from Jews who had converted to Christianity (but who still had an undue attachment to the rites and customs of the Torah), not from unbelieving Jews.

Benfan said...

Tom piatek

I am obedient to the Pope. However, I do not believe this is his work nor that it has his approval. You know this is an important issue. You know that it is politically fraught. Now, somehow we are expected to believe that a matter of such sensitivity would not involve Ecclesia Dei, would not involve the CDF, but come out from Cardinal Bertone's office with a verbal approval by Pope Benedict???
Sorry but credibility is being stretched here. I believe Cardinal Bertone is usurping his authority. For this reason and the damage such a change does to the body of Christ I believe I have a duty (as a confirmed catholic) to submit a protest. Please do the same if you feel the same way. If I am right Pope Benedict will need all the protests to come pouring in as ammunition to reassert his authority. If I am wrong then he's authority is not injured by my protest. In other words, nothing to loose and everything to gain.

God Bless

Joannes Christophorus said...

Oops--thanks for the corrections to my translation error. With I myself too quickly having read, I assumed an ablative absolute. :)

caesar said...

These men, with JR at the helm, are sowing discord! So much for the true colors of JR with SP. This is the real JR. BYE, BYE.

Caper said...

Joannes:

No problem! Latin is quite tricky, after all. Actually, you were correct, insofar as it is an ablative absolute. Quite often the ablative absolute features the perfect passive participle, whereas here it just happend to be the present active. It is a joy just to see someone who knows what an ablative absolute is!

irulats said...

Prayer for Conversion of Jews Remains Troubling Despite Vatican Changes


New York, NY, February 5, 2008 …. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) said the Vatican's changes to the Latin Good Friday prayer for the conversion of Jews amount to "cosmetic revisions" and the prayer remains "deeply troubling" because it calls for Jews to "acknowledge Jesus Christ as the savior of all men."



Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:

While we appreciate that some of the deprecatory language has been removed from a new version of the Good Friday prayer for the Conversion of Jews in the 1962 Roman Missal, we are deeply troubled and disappointed that the framework and intention to petition God for Jews to accept Jesus as Lord was kept intact.



Alterations of language without change to the 1962 prayer's conversionary intent amount to cosmetic revisions, while retaining the most troubling aspect for Jews, namely the desire to end the distinctive Jewish way of life. Still named the "Prayer for Conversion of the Jews," it is a major departure from the teachings and actions of Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, and numerous authoritative Catholic documents, including Nostra Aetate.


ADL wrote to Pope Benedict on January 22 expressing concern that a revised Good Friday prayer that Jews abandon their own religious identity, would be devastating to the deepening relationship and dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people.


This statement should remind us as Catholics why the Church needs such a prayer in the first place. We should pray it and pray it often, and remain aware of our own weaknesses while we pray it.

Viva il papa!

Pleased as Punch said...

And of course, Caper, there are such things as perfect active participles in Latin--the perfect participles of deponent verbs. I suppose if you wish you could resist calling them perfect active participles and could instead call them perfact passive deponent participles, but you must admit they have active force.

Caper said...

Re: Pleased as Punch

Yes, I thought of including deponents in my analysis. Then I thought that no one would be so much of a stickler as to insist on it, and if they did, I could justify myself by pointing out that there is no perfect active *form.* The perfect participles of deponents, as you know, are passive in form, active in meaning. But I should have known that if I engaged in grammatical analysis, I would be called out on it. My intervention taught someone something they didn't know, at least.

Caper said...

Please dismiss/forgive any perceived hostility in the last note -- if you had corrected Ioannes Christophorus, I would have taken it upon myself to bring up perfect deponent participles.

The tense of that participle actually is crucial to understanding the text. If you pray for the Jews to convert *as* everyone else is entering, at the same time, then you want the Jews to convert even now. If Pope Benedict had used a perfect partiple, then we would be praying for the Jews to convert only *after* everyone else has -- which is ambiguous at the least, and would seem to indicate that Jews need not convert till the end of time. Not so. So the tense of participles is relevant, as always.

Caritas said...

"The ultimate goal, is of course conversion of the Jews, and being perceived as charitable is important to encourage their openness to conversion."

Charity is not about perception.

Caritas

Anonymous said...

This is of God and through the Immaculate Heart!

Let us cling to Peter!!

Anonymous said...

...I am obedient to the Pope. However, I do not believe this is his work nor that it has his approval...

So in other words, Benedict is a complete buffoon and has no control over anything. Perhaps the Vatican has produced another double just like Paul VI's.

Wake up people and recognize that Benedict XVI is just another ecumaniac in white!

Anonymous said...

Jordan Potter wrote: Well, as I've indicated before, my personal opinion, which is worth little if anything, is that this liturgical reform is imprudent and untimely if not unnecessary. But I've also said I would personally prefer it if the old prayer for the Jews were tweaked a little. This new prayer is tweaked rather more than I would have liked, but it's still scriptural and orthodox and, most important of all, it explicitly prays that the Jewish people become Christians.

This is extremely well stated and I agree entirely. I admire your humility in resisting the temptation to express your frustration in more extreme terms (e.g. stupid, buffonish, spineless, etc).

JAT

prof. basto said...

Jordan Potter said:

... Summorum Pontificum affirms that all Latin Rite priests have the right to celebrate Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal, but it does not abrogate the indult that, for example, the ICK has to pray the 1955 edition of the Roman Missal. Thus, this new prayer for the Jews would be mandatory for Latin Rite priests in general, but not those comparatively few who have a special indult to use earlier versions of the prayer. There is nothing in Summorum Pontificum that abrogates those specific indults; therefore they remain in force...

Well, Jordan, I respectfully disagree. Previous particular indults, for instance, in favour of FSSP, were given by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei based on the authority that that dicastery possessed under the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei adflicta.

So, all those particular indults were, in reallity, indults granted under the umbrella provisions of the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei.

However, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum explicitly reppealed both the curial document Quattuor abhinc annos and the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei adflicta, replacing them with new rules.

So, as the decrees issued by the Holy See in favor of the FSSP, IBP, etc, were just implementations of the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei, and that document has been explicitly replaced by Summorum Pontificum, the umbrella provisions of Summorum Pontificum now govern the entire matter.

My only doubt pertains to the indult granted to the Personal Apostolic Administration St. John Vianney, because they use the Books of 1962 not based on any Ecclesia Dei concession but based on the Papal Letter Ecclesia Unitas, and the subsequent Decree Animarum Bonum, that was issued not by the PCED, but by the Congregation for Bishops. But even in their case, it seems to me that the mens legislatoris prevails, and the intent of the legislator seems to be a complete replacement of the prayer presently contained in the 1962 Missal with this new prayer.

And the Missal of 1962 remains the Missal of 1962 even after that minor change with the addition of this 2008 prayer for the conversion of the Jews.

There is a difference between a new edition of the Roman Missal and a "reimpressio emendata".

The document issued by the Secretariat of State did not promulgate a new edition of the Roman Missal of St. Pius V; so we remain with the 1962 Missal for the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite. This change in the prayer for the conversion of the Jews does not amount to a new edition; it will probably lead to a "reimpressio emendata" (amended re-print) of the 1962 edition.

It is certainly within the

Caritas said...

"This, in their opinion, is no longer the missal of 1962 so they will not be comply."

You will say prayers for the Holy Father to obtain plenary indulgence and will chose not to comply. Hypocrites!

Providence never fails!

Caritas

totustuusmaria said...

Does anyone know is the ICKSP says the 1955 prayer and not the 1962 one? If that's the case, this wouldn't apply to them.

I know they use the 1955 order, but do they also pray for the perfidis, that's what I want to know.

Jordan Potter said...

Well, Jordan, I respectfully disagree. Previous particular indults, for instance, in favour of FSSP, were given by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei based on the authority that that dicastery possessed under the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei adflicta.

Regardless of the authority on which the granting of the indults was based, the fact remains that the indults were granted, and will only end when they are formally, explicitly revoked. Whether or not the Pope intends the FSSP or other groups to prayer only the new prayer for the Jews is something that remains to be seen, because we've seen nothing that revokes their indults to pray the 1962 version of the prayer for the Jews.

So, all those particular indults were, in reallity, indults granted under the umbrella provisions of the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei.

The provisions of that motu proprio have been superseded, yes, but the Ecclesia Dei commission is still around. Perhaps you have noticed that Summorum Pontificum not only did not abolish the Ecclesia Dei commission, but granted it more authority than it had before.

But even in their case, it seems to me that the mens legislatoris prevails, and the intent of the legislator seems to be a complete replacement of the prayer presently contained in the 1962 Missal with this new prayer.

Since we haven't seen any legislation yet -- just an announcement in a newspaper -- it's a little premature to talk about the intent of the legislator.

This change in the prayer for the conversion of the Jews does not amount to a new edition; it will probably lead to a "reimpressio emendata" (amended re-print) of the 1962 edition.

Perhaps, but even then we would need to see decrees revoking the current indults to pray the unemended 1962 Missal.

Does anyone know if the ICKSP says the 1955 prayer and not the 1962 one?

It's my understanding that their indult is for the 1955 version of the prayer.

If that's the case, this wouldn't apply to them.

Correct. Even if the new prayer is mandatory for the FSSP, etc., it would not be mandatory for the ICK.

I know they use the 1955 order, but do they also pray for the perfidis, that's what I want to know.

That's what I've been told, but someone else who actually knows will have to answer your question.

Jordan Potter said...

If you pray for the Jews to convert *as* everyone else is entering, at the same time, then you want the Jews to convert even now. If Pope Benedict had used a perfect partiple, then we would be praying for the Jews to convert only *after* everyone else has -- which is ambiguous at the least, and would seem to indicate that Jews need not convert till the end of time. Not so.

Excellent analysis. Of course, it can't be denied that it is a prayer that the Jews convert even now: that's what it means to ask God to enlighten their hearts that they may acknowledge Jesus, Savior of all men. There's nothing to indicate that we would be praying that God enlighten them sometime in the indefinite future: the prayer asks for God to do something, and does not limit when we wish Him to do it. Therefore we are asking Him to do it now, or at the right time.

Anonymous said...

What about all the Missals already printed and in use?
This is a conciliatory act by the Pope. I think I will continue to say Mass using the traditional form.
I think St Paul needs rewriting. Oh he was a Jew and he wrote about Jews. Spiritually I am a semite.
Jesus is Jewish. Oh the Apostles are all Jewish as well. So a Jew wrote this about Jews. So why the change?

Anonymous said...

It is interesting to see a newly composed prayer that clearly communicates that the fullness of the nations are to enter the Church. The prayer reinforces the traditional teaching that the Catholic Church is the one True Church, another current issue.

Christ is the Savior of all men, and the goal is that they are entering the Church...not being "anonymous Christians"...

Given our current situation, highlighting this doctrine in a NEWLY COMPOSED prayer could be said to be an organic development (in response to a real need). It hightlights continuity in the practice of a new liturgical composition. A model for all necessary revisions (hopefully to the 1970 missal).

Another point: the pope does not simply need to keep traditionalists and Jews in mind here. The 1962 missal is for every Catholic. Our current society is worried about even using the term "the Jews"...much less the rhetoric in the traditional prayers (of course it is St. Paul, but our society is not well catechised either, not that all of the liturgy should be didactic). In the sense that liturgy should communicate truth to the members of the Church...we can perhaps argue that this new prayer expresses the need for the conversion of the Jews in an understandible form.

This can help people to enter into the prayer with their hearts. Also it shows that the previous prayers were good by retaining their substance. This might help more people to take a look at the depth of doctrine in the traditional liturgy, rather than thinking of it as out-dated doctrine.

Anonymous said...

Maybe all of this will make sense when the Vatican gets around to telling us what "stable groups" are, or perhaps what a minimum level of competency is to offer the extraordinary form, i.e., the 1962 Missal. Given that it has been seven months since the document was issued, and these were apparently designedly ambiguous provisions, I am beginning to wonder exactly what really is going on with the implementation of Summorum Pontificum. We now have waited until almost every bishops' conference has placed illicit restrictions on implementation, effectively keeping the status quo throughout Europe and much of the Americas...now an interpretive document is supposed to undo all of these? That is ridiculous! The Vatican is not going to overturn these episcopal legislative acts! On the other hand, while still contemplating what the motu proprio means, the Vatican decides to bow to Jewish pressure and alter the Good Friday prayer, even though virtually the ONLY priests who will be using the traditional Triduum are either SSPX (whom I THOUGHT we were trying to reconcile) and the traditional communities (except apparently for ICKSP). When should we expect a theologically accurate translation of the Novus Ordo Mass? Sometime next week...oh I forgot, it should be in 2010!!! 40 years to translate the Mass accurately into English, but 7 months to change a centuries old prayer to satisfy the concerns and demands of non-Catholics!?!

John Hudson said...

Roma locuta est: causa finita est.

schoolman said...

Something is happening over at the Remnant. In any case, this is a must read from Ferrara on the revised prayer:

http://remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2008-a_papal_masterstroke.htm

Nice job to the guys at the Remnant who really get it!

Anonymous said...

I disagree with Christopher Ferrara's verdict. We have already been trained to effectively reject the Old Testament as "violent" and "historical", instead of making a mature and reverent study - and defence - of it. The Novus Ordo purged Gospel readings that were evidently deemed to be "out of date". Regardless of how the ADL feels about this latest change, there is plenty of scope for spin, and therefore scandal. Once more we are on the back foot, implicitly admitting that Holy Church has been using "intemperate" language - with a Gospel provenance - which requires apologetic amendment in a more "enlightened" age.

This does not have to be a big deal for traditionalists. Benedict has already said that the 1962 Missal had never been abrogated - which includes the form of this prayer that existed at the time he made that announcement. On the other hand, as this comments page shows, whether intentionally or otherwise, this change chucks the apple of discord among the traditionalists, while the ordinary form of the Mass remains apparently untouched.

Poperinghe said...

This is just another example that once you can change one thing in the Missal, you can change anything. Pius XII changed only rubrics, it was Roncalli who introduced textual changes with something as seemingly innocuous as including the name of St. Joseph or removing a Confetior. Yet it is too easily a slippery slope that a few years later brought us the Novus Ordo Missale.

I am saddened that Benedict succumbed to political pressure, and that he obviously doesn't share the view that Pius V codified the Mass in perpetuity. Yet this prayer was changed as recently as 1958. Benedict is modifying a modification which isn't as bad as it could be, and the essence is the same, but the fact remains that once you can change a word there is no telling what will be next.

The problem is that in changing this prayer Benedict is removing a verse from Scripture and inserting the words of men instead.

I don't see why this would be problematic for the SSPX since they already use the modified Missal of 1962, with its changes to the Calendar, Holy Week and Canon, instituted by Msgr. Lefebvre himself who sacrificially split his own Fraternity as a result of adopting the 1962 Missale. The SSPX-Rome negotiations center around magisterial questions than liturgical ones.

This is truly a sad day for our Church and for Tradition.

Ken, what you say is absolutely correct, this move on the part of the Pontiff pleases no one.

Gonzaga said...

While I am not a Sedevacantist, their philosophy regarding the liturgy is looking better and better.

Churchman said...

The rumors were saying this prayer is optional, is this so? Or is this alone the official new latin text for the 1962 Missal Good Friday service?

Anonymous said...

It takes Traditionalists forty years and countless occasions of being mocked, called names, insulted by bishops, and even excommunicated to finally be heard; yet it takes political zealots a few months to be heard! I guess we know the priorities of our beloved Church.

Anonymous said...

"it is worthwhile to point out that no Pope changed any prayers of the Missal before Pius XII."

This is quite untrue. The addition of the name of St Joseph to the Roman Canon is one example of a change.

Anonymous said...

Oops, that was Bl. John XXIII.

Anonymous said...

But here is what Wikipedia reports on papal changes of prayers in the Roman Missal of Pius V:

Some corrections to Pius V’s text proved necessary, and Pope Clement VIII replaced it with a new typical edition of the Roman Missal on 7 July 1604. (In this context, the word "typical" means that the text is the one to which all other printings must conform.). A further revised typical edition was promulgated by Pope Urban VIII on 2 September 1634.
Beginning in the late seventeenth century, France and neighbouring areas saw a flurry of independent missals published by bishops influenced by Jansenism and Gallicanism. This ended when Bishop Pierre-Louis Parisis of Langres and Abbot Guéranger initiated in the nineteenth century a campaign to return to the Roman Missal. Pope Leo XIII then took the opportunity to issue in 1884 a new typical edition that took account of all the changes introduced since the time of Urban VIII. Pope Pius X also undertook a revision of the Roman Missal, which was published and declared typical by his successor Pope Benedict XV on 25 July 1920.
Pius X’s revision made few corrections, omissions and additions to the text of the prayers in the Roman Missal. But there were major changes in the rubrics, changes which were not incorporated in the section entitled Rubricae generales, but were instead printed as an additional section headed Additiones et variationes in rubricis Missalis.
In contrast, the revision by Pope Pius XII, though limited to the liturgy of only four days of the Church’s year, was much bolder, requiring changes even to canon law, which until then had prescribed that, with the exception of Midnight Mass for Christmas, Mass should not begin more than one hour before dawn or later than one hour after midday. In the part that he revised thoroughly, he anticipated some of the changes that were put into effect throughout the year only after the Second Vatican Council. These novelties included the first official introduction of the vernacular language into the liturgy. Pope Pius XII left until after completion of the work of a commission that he had set up to prepare a general revision of the rubrics of the Missal[1] the issuance of a new typical edition of the Missal. However, he authorized printers to replace the earlier texts with those that he made obligatory in 1955 for the four days in question.

Anonymous said...

Nothing surprises me anymore. My family will just keep going to the SSPX Mass.

Peter M said...

Please have a look at Summorum Pontificum, Article 1(2):

"Art. 1. Missale Romanum a Paulo VI promulgatum ordinaria expressio "Legis orandi" Ecclesiae catholicae ritus latini est. Missale autem Romanum a S. Pio V promulgatum et a B. Ioanne XXIII denuo editum habeatur uti extraordinaria expressio eiusdem "Legis orandi" Ecclesiae et ob venerabilem et antiquum eius usum debito gaudeat honore. Hae duae expressiones "legis orandi" Ecclesiae, minime vero inducent in divisionem "legis credendi" Ecclesiae; sunt enim duo usus unici ritus romani.

Proinde Missae Sacrificium, iuxta editionem typicam Missalis Romani a B. Ioanne XXIII anno 1962 promulgatam et numquam abrogatam, uti formam extraordinariam Liturgiae Ecclesiae, celebrare licet. Conditiones vero a documentis antecedentibus "Quattuor abhinc annos" et "Ecclesia Dei" pro usu huius Missalis statutae, substituuntur ut sequitur: [...]"

Btw, it is clear what the legislator has written and what he wants, and if someone is to verify the prayer's catholicity, methinks that should be the Pope. Roma locuta, and today is Ash Wednesday.

Mike B. said...

Will SSPX follow through respecting the authority of Benedict XVI to adjust the wording of 1962?

James M said...

Benedict is "living the truth in charity".

This new prayer brings Catholics closer to the truth as well as Jews. God bless the Holy Father!

Anonymous said...

Dear Amateur Latinists,

the "intrante" is not the significant term in the sense being proposed by some here.

yes it is a present active participle, and yes the final pray is in the present tense. But the signification is in the future, because the Scriptural phrase to which the intrante clause refers "with the fullness of the Nations entering into Thy Church", is something that Scripture clearly teaches happens only at the end of time, because before the end of time the fullness has not yet entered. Thus the prayer that All Israel may be saved, which is in present tense, here has a future signification.

As for "All Israel" meaning the Jews, this is clearly not the sense in St. Paul, who uses the metaphor of the Tree, and the engrafted Gentiles, to show that with the conversion of the latter, all Israel will be saved. In this sense "Israel" is used litterally, but not racially.

The prayer objectively is a prayer to be used now, but it intends to pray not for a present grace, but for a future one.

As For Mr. Ferrara, I think nearly everything he writes is excellent, but his interpretation on this one is dead wrong: his error is that of interpreting a liturgical text politically, rather than attending to its grammatical syntax and the determinating sense of Scriptural Language, which governs all significations in the liturgy. Thus no catholic, in my opinion, can hold that this prayer is free from error, seeing that the Deposit of the Faith (Scripture and Tradition) clearly teach that the Jews are self blinded, betrayed the Convenant, and have imposed a veil over themselves in reading the OT, and that Christ comes to illumine some and blind others. To deny these prositions is heretical. To remove affirmation of them in the liturgy is a grave mortal sin of infidelity, and a grave scandal, objectively speaking.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo
www.franciscan-archive.org

Stanislas Wojtiech said...

This decision has no legal worth as of yet at all. A press release from the Secretariate of State has no binding worth at all, certainly not in liturgical matters.

First of all, the prayer must be promulgated in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, and then only after 3 months after publication receives binding legal authority.

6 February + 3 Months, is about 4 May 2008, after Good Friday 2008 (March 21, 2008).

See can. 8 § 1 CIC/1983.

Do not think we are obliged to print down a press release from the Secretary of State, and lay or glue it into our Missal(s) as if that were some infallible and impeccable correct and binding decree of the highest order.

Anonymous said...

Stanislas Wojtiech said "First of all, the prayer must be promulgated in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, and then only after 3 months after publication receives binding legal authority."

If that is the case could he please give the reference to where in the AAS the 1962 'typical edition' of the missal was legally promulgated.

Anonymous said...

If the Protestants are now outraged by the new prayer, which I read they are....then it has to be a GREAT thing.

Anonymous said...

The prayer objectively is a prayer to be used now, but it intends to pray not for a present grace, but for a future one.


It's my understanding that the Jewish nation will not be converted until the end times, when all the other nations will enter the Church. Until then --and only until then-- their hearts remain hardened for the most part. The new Good Friday prayer does not pray that individual Jews be converted in the future but not now; but rather it prays for the fulfillment of St. Paul's words in scripture -- how is that an error, even by commission?

In the old Good Friday prayer when we pray for the jews collectively, we are technically praying for the same thing -- to lift the veil from their hearts which will only happen at that time St. Paul stated.

poeta said...

Would an amendment promulgated in this manner automatically supersede local custom to the contrary? That is, where a particular local community has already been celebrating the 1962 Good Friday liturgy prior to 2008, will they now have to change the prayer, or will their local custom prevail?

Anonymous said...

It's my understanding that the Jewish nation will not be converted until the end times

While your understanding is correct your inference from it is wrong: some Jews were converted at Pentencost, some since, the rest at the end of time.

The old prayer made no distinction about when, it obviously prayed for their conversion now in the now and now in the future.

The new prayer prays for their converstion at the end of time, not now in the now, but now in the future.

Therefore it prays for less.

It also neglects the primary importance of the traditional prayer which was essentially a priestly prayer, not just a "prayer of the faithful". Because it pertain to the ministry of a priest to teach, heal and sanctify, each element of which is contained in the old prayer of 1948:

It taught: what Jesus, St. Peter and St. Paul taught (see my website's What's new page for the details)

It cured: because, according to the principle of you only get what you ask for, and since Scripture teaches there that the Jews have been punished by God with blinded and hardness of heart and have put a veil over their understanding of the OT, the curative prayer must acknowledge this and at the same time pray for these to be removed.

It sanctified: because it at once conformed the gentile believer and the unbelieving Jew to the will of God, by confessing and praying for these things.

Finally, I would point out that while there has been, according to Fr. Cordelius a Lapide, writing c. 1610 AD, 3 opinions regarding the "All Israel shall be Saved" (yes in the Greek of the NT it is in the future tense), it is clear from Our Lord's words in John 5.43, St. Paul's words in 2 Thess 2:10, that this phrase is to be understood not spiritually of all the faithful, nor carnally of each and every Jew living at the end of the world, but carnally of nearly each and every Jew living at that time.

Thus I take back what I said about it being "not racially" said.

St. Paul says: "I am not ashamed of the Gospel", and "Hold fast to the traditions which you have received from me when I was among you".

I will follow St. Paul and keep the prayer of 1948, which according to immemorial custom has never been abolished, nor can it every be.

Our Holy Father deserves and needs our prayers and fastings today of all days, that he may repent of this terrible error, which while not heretical, shows that he has not the courage to stand up to the wolves, and that the liturgical experimentation and fiddling on the 1962 Missal has just begun. Those who build their foundation upon that Missal will now have much difficulties, if they follow the Pope in such errors.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo
www.franciscan-archive.org

dcs said...

Pius XII changed only rubrics, it was Roncalli who introduced textual changes with something as seemingly innocuous as including the name of St. Joseph or removing a Confetior.

Pius XII changed far more than that; see Alcuin Reid's The Organic Development of the Liturgy for details.

Anonymous said...

The pope cannot amend the "1962 Missal" and have it remain the "1962 Missal." Well, not unless he's got the De Lorean on loan from Doc Brown...

If we have the least bit of intellectual honesty, we will have to speak about the "2008 Missal." And that raises obvious complications, namely:

(1) The Holy See is probably going to call the 2008 Missal by the false title of the 1962 Missal, displaying a scandalous degree of intellectual ineptitude and dishonesty.

(2) If the Holy See continues to maintain the rights of the "1962 Missal" it will annul this alteration entirely, which has about as much to do with 1962 as Heath Ledger's tragic death.

JAT

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said: While I am not a Sedevacantist, their philosophy regarding the liturgy is looking better and better.

Maybe you shoud be one!

Adam Barnette said...

This prayer looks acceptable, as long as the official translation says "the truth" (not a vague "truth") and the emphasis is on the Jews being saved "as" (not "when") the fullness of the Gentiles enter the Church. However, there is more to this prayer than its form.

The Pope has effectively altered a liturgical prayer because of the objections of non-Christians. This is unprecedented in Tradition and shows that like his recent predecessors, Benedict XVI is not above innovation at the expense of organic development. Future generations will always connect this prayer with the word “appeasement”, much like we connect the word “Munich” with the same, both to their everlasting shame.

Furthermore, this new prayer stands awkwardly alongside the unreformed prayers for Non-Catholic Christians and Non-Christians in the Good Friday Liturgy.

If we drop the words "veil" and "darkness" from the prayer for the Jews can we logically maintain mention of "idols" "false gods", "darkness", "heretics" and "schismatics" in the other prayers? Like I said earlier, consistency will win the day and these other collects will be revised under the same principle of maintaining the truth, while divorcing it from its traditional expression (thus making us ashamed of our heritage).

If we reject mention of the veiled blindness of the Jews by accepting this prayer, do we seriously think that we can proudly quote the words of Our Savior in St. John 9 or the words of St. Paul in 2 Corinthians 3 and the similar words by other saints and leaders of the Church before Vatican II? We cannot if we want to be consistent. It's clear - accepting this new prayer goes hand-in-hand with changing the ancient expression of the Faith into a "kinder-gentler" Catholicism. Unfortunately, in the process of doing so we reject more and more of our ancient expression of Faith. To neo-conservatives this is fine, but for traditional Catholics who understand that the ancient Church advocated a traditional praxis alongside a traditional Faith, this is unacceptable.

schoolman said...

Adam, why not simply connect the revised prayer with a *pastoral* intent. If we aim to convert the world we should be aware of the various sensitivities that exist that may help or hinder conversion. If altering the language removes a barrier to conversion then I think everyone can see the wisdom in that.

schoolman said...

Let me put it another way. If the substance of the prayer remains then why should we object to a re-formulation that removes potential obstacles to conversion? After all, the prayer is primarily intended for the benefit of the Jews. If we object we maybe should ask how much we really (really!) care about the conversion of the Jews.

Adam Barnette said...

Schoolman,

I'm all for being pastoral, but I don't consider the ancient expression of the Church's Faith to lack pastoral intent. This is our patrimony, our heritage as Catholics. If it can be revised to suit modern man and his demand for a gentle dialogue, this is tantamount to saying that the Church is bound to the winds of history and change and that we are wiser than our ancestors. Both of these affirmations reduce the Church from the ever ancient, ever-new Mother and Teacher of all to a weak, unsure shadow of herself.

Your comment reminds me a lot of Bugnini's view that the Sacred Liturgy should be reviewed in every generation in order to see how well it suits the sensibilities of the current era. As you can see, this subjects the Liturgy to the world instead of subjecting the world to the truth of the Church manifested in the Liturgy.

Besides, by opening up the possibility of removing a subjective "barrier to conversation", you cut yourself loose from traditional praxis. Without such guidance, nobody knows just what a “barrier to conversation” is. Is it the Pauline Liturgy, with it’s downplaying of Catholic distinctives? Is it the traditional Liturgy with only the 1965 reform to the Good Friday Collects (which, Bugnini, like you, justified as removing because it might be a barrier for those outside the Church)? In fact, such “barriers to conversation” are decided by whoever has the ear of the Pope during a certain era. Such things are disgraceful for our Church, which rightfully claims to be the ancient Church of the Fathers (a Church, which would never dream of revising her prayers to meet the mirage of modern dialogue).

Besides, just because modern man doesn't like to hear the tough reality of his situation, doesn't change the fact that the Church has a right to proclaim the tough reality. In fact, it is all the more reason to proclaim it. Modern man may claim that he wants to hear a gentler version of the Church’s Faith, but as the response of the ADL to the new prayer for the Jews shows, modern man just doesn’t want to hear the truth, period. Seeing this, isn’t the whole purpose of making our prayers more gentle an exercise in useless pandering to people who aren’t going to be satisfied until the Faith of Christ is entirely silenced? The trouble is not with the words, my friend, it's with the doctrine.

Anonymous said...

... why not simply connect the revised prayer with a *pastoral* intent. If we aim to convert the world we should be aware of the various sensitivities that exist that may help or hinder conversion. If altering the language removes a barrier to conversion then I think everyone can see the wisdom in that.

Are we to take it then that scripture itself, which the "offensive" language derives from is an impediment to conversion? Shouldn't scripture also be changed then, in accordance with the ever changing sensitivities of the times?

Strange logic for a character who associates himself with Scholasticism.

Adam Barnette said...

"Let me put it another way. If the substance of the prayer remains then why should we object to a re-formulation that removes potential obstacles to conversion? After all, the prayer is primarily intended for the benefit of the Jews. If we object we maybe should ask how much we really (really!) care about the conversion of the Jews."

The same reasoning (except in direction to the Protestants) you express here went into the formation of the Novus Ordo Liturgy. Judging from such similarity in flawed principle, we should really ask how much you care about the preservation of the Sacred Liturgy.

Besides, the Jews and all others outside the Church have revealed time and again that their opposition is not to the form of liturgies and prayers, but to the doctrine they clearly express. If we cannot change the doctrine, its futile to change the form of the doctrine, because that's not what is being really opposed. Demands to change the form are just a cover to water-down the preaching of the truth and always result in perpetuating a hermeneutic of dis-continuity (i.e. our ancestors were too tough in their language!) in the Church. I hope we realize this and reject such actions.

Maynardus said...

It was asserted above that "the FSSP...have a proper law through their papal decree of erection, which includes the exclusive use of the 1962 liturgical books."

I believe this to be an erroneous assumption. According to the text of the decree available on the FSSP website: "The members of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter...are conceded the use of the liturgical books in force in 1962."

http://www.fssp.org/en/decerec.htm

The word "exclusive" appears nowhere, and in fact this has already been tested - recall the infamous Protocol 1411/99 which established only that "the use of the preconciliar missal is conceded by indult" and is neither exclusive nor a right.

It will be interesting to see if either the interpretation changes in light of Summorum Pontificum or if the statutes are amended at some point.

Anonymous said...

Besides, the Jews and all others outside the Church have revealed time and again that their opposition is not to the form of liturgies and prayers, but to the doctrine they clearly express.

I think Pope Benedict is intelligent enough to know this, which leads to the question of why he chose to change the prayer in the first place.

Remember we're taking about a Pope who did something JPII never had the courage to do all the long years of his pontificate -- that is to freely allow the TLM to be celebrated. And Pope Benedict got it done despite the fierce opposition from all those Cardinals and Bishops and within a few short years into his Pontificate! He is clearly a man who knows how to get the results he wants despite the opposition.

If we cannot change the doctrine, its futile to change the form of the doctrine, because that's not what is being really opposed.

We are not changing the form of doctrine but a prayer. I think there is a good reason behind it.

We know one of Pope Benedict's main goals is to engage the world 's ideologies through faith and reason. Tough thing to do when you have a certain number of influential Jews on your back screaming antisemitism. Thus the change in the prayer has done three main things: 1) it has taken out the more negative language which categorizes Jews as being especially blinded, 2) all the while leaving in the intention that the Jews [present and future - it makes no distinction in the first part of the prayer] be enlightened into accept Jesus Christ as Saviour of all men; and 3) it has manifested to the public the real cause of complaint: that we Catholics still pray for the Jews to convert and accept Christ. Thereby any other complaints of antisemitism on the part of influential Jews are neutralized.

Abe Foxman is left troubled.

Ephrem said...

O Lord and Master of my life, take from me the spirit of sloth, despair, lust of power, and idle talk.

But give rather the spirit of chastity, humility, patience, and love to Thy servant.

Yea, O Lord and King, grant me to see my own transgressions, and not to judge my brother, for blessed art Thou, unto ages of ages. Amen

Anonymous said...

And today he wears sixteenth century style vestments...A coincidence, I think not. He probably is trying to smooth things over. Good luck!

schoolman said...

This from the USCCB:

"Central to the concerns of the Holy Father is the clear articulation that salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ and his Church."

There you have it folks. This was a move no doubt designed to correct any misconceptions relative to Catholic/Jewish relations.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2008/08-016.shtml

Response To The Publication Of Pope Benedict XVI’s Revision Of The 1962 Good Friday Prayer For The Jewish People


Statement of Most Reverend Richard J. Sklba
Auxiliary Bishop of Milwaukee
Chairman, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Ecumenical and
Interreligious Affairs


WASHINGTON – “The Holy Father has heard with appreciation the concerns of the Jewish community that the prayers of Good Friday should reflect the relationship between Jews and the Church put forward in Nostra Aetate, and implemented by the late Pope John Paul II. As Vatican II states, ‘God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues - such is the witness of the Apostle’ (NA, no. 4).

“The Holy Father has chosen to omit from his revision any language from the various editions of the (Latin) Missal of 1962 that have long been associated with negative images of Jews. For example, there are no references to the ‘blindness of the Jews,’ to the ‘lifting of a veil from their heart,’ or to their ‘being pulled from darkness.’

“Pope Benedict XVI has chosen to present the relationship of the Church and the Jews within the mystery of salvation as found in Saint Paul’s Letter to the Romans (cf. Rom 11:11-32). Central to the concerns of the Holy Father is the clear articulation that salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ and his Church. It is a faith that must never be imposed but always freely chosen.

“The Catholic Church in the United States remains steadfastly committed to deepening its bonds of friendship and mutual understanding with the Jewish community.”

Adam Barnette said...

“The Holy Father has chosen to omit from his revision any language from the various editions of the (Latin) Missal of 1962 that have long been associated with negative images of Jews. For example, there are no references to the ‘blindness of the Jews,’ to the ‘lifting of a veil from their heart,’ or to their ‘being pulled from darkness.’"

If this statement is correct, then Nostra Aetate is foreign to both Sacred Scripture (where Our Lord and his apostles minced no words for the unbelieving Jews) and the early Church, whose Fathers employed a strong anti-Judaism stance. So much for Nostra Aetate being anything more than a document without any connection with the ancient Church. John Henry Cardinal Newman says that any "development" that excludes the past (as Nostra Aetate seems to do with such words as "veils" and "darkness" and the generally anti-Judaism stance of the ancient Church) is a corruption. Ergo, Nostra Aetate and all that flows from it are corrupting the Church. This new prayer is ample proof of this, for it excludes past expressions of Faith.

LeonG said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
N. Wansbutter said...

I agree with all of those who are dismayed by this appalling turn of events. I've posted my full thoughts on this here:

http://radtrad.blogspot.com/2008/02/oremus-et-pro-iudaeis.html

Rather than copy-and-paste my post into this comments box, I invite any who are interested to follow the link above.

Gonzaga said...

Will someone please honestly answer this question for me: does the Catholic Church have a shred of backbone anymore?

Anonymous said...

Gonzaga,

The Church has no less backbone than She always had; but you must distinguish between the person who is Pope and the Catholic Church. The former is not impeccable, and only infallible in matters of faith and morals when imposing something upon all Catholics of all Rites.

That is why writers on this current topic like Mr. Ferrara are wrong, the change of this prayer is in no way protected by the charism of infallibility, since it only affects a missal used by a very small segment of the Entire Church.

With this change, we must ask the Roman Pontiff publically: Do you hold that the deprecatory languague in the NT against the Jews, uttered by Our Lord, St. Peter, St. Paul, and recorded by St. Matthew, St. John, St. Luke, etc. is sinful, shameful, erroneous, unChristian, then, now, in the future?

If he answers yes to any of these, he is a heretic.

But by asking him, we will give him the opportunity to recoil from the error which underlies this novelty which he has begat in cowardice and infamy.



Br. Alexis Bugnolo
www.franciscan-archive.org

Braadwijk said...

All I can say is that I am disappointed by some of the comments here. In fact, it's people like this that are the reason I am not currently a practicing Catholic. I suppose burning me at the stake would be "act of charity"?

1. Whoever says that the Mass has not been touched since Pius XII is ignorant at best, a liar at worst. The Pope is free to change whatever it is in the liturgy he wants save the Consecration.

2. The '62 Missal is not some golden calf on a pedestal we worship as the ideal liturgy. It, in itself, IS NOT PERFECT. Liturgy develops organically and is free to blossom on its own. It won't be perfect until there is only eternity.

3. The Pope merely said the same thing in a different way to make the people who protest the Good Friday prayers look even more like jackasses. You know what? They still are, and now they do. If you think this issue is as big as "pro multis", go to the pharmacy and buy yourselves some Midol.

4. I'm sorry, but "lifting the veil" and "perfidious" are not essential to the validity of the liturgy. To those with ill intentions, maybe. To the liturgical life of the Church, hardly. The liturgy does not exist for the sole purpose of lambasting the Jews for the Crucifixion so we can feel self-righteous as Catholics. The last time I checked, Jew-bashing was not a source of Sanctifying Grace.

5. I am certainly glad we have Benedict bringing the Extraordinary Form back into the life of the Church and not JPII. Can you even imagine? I mean, really. April '05 wasn't that long ago, and how quickly we've forgotten.

6. It absolutely infuriates the leftist scum in the Church that Benedict is bringing it all back. The fact he is even paying attention to the prayers in the Missal means that you will meet them in the pharmacy buying that Midol with you.

7. I suffered MISERABLY in a Catholic high school for my attachment to the Missal. They called me all kinds of things, but I have to say that these people are the real antiquarians. How quickly we show our true colors. As for me, the retribution is pretty sweet.

8. I can only imagine what you people would have been like when Pius V reformed the liturgy, or Pius X. The only difference is that they would not have put up with your BS the way Benedict does. He has been on our side and devoted the majority of his life to defending Tradition, and this is how you repay him?

9. Snap out of the "persecuted minority" phase. JPII is dead, and frankly the years of persecution however unjust have made you guys a little weird. Not everybody is out to get you, and certainly not our Pontiff.

10. Go outside, get some sun, take a deep breath, and pop that Midol every four hours until symptoms subside.

Anonymous said...

Braadwijk,

Other than the Midol reference, I agree with you completely. We are beyond fortunate to have Benedict XVI as our Pope. He has done nothing but extreme good for the Church. Everyone should stop all the complaining and rejoice in our good fortune.

Janice

Anonymous said...

Dear Braadwijk,

If you are not currently a practicing catholic, reading about papal scandals will not help.

You need to consider you own sin first, which is sufficient to damn you eternally.

Oh, and BTW, if you think Our Lord and the Apostles sinned by their deprecatory language against the Jews, you also have another mortal sin to confess, that of blasphemy.



Dear Janice,

The Pope is a hegelian; he does good and he does bad, but don't take his good as a justification of the bad. He'll end up pleasing nobody by tring to reinvent the liturgical renewal anew and will have even more chaos in the Church.

He will not suffer a dogmatic definition, he said as much in the L'Osservatore Romano in Nov. of the year that the New Catechism was published, more than 20 years ago. He thinks modern man cannot handle definitions because they go against his sense of freedom. That is why he is positively glad about changing the old mass,and will change it even more.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo
www.franciscan-archive.org

Braadwijk said...

Oh "Brother"!

As an expat in Germany, the only good thing I can say about Franciscans is that you guys brew one hell of a beer. (What would Francis say!?) I wonder if he's become an accomplice in my sin for having his good name on a beer that has given me many jolly nights stumbling through the streets of Braunschweig. Actually, I can come right out and admit it. I have a personal grudge with you guys. Deny a 20-something Absolution twice, tell him he's incapable of responding to Christ and nothing will ever change him, and ugly things will happen to his soul...

Thank you, by the way, for not responding to any of my points. Can I ask you what you do with yourself all day? You strike me as the type who can't seem to find an order "strict enough for what Francis really wanted", so I'm going to assume you don't answer to a superior. For instance, today I went to work and cleaned my lab space, I went shopping for food, I cleaned the apartment, I put together relief aid for friends who lost everything in their dorms at Union U., and then I took a nap. I also took time to check in with the parental units and keep in touch with the North American news. I'll probably head out to a bar and meet friends later on tonight for some more of that wonderful Franciscan brew, a few cigarettes, and the chance to converse with some lovely German ladies. See? I have a normal life. I do normal things that people my age do. I don't sit around at the computer all day obsessing about trivial things that are not my concern. I wouldn't even know you said anything had a friend not told me. Do you avoid the outside world simply because Francis didn't believe in tans?

Secondly, how dare you judge the Pope on his thoughts of the New Testament. Throwing stones in a glass house, are we? God does not judge us by how much vitriol we can spew against the Jews, and I don't really think He cares one bit about whether we call them "perfidious" or pray that their "hearts are illuminated", as long as we pray for their conversion.

"I can see it now. That awful Ratzinger, his long crooked nose covering his crooked smile as he fingers gold coins with his claws and sacrifices Christian children with Abe Foxman to celebrate the destruction of the liturgy! He's not better than a Jew himself!"

To answer you, I never said it was a sin to speak ill of the Jews. I believe they did kill Christ. The Bible's pretty clear about that. I really don't have a problem with what Paul and the Apostles said about the Jews, because the Jews at the time were not very nice to the Christians. In fact, some of them still aren't. The Talmud says far worse things about us than we have ever said about the Jews. You're the one who seems to consider it a mortal sin NOT to go out of one's own way to say the most vile things against them.

You also should consider your own sin, and might I add your own blasphemy, with the "How dare the Pope change OUR liturgy and tell US what we have to pray at Good Friday! Who does he think he is?!" attitude. It's neither, and to say otherwise is the epitome of pride. I wonder, personally, if the Pope is doing this simply to separate out the wheat from the schrot. Some people will stay rebellious simply because their lives have no purpose without something to moan about, including many American SSPX'ers. I wonder what they would do if they went to Mass in Econe and saw women in pants without chapel veils. THE HORROR!!!! If this is part of his intention, I'd say it's working perfectly right now.

As for you, Brother, spare me your Jansenist crap. Nobody is amused and God is not served by Franciscans tossing out fire and brimstone for their own jollies and whatever issues they may have. Get over your own pride and find an order so you can do something meaningful with your life other than damning everybody to hell for eternity on Catholic blogs. I find it a far, FAR worse sin to deny people God's mercy rather than presume in it. Since my experience I've come to believe most of the souls in hell are clergy and people of the more Jansenist ilk. For you, I'd recommend some extra strength Midol. If that doesn't work, try joining an actual order instead of just calling yourself a Franciscan and join the rest of us here in the real world.

Stanislas Wojtiech said...

I think Mr Braadwijk should be a bit more polite and not post infinite stuff over here.

As for those interested in the facts, I hereby provide the interpretation of the Vatican-based Walter Cardinal Kasper, who certainly knows Pope Benedict XVI personally, and interprets the "new prayer" - unlike the traditional 1,600 year old previous - in the TLM to pray not for the immediate conversion of Jews, or for missionizing of Jews (impossible for Kasper), but says that the "new prayer" puts the conversion of the Jews and their obligation to convert in the eschatological future, when the fullness of the Gentiles has entered the Church. Only after that can Christians "hope Jews accept Christ".....

But only in the end. Supposedly Jews are now still fine and for Kasper the Old Law is still valid, and the Catholic Church was wrong for 1,965 years that the Messiah came for the people of Israel and that nobody comes to the Father except through Christ.

Source: Radio Vatican. Cardinal Kasper. "No change, no missionizing of Jews."

It seems Rev. Brother Alexis O.F.M. who is a Solemnly Professed Franciscan unlike the layman-"expat" Braadwijk (are you Dutch?) is vindicated hereby, as well as myself who above predicted that the ambiguous new prayer is not right and is open for heretical re-interpretations, unlike the traditional prayer even in the John XXIII version.

David L Alexander said...

"I think Mr Braadwijk should be a bit more polite..."

...except that this way, he's in good company, and he can post all the h*** he wants at my blog anytime.

Ein prosit!!!

Marie K. said...

Maybe it is not about what the Jews think nor about SSPX or your personal opinion. Perhaps it is about the organic growth of a living Faith and the direction of the leader given us by the Holy Ghost.
Whether I agree with this or not is irrelavent. The Catholic Church is not a democracy. It is the universal Church of Christ. It is what Peter has said and I hope he will be obeyed. If traditionalists raise a stink about such a matter and cause more division it will give much fuel to those who try to label us as "divisionist, rebellious towards Rome etc..." In short, it could hinder the spread of what we hold dear and give us a bad name.
Furthermore - who are you to decide when you are to obey and disobey? No one is being asked to commit an intrinsically immoral act here. And keep in mind His Holiness has been most generous towards those who love the Latin Mass and is slowly but surely reforming the NO.
Personally, I think there are things which are in need of more urgent attention but I am not the one in charge, it does not fall on my conscience and I will not be the one called to give account of myself when judged by God. Perhaps we would do well to keep this in mind and to pray for the Holy Father rather than constantly critisizing him.

Anonymous said...

Pope is heeding Christ's call for all men to salvation!
The Pope calls for Jews to heed the need to convert to Christ!

The purpose of Our Lady at Fatima remains for us believers to join Christ through penance, sacrifices, prayers for conversion of poor sinners. All men are called to be saved by Jesus Christ. The Pope is listening to Our Lady by reaffirming the need for conversion to Christ by all men and not excluding Jews.
The new form on Good Friday will be this: “May our God and Lord enlighten their hearts, so that they may acknow-ledge Jesus Christ, Saviour of all men. Let us pray. Almighty and everlasting God, who desirest that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of truth, mercifully grant that, as the fullness of the Gentiles enters into Thy Church, all Israel may be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen. THANK YOU, HOLY FATHER!
Many are falling into the devil's trap. Very human, weak of faith.
What did the Angel and the Mother of God asked you and me: Prayer and fasting. Many of us as Lucia said ARE NOT LISTENING. Instead of arguing let prayer bring peace and grace to men. Fr. Galambos, o.f.m.

Jordan Potter said...

It seems Rev. Brother Alexis O.F.M. who is a Solemnly Professed Franciscan

. . . who, however, does not belong to any Franciscan community . . .

unlike the layman-"expat" Braadwijk (are you Dutch?) is vindicated hereby, as well as myself who above predicted that the ambiguous new prayer is not right and is open for heretical re-interpretations, unlike the traditional prayer even in the John XXIII version.

Ah, so because you and Cardinal Kasper agree on a misinterpretation, that makes the misinterpretation correct? Also, I'm afraid the traditional prayer is just as open to heretical reinterpretations: albeit different ones than the reinterpretations that you and Cardinal Kasper advocate for the new prayer. Any part of the liturgy can be misread or twisted, either accidentally or deliberately.

Anonymous said...

He'll end up pleasing nobody by trying to reinvent the liturgical renewal anew and will have even more chaos in the Church

Br. Bugnolo, there is no proportion in your thinking. You call this extremely change "trying to reinvent the liturgical renewal anew."

What planet are you living on? Overhauling every liturgical ritual in the Latin rite vs. a tiny cosmetic amendment to the Good Friday prayer for Jews. Come on. See the difference. See it.

JAT

Anonymous said...

Hey..everytime I talk some idiot speaks. I am the judge of everthing the Church does. Any change any alteration invalidates everything. This not just dogma,or councils or the Fathers. Everything must meet MY approval. Not even precedence or tradition matters. The whole hierachical Church is out to defraud us. It is all tainted. I am the definition of Catholicism. Everything I define is true. Anything or anyone who contradicts me a liberal, modernist heretic. I am battling dark powers of evil. My God help you by "removing the blindness" and "veil from your heart"!

Arvis said...

I find it a humorous fact that I am happening to read many of these responses on the feast of Our Lady of Lourdes. Responses like this one are particularly amusing: "So since now it's not missal 1962 - it's missal 2008. Missal of Benedict XVI."

How old is the Mass for the feast of Our Lady of Lourdes? Did it the Roman Missal become the Missal of Pope Leo XIII, when he authorized new Mass texts for February 11? Or the Missal of Pius X when he commissioned the writing of a new text for the feast of the Immaculate Conception? Of course there are many more such instances.

I do understand that people might find it important to dissect the pope's intentions, motivations, influences, tendencies, whatever. But I believe even more firmly in the providence of Almighty God. The goal, after all, is that we members of Christ's Mystical Body ask Him to convert the Jews-- to bring them into this same Mystical Body. How is that accomplished? Not by any rhetoric, even on the part of the composers of prayers. Only by grace. May He grant that, as sinful and silly as we are, we may--united with the all-powerful prayer of Holy Church--join in drawing down that grace. Just as we have been privileged to enter the Mystical Body with the vast fullness of the Gentiles, so may children of Israel share in this largesse. And may God forgive me, but I have not the innate charity to make that request of Him--and I would never have done so unless I had heard in the Scriptures the pleading of His Heart that this be so.

Anonymous said...

Responses like this one are particularly amusing: "So since now it's not missal 1962 - it's missal 2008. Missal of Benedict XVI."

How old is the Mass for the feast of Our Lady of Lourdes? Did it the Roman Missal become the Missal of Pope Leo XIII, when he authorized new Mass texts for February 11? Or the Missal of Pius X when he commissioned the writing of a new text for the feast of the Immaculate Conception?


Yes. Of course it did. The "1570 Missal" is the "Missal of St. Pius V." The "1604 Missal" is known as the "Clementine Missal." Whenever a missal is changed, it becomes the missal of that year.

It is perfectly accurate to entitle a Missal printed with this change the "2008 Missal." This change has absolutely nothing to do with 1962.

JAT

Arvis said...

Oh, yes-- I was not confused about 1962. (I mean, I did not think the change to the Good Friday prayer had anything to do with 1962.) Maybe JAT’s answer was not really addressing my train of thought. If it was, I’m still confused. To retry: The challenge to my comprehension springs from attitudes voiced more specifically by this blogger: "[Benedict] obviously doesn't share the view that Pius V codified the Mass in perpetuity." Is JAT’s response pertinent to that issue? Are there some traditional groups that use the Missal of Pope Pius V (as defined in JAT’s response, above)? Do some groups refuse to celebrate the feast of the Queenship of Our Lady, the Sacred Heart of Jesus, etc..

Do some folks believe that a change to an oration is an intolerable innovation, justifying refusal of the change? For the sake of argument, I want to set aside the issue of this particular Good Friday oration. I am not addressing an issue where a new oration introduces doctrinal change, nor the issue of some group that was established with perpetual right to use a “1962 Missal” etc.; I only want to know if it is intolerable, in some traditional circles, to accept any innocuous change to the orations or propers of the liturgy.

Anonymous said...

"[Benedict] obviously doesn't share the view that Pius V codified the Mass in perpetuity." Is JAT’s response pertinent to that issue? Are there some traditional groups that use the Missal of Pope Pius V (as defined in JAT’s response, above)?

Where does one even obtain a copy of the 1570 Missal? When was it last printed? I have difficulty believing that any traditionalist priest shares this deeply erroneous view of Quo Primum which expressly contradicts (or at least nullifies) a dogma of the Council of Trent: "It [the Council] declares furthermore that this power has always been in the Church, that in the administration of the sacraments, preserving 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" (Denzinger 931).

In the language of the Church, "In perpetuity" does not mean "until the end of time" but simply means there is no expiration date. The law remains in effect until changed by an authoritative act. This is important in liturgical affairs because it has been quite common for a liturgical allowance to be made for a temporary time period.

Nobody with the least education in traditional Catholic theology or canon law would ever interpret Quo Primum as these lay traditionalist arm chair theologians do.

Anonymous said...

"[Benedict] obviously doesn't share the view that Pius V codified the Mass in perpetuity." Is JAT’s response pertinent to that issue? Are there some traditional groups that use the Missal of Pope Pius V (as defined in JAT’s response, above)?

Where does one even obtain a copy of the 1570 Missal? When was it last printed? I have difficulty believing that any traditionalist priest shares this deeply erroneous view of Quo Primum which expressly contradicts (or at least nullifies) a dogma of the Council of Trent: "It [the Council] declares furthermore that this power has always been in the Church, that in the administration of the sacraments, preserving 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" (Denzinger 931).

In the language of the Church, "In perpetuity" does not mean "until the end of time" but simply means there is no expiration date. The law remains in effect until changed by an authoritative act. This is important in liturgical affairs because it has been quite common for a liturgical allowance to be made for a temporary time period.

Nobody with the least education in traditional Catholic theology or canon law would ever interpret Quo Primum as these lay traditionalist arm chair theologians do.

JAT