Rorate Caeli

"...obey with submission"

No official reaction yet from the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) on the alteration of the Prayer for the Jews in the Good Friday liturgy according to the Missale Romanum of 1962. However, it should be noted that the Transalpine Redemptorists, a religious order which has always been closely linked with the SSPX, have made their official position known:

In what concerns the Solemn Prayers of the Good Friday Liturgy, the Transalpine Redemptorists will obey with submission the newly promulgated Prayer for the Jews as ordered by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI on February 4th 2008.

Fr. Michael Mary, C.SS.R.
Vicar General
8 February, 2007
___________
Tip: reader

78 comments:

Anonymous said...

It is difficult to say what this really entails. We all obey with submission what the Pope enacts as Supreme Legislator. But the question, of course, is what the law requires of us. For example, laics everywhere can lawfully ignore the change. Since this is lawful, they do so while obeying with submission. Good Friday is not a holyday of obligation; and, since Vatican II, we are free even to attend Protestant liturgies without general restriction. It follows that we can attend S.S.P.X Good Friday Services.

We are also free under the law to read the 1962 words as the priest intones the 2008 words. Even the obligation to 'hear Mass' does not apply except on a holyday. And we are free to prefer to attend the Eastern Divine Liturgies on Good Friday.


In the case of priests, obeying with submission depends on what books these priests are bound to use. However, even if all priests are bound to use the 2008 text here, they can avoid this by refusing to offer Good Friday Prayers in the first place. That is possible because Good Friday is also one of the days when priests--even parish priests--are not strictly bound to offer liturgical services.

P.K.T.P.

Trad-Knight-of-the-Immaculata said...

I have heard some FSSP Priests have forbidden any association with this order because of their connection with the SSPX. But if you've seen the video on Youtube of that atheist who was brought to tears after spending just one day with them then I don't see how anyone could believe they are not doing God's work. And this seems to show they are indeed obedient to Rome and the Holy Father.

Anonymous said...

Awesome.

JAT

schoolman said...

"...I came not to bring peace but the sword..."
=================

I wonder if this will have the effect of separating those sheep that are really "His" from those that only claim to be. Perhaps the humble will be constrained to part ways with the proud.

Anonymous said...

The following is the most concise, non-"partisan," and satisfying explanation that I have yet read concerning the altered prayer for the Jews just issued by the Holy Father for use in the extraordinary form:

"The new prayer was written by Pope Benedict himself and keeps the key idea of conversion to Christ. It situates the Jewish people as one group among all the groups of humankind who are offered conversion and salvation through Christ.

"Although the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews had previously been revised by Blessed Pope John XXIII, some still found a hint in it that it was offered at rather than for the Jews. This possible ambiguity has now been removed."

From the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales.

I like that way of thinking.

Pablo said...

Hold it right there Anonymous!

".....we are free even to attend Protestant liturgies without general restriction."

Roman Catholics, even the heretic ones, have never and will never have permission from Holy Mother Church to attend Protestant 'Services'. If someone was able to bull jive that one through Vatican II, it was probably the same Masonic Potentate in the Vatican that convinced many Catholics it is alright to join the Freemasons.

While we are on the suject, these Prods are raping the Bride of Christ when they set up a 'church' and start stealing souls and collecting money for their boloney. If you want to be a part of their heresy, do so, but don't call yourself Catholic; you even offend us hypocrites when you do that.
By the way, several years ago the Vatican stated the Sunday obligation to attend Mass is fulfilled if we attend Mass at an SSPX Chapel.
So get off that Novus Ordo hate the Traditional Mass and Church and the SSPX bandwagon; the wheels fell off of it when Pope Benedict XVI took over.

I guess you Roman Protestants will just have to find someone and something else to hate. And don't tell me you guys don't hate. We have had to suffer you all for forty years.

Adam Barnette said...

I honestly didn't expect this from the Transplantine Redemptorists. Given that they are aligned with the SSPX, I wonder if the Society will also use this prayer.

Nevertheless, it is a disgrace that the traditional prayer was stripped of its reference to the veil over the hearts of the Jews (even if the same idea is maintained), along with mention of their blindness and darkness.

The Pope neutered an ancient prayer of the Roman Liturgy because some people thought it was too offensive. Talk all we like about the orthodoxy of the new prayer, this fact cannot be evaded. Such revision and for such motives is unprecedented and if we accept the application of this principle of appeasement, we have put in a place a principle that, logically, could be applied a hundred times over to the detriment of our Roman Liturgy.

Accepting a principle, while limiting its application to only one instance is arbitrary and can never be defended. Make no mistake about it - if we accept this new prayer we are bound to allow any other prayer in the Liturgy to be modified to sound more palatable to modern man. And, flowing from this, we must logically hide the words and actions of our ancestors that might also be deemed offensive. We may not go that far, personally, but once we’ve enshrined the principle, the applications are free to vary. This is a principle unknown in the history and Tradition of the Church and must be resisted not only in application, but also in its very principle. The only way to resist this dangerous principle is to refuse to use this prayer.

Anonymous said...

Interesting. The Transalpine Redemptorists clearly have not given into a knee jerk reaction. They have reasoned their way through.

Anonymous said...

"The Pope neutered an ancient prayer of the Roman Liturgy because some people thought it was too offensive. Talk all we like about the orthodoxy of the new prayer, this fact cannot be evaded."

What you state is not an established fact, and has no need to be 'evaded'. What you state can be addressed head on: Pope Benedict may have altered the prayer because HE thought it offensive, because HE knows that the doctrinal hope of that prayer could be made even more urgent, more vital. Moreover, it is GOOD to 'talk all we like' about the orthodoxy of the reformed prayer in question because it IS orthodox, it DOES express unambiguously Catholic truth, and it IS an expression of the will of the Pope, who, with all respect sir, by his burning charity, outdistances you.

Anonymous said...

God be praised for planting and securing Fr Michael Mary and the Transalpine Redemptorists, true spiritual sons of Monseigneur Lefebvre!

Jordan Potter said...

Adam said: Such revision and for such motives is unprecedented

Can we really say it's unprecedented after all of the previous interventions and revisions of the prayer for the Jews?

LeonG said...

The prayer does what it ought to do - it prays for the conversion of the Jews to Our Blessed Lord. It also expresses prayerful hope for them to follow with the Gentiles into the New Jerusalem with all Israel. Surely, Roman Catholics desire this end for the Jews and for as many non-Catholics as possible.

Where blindness and heart concealing veils are concerned, these are not strictly only reserved for the Jews. Many church people today have their faith obscured in similar manner. There are those today who construe The Christ as only a subjective figure of sentiment denuded of His historicity and objective reality. This is a worse condition in some respects.

The fact that some Jews with political agendas, still dislike it is irrelevant and perhaps a good benchmark for its authenticity. But who really cares whether sedevacantist groups like or dislike it?

Furthermore, it is not The Holy Sacrifice of The Mass which is being changed. To do this would be another matter entirely.

In view of the circumstances, Pope Benedict XVI has done a reasonable job notwithstanding the slightly jarring plural presence of "ut" and "et". Thus, the action of the Transalpine Redemptorists is perfectly understandable. It also demonstrates the customary reasonableness of traditional Catholics when such matters are dispensed with all the necessary care and due attention to Catholic norms and values.

Adam Barnette said...

Jordan,

The revisions to this prayer only began in the 1950s with the addition of the genuflection by Pius XII and omission of the word "faithless" in describing the Jews by Bl. John XXIII. There is no sign that these changes were done to reject the words of Sacred Scripture and to move the Church away from her traditional anti-Judaism stance.

Adding the genuflection can hardly be condemned (especially since the Jews deserve the full amount of our prayers, arguably more so than others) nor the removal of the words "perfidus" and “perfidia”, which could have easily been done to avoid their misunderstanding as referring to a judgment on the Jew's moral, as opposed to religious, character. In any case, the changes didn't signal an attempt to hide the words of Scripture nor to be embarrassed of the Church's past, regardless of whatever intention Pius XII and John XXIII may have had.

However, this change by Benedict XVI is clearly designed to do this, as can be seen when we observe how this change came about and the particular words that were omitted. There is clearly a dangerous agenda here that has no pedigree in the Church’s history and must be opposed if we want to keep this softening of language from spreading throughout the Roman Liturgy and our patrimony, in general.

Poperinghe said...

The Transalpine Redemptorists said in their famed BBC film "if monks of the middle ages were here today the only thing they would recognize is the Mass." Guess that's not true anymore. So a canonically irregular monastery is now giving up the struggle to preserve the unadulterated tradition as handed down to us by the Fathers of the ages. My respect for them continues, but cooled as of this news.

anonymous said...

Look how easily the Traditionalists defer to the Pope, the same Pope who helped excommunicate Tradition from the Church! He throws us a bone, and now we let him do what ever he wants, even changing Pius V's perpetual dictate.

question said...

Any officIal response from the SSPX?

CdnTrad said...

If Msgr. Lefebvre were alive today, and a community claiming him as one of its religious influences made an announcement like this, what do you think His Excellency's response would have been?

Anonymous said...

We should be careful to draw a line between St Paul's firey personality, his anger and diasappointment with fellow Jews and the Faith of the whole Church. St Paul even said may the knife slip when refering to Jewish Christians insisting on the keeping of the Law of Moses regarding circumcision. Somethings change and rightly so. Our vitriol needs to change and hatred.
Just saying it is traditional is not good enough. We don't hand the unrepentant heretic over to the civl arm fron burning any more. We do not make Jews wear funny hats and identifying clothes. We don't insist any newly elected pope get the nod from the Hapsburg Holy Roman Emperor. We don't employ castrati in the Sistine Chapel.
I think just reacting badly to all change is wrong. Likely just accepting all change without examining and testing it is also wrong.

gonzaga said...

Very sad indeed, let's hope the SSPX will not remove the BIBLICAL VERSE from the liturgy as these redemptorists did.

Poperinghe said...

Maybe the C.SS.R's are planning a reunion in the same manner as Campos or the Institute of Good Shepherd, that is without the SSPX.

Benedict is a great Pope, and all members of Tradition should thank God for his glorious reign. I think this change of prayer is going to backfire on the politically-correct members of the Vatican crowd, because now conversion is not an antiquated notion, as the '62 Missal could have been passed off as.

The Church is this alteration also proclaims a reassertion of our Lord's centrality to man's being.

Mark said...

gonzaga: I was under the impression the new prayer was bibilical too?

Braadwijk said...

I still fail to see how the actions of the Pope are "stripping" the liturgy of all its efficacy. Just a few thoughts:

- The monks of the Middle Ages would not have recognized the '62 Missal as normal, as poperinghe seems to think. They would certainly know it was a Catholic Mass, but the Mass of the Middle Ages was a different animal in its Rubrics.

- I don't see what the big deal is with one scriptural reference being altered. It is not the first time in the Church's liturgy Biblical references have been switched and even abolished. It was done as late at Pius XII.

- Pius V certainly knew about organic development of the liturgy. He did not intend the liturgy to remain in amber, and he most certainly expected this as the Church Militant's work is never done until the end. New saints are canonized, there are new enemies to be fought, there are changing circumstances, and until Judgement this will always be so. The Church's liturgy must be free to grow with these changes and become an expression of the Church and all her history.

-To assume the Pope changed this prayer to suit Abe Foxman puts words into his mouth and makes absurd judgements. The man stood up to Nazism (the ugly consequences of which I see daily), and thus I highly doubt he's going to shake in his boots at the dictates of a self-righteous idiot running the ADL.

-"What would ML have had to say about this?" This mentality is the reason there are literally thousands of different Protestant sects. I've left the initials to make the point.

- I'm still waiting for somebody to point out just how awful it is that the Pope did this, why he had no authority to do it (Don't you touch OUR Mass and tell US how WE should pray!), and how this somehow makes this prayer any less effective at its ultimate end, which is the conversion of the Jews?

...and for the record, I am not Dutch. :)

Anonymous said...

"Somethings change and rightly so. Our vitriol needs to change and hatred."

If you think that the traditional Good Friday prayers of the church were based on vitriol and hatred, you are an evil and blasphemous fool. In which case, handing YOU over to the civil authorities for burning would be an excellent idea, were it still possible.

Anonymous said...

"Duces caeci: excolantes culicem camelum autem gluttientes." (Mt 23:24)

James M said...

Please can those who dare to show charity toward the Jews please stop posting anonymously. We need your light to shine!

And those who cannot abide the Jews, please read Hosea, please read the Bible, please listen to some Jews. Why do you think God chose them?

Anonymous said...

Although I object to the change in the prayer for the sake of these Jews and their objections, it is not as bad as I had feared. The concept of Jewish conversion to Jesus Christ is still there.
That the Jews object right off to the NEW prayer, is proof that Benedict XVI kept the original intent while discarding the more inflammatory passages. If the Jews are still upset....to bad.
The Transalpine Redemptorists, numbering about 50 members, represents a very strict interpretation of the Redemptorist rule and lifestyle. It isn't exactly the same as the original of St. Alphonsus de Ligouri, and that's ashame. For example, there's nowhere in the Redemptorist rule where each member lives in his own seperate little detached cell (in the style of the Camaldolese), as they do on Papa Stronsay Island in the British Channel which the Transalpine Redemptorists own.
The strict Redemptorist life was always lived in monasteries or religious houses with the community under one roof, not in little cells. Also, I have not been able to find any references to the original Redemptorists being bi-ritual (Latin and Byzantine rite members), as are the Transalpine Redemptorists (all in the 1 community).
It would have been better to re-establish a strict branch of the Redemptorists according to the rule and practice of the Redeptorists before Vatican II, when they had grown to over 16,000 members. Vatican II has destroyed the Redemptorist Order (-10,000 since Vatican II), as well as the Redemptoristine Order of cloistered nuns which once had a very strict lifestyle and one of the most unique religious habits (color wise) in the world. It was a red tunic, royal blue scapular with a painted medallion of Jesus on the scapular, white wimple, and a black veil lined in white. IN choir, the nuns wore royal blye choir capes. That's all gone now. I have not been able to find on the internet 1 monastery of Redemptoristine nuns which still wear the original habit. INdeed, the two Redemptoristine houses in the USA, the nuns wear either a very modified red dress....or in the case of the monastery in Esposus, NY, the 7 aged nuns mostly wear layclothes. There are less than 25 Redemptoristine nuns left in the USA, in 2 houses. The house in St. Louis has about 13nuns, the more radically liberal house in New York, about 7. The average age of both houses in the mid 70's.
The Redemptorist Order of priests and brothers has been destroyed since Vatican II. Despite their peculiar interpretation of the Redemptorist Rule of St. Alphonsus, the Transalpine Redemptorists represent probably the only branch of the Order whcih is true to both St. Alphonsus, and to the liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church.
I wish there would be a movement to try to start a traditional branch of the Redemptoristine nuns...even though they are clositered. It would be sad to loose their tradition, as well as the unique habit they wore. World wide, they are doing very badly with regards to attracting vocations.
The radical changes in lifestyle and discarding the traditional habit are the causes.

I wish they

Mark said...

Poperinghe:

"if monks of the middle ages were here today the only thing they would recognize is the Mass." Guess that's not true anymore.

- under your literal interpretation, it wasn't true before the change either. However, with a less literal interpretation, it is still true.

Anonymous said...

Good on the Redemptorists!
Hey why were there no prayers for Samaritans? They still woship on Mt Gerazim!
Could it be that St Paul never went near them with his zeal!

Anonymous said...

Quasi-random thoughts: 1)SSPX may have something like a constitution which specifies which books they use. They may need to call a general chapter meeting to vote on changing to the new 2008 Missal. 2)It seems to me the inclusion of perfidious/faithless made the prayer more precise. Christian Jews in the tradition of Peter, Matthew, Paul, the Rattisbonnes, former chief rabbi of Rome Eugenio Zolli, etc. are not being prayed for because they are not faithless. 3)Don't all priests have the right granted in perpetuity by Quo Primum to use even the first edition of the Missal of Saint Pius V? Louis

Anonymous said...

Yes, all priests have the right to say the Tridentine Latin Mass according to the first original Missal, according to Quo Primum.

But of course, some in the Vatican, and other neo-conservatives state that it is the "Missal of Bl. John XXIII" now, as of 1962. They don't even give it the name "Tridentine LAtin Mass" anymore, but rather "the Mass of Bl. John XXIII", which of course is B.S.

It's still the Tridentine Latin Mass, and any priest has the right to say it according to the original Missal. If I were a priest, that is what I would use.....and not the editions, abridged versions, or updates that have come along since.

Anonymous said...

all priests have the right to say the Tridentine Latin Mass according to the first original Missal, according to Quo Primum

So Quo Primum contradicted the Council of Trent, did it, depriving the Church of full authority to change the liturgy within the parameters imposed by the essential validity of the sacraments?

And all the popes since Clement VIII, who felt at liberty in 1604 replaced the Missal of Pius V have been apostates? St. Pius X himself revised the missal. What do you say to that?

This argument from Quo Primum is does such violence to the truth that it frightens me that traditionalists still employ it. Brother, please abandon this ignorance immediately.

JAT

Anonymous said...

Quo primum is a red herring. Get over it, people. The Mass can be and was changed since the time of St. Pius V. Your comments border on moronic.

Anonymous said...

"If Msgr. Lefebvre were alive today, and a community claiming him as one of its religious influences made an announcement like this, what do you think His Excellency's response would have been?"

Ignorance of the history of the Transalpine Redemptorists holds you from knowing how this community of Redemptorists "claims" Msgr. Lefebvre as "one of its religious influences"; by right, through conception, foundation and practice, all supported personally, spiritually, paternally, and financially by His Grace whose encouragement, affirmation and guidance, trustingly placed in the hands of Fr Michael Mary, C.S.S.R., lets flourish today a noble recovery birthed during the desert sojourn.

I knew Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre personally. His was a charity that covered all but sin. He rejoices still in 'his' Transalpine Redemptorists. So might we.

Carissimi: move from blind struggle to the grace of holy acceptance. Imitate the Lord.

Poperinghe said...

Braadwijk:

Your comments are specious at best, and quite simplistic regarding the "62 Missal."


As for Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, we wouldn't even have this Missal again, and these C.SS.R's would not exist either, if it weren't for him. Don't ever compare Lefebvre to Luther. Luther denied Catholic Truth, the only questionable action Lefebvre ever took was to consecrate bishops without direct papal approval.

poperinghe said...

vAnonymous:

I know this community was help founded by Abp. Lefebvre, that is the very point I was trying to make! You misunderstand what I said.

Braadwijk said...

If my comments are so simplistic, why have they not been answered? Surely if they are so easily laughable it would be nothing to shoot them right out of the sky. So go ahead. Prove it. Show me without a doubt that the Missal put down by St. Pius V is exactly the same in every detail to the one used, let's say, in 1945. There. I'll even try to make it easier for you. :) You can also show me how the Missals i use before St. Pius V (yes, Missals) would be recognized immediately by Medieval clergy as exactly identical to the ones used in 1945. To this point the only responses I have gotten have been ad hominem name-calling, and some even wishing that people like me could be burned publicly at the stake. How very "Shariah" of you. The way you people talk, you'd think the Missal was the Koran. You would get along very well with the Muslims here, at least in the level of vitriol you can spew against the Holy Father.

If you also read carefully, I didn't compare the good archbishop to Martin Luther. I pointed out that you guys do the same things the Protestants did with Luther. You use his example to justify doing whatever it is you please, particularly those of you in the United States. If the Pope came out tomorrow and declared he was never excommunicated and immediately normalized every single SSPX chapel and priory in the world, hailing Lefebvre as the modern Athanasius, you would cite the example of Lefebvre to tell the Holy Father to buzz off.

Anonymous said...

braadwijk:

The reason one doesn't respond to you is that it is hard to take your hyper-literalism and oversimplification seriously, coupled with your blatant ignorance of revealing tradition.

Anonymous said...

"What would ML have had to say about this?" This mentality is the reason there are literally thousands of different Protestant sects. I've left the initials to make the point.

Sure sounds like a comparison to me.

Braadwijk said...

Wow. What did I just mention about the ad hominem? It actually isn't my job to reveal Tradition. The Holy Ghost already did a fine job of it.

If my comments are so hyper-literal and oversimplified, then please enlighten me. It really is the least you could do for my poor, deluded soul. So go ahead. Pick me apart. Show me where I oversimplify and take things too literally. Shock me with your attention to finite detail and use it to show me how you justify spitting in the face of a Pope who is on our side. Point them out and astound me with your wisdom. If I'm so ignorant, and clearly do not have all the necessary knowledge of any "authentic" Traditionalist, please enlighten me. Let me also remind you that you still have not answered my chief question, namely why the Pope had no authority to do what he did and how his alterations to the Good Friday liturgy have somehow "stripped" the whole thing bare.

Often when the I-don't-respond because-you're-just-stupid approach is used, the person who uses it is not capable of holding the conversation.

Braadwijk said...

Again, read carefully. I'm not saying anything regarding the character or actions of Marcel Lefebvre. I'm talking about the mentality of using that rationale, a mentality owned by you and not him.

Franzjosf said...

Maybe I'm wrong, but I predict that the SSPX will use the new prayer. They already use the changed '62 Missal, and their patron saint changed the Breviary. Popes can make these changes. There is no state of necessity for using the old prayer.

I am a strong supporter of the SSPX, but as they know, being obedient means doing things we don't want to do. The new prayer is not heretical, regretable though the change is.

Anonymous said...

Your comments are specious at best, and quite simplistic regarding the "62 Missal."

...he wrote with over-simplifying speciousness...

JAT

Anonymous said...

Consider this for a moment:

What does Tradition mean if the Pope can prune it?

If the pope can prune it, then it must contain error or at least things which are not eternally true for all everywhere.

In such a case Tradition is not from God, and not inerrent.

But Tradition is part of the Deposit of the Faith, and if the Deposit has error in it, or can have error in it, then Our Holy Catholic Faith can contain error, and is not the entirely True Religion revealed by the God who cannot deceive or be deceived.

Ergo, our religion is false. Ergo we are all damned.

Since this conclusion is false, then the first premise must be false.

Ergo Tradition contains nothing that is erroneous.

Therefore the Pope cannot prune it.

Therefore we all have a right to it.

Therefore if this ancient prayer in the Missale of 1948, slightly modified in the Missale of 1962, pertains to Tradition, or expresses accurately Tradition, then the Pope cannot forbid it, and if he issues another version, we can all keep using the ancient one or the prior one.

Roman Cleric.

schoolman said...

Roman Cleric, your logic leads to a liturgical free-for-all without any common "norms". Norms can and do change -- not because they are erroneous, per se. Rather, norms can simply change for pastoral reasons according to the prudential decisions of the Holy See. Your logic ultimately undermines all authority.

Braadwijk said...

Roman cleric,

I find your logic rather dubious. For example, you seem to make a rather large jump between the Pope not pruning Tradition and therefore everybody having a right to it. However, to make this assumption, one must first demonstrate how the Pope has pruned Tradition. He has removed one scriptural reference from the liturgy (which is not Tradition in its whole), but has he removed it from the Church entirely? The last time I checked, the Pope merely changed one prayer in the Good Friday liturgy. He did not attempt to change the words of Scripture itself. Also, in order to prove the Pope has pruned Tradition, you must also show that somehow the ultimate end of this prayer (the conversion of the Jews, which the Church has always prayed for as part of her mission) has been changed. It has not.

To your logic, I would also offer these counterpoints.

- If Tradition is received inviolable, it follows that as a Pope cannot take away from it, and he may also not add anything to it. If then, every prayer and word of the liturgy is part of this revealed Tradition, are not all Popes (especially St. Pius V) heretical apostates who have done the following?

-Changed readings at Mass

-Adjusted rubrics

-Added and abolished feast days, octaves, and other liturgical cycles of the Church

-Canonized Saints and had Masses written for them

-Made changes and adjustments to the Office (also part of the liturgy)

I must also remind you, and you should well be aware as a cleric, that the Pope and the Pope alone is the chief liturgist of the Church and he alone ultimately decides how you are to say Mass. Simply because something prior was not against Tradition does not automatically give you the right to continue its usage. Pius XII adjusted the readings for the feast of the Immaculate Conception, for example. The scriptural reference to Mary as the Seat of Wisdom is no longer in the readings of the Mass, but this does not change this. Simply because both readings do not take away or add to what Tradition holds about Our Lady, you do not automatically have the right to continue the former usage. If you do so against what the Pope has established for the Church, you are in mortal sin. If you also take it upon yourself to use whatever usage suits you because of its language, do you not also show the same disregard for Tradition, which holds fast to Petrine Primacy and the right of Peter to lead the Church's liturgical life?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous - 9/2 13:19

The Priest and the two brothers all live under the same roof in Christchurch, New Zealand. As for the mixing the rites - I am sure that will change when there are more of them. God Bless them for all they do including accepting this prayer.

David L Alexander said...

Roman Cleric:

No folklorist, to use an example, would ever abide by the idea of tradition as something that does not change. The word roughly means "that which is handed down." Whether in the form of English ballads, or the Latin liturgical tradition, it is subject to development which is organic in nature. To say that it is "organic" is to assume both roots and branches.

While I would have preferred that the prayer remained in its 1962 form, the prayer as revised retains its petition for the conversion of the Jews, and the Holy Father is within his authority "to bind and to loose."

Adam Barnette said...

"I am a strong supporter of the SSPX, but as they know, being obedient means doing things we don't want to do. The new prayer is not heretical, regrettable though the change is."

If the SSPX accept this prayer, I will be more comfortable with accepting it. The Society has shown greater wisdom regarding the Sacred Liturgy than even the last few Popes (the prime example being whether the traditional Roman Liturgy was abrogated).

I've also been doing some thinking about how "regrettable" this change is. While I’m not ready to endorse the following explanation, it is one that I’ve recently thought up. Tell me what you think:

The chief idea of the traditional prayer is the concept of light banishing darkness. This, no doubt, came about because of the situation of Jews and Christians in the early centuries.

During this time, the Jews lived in a Christian society and heard preaching as a matter of course. The chief complaint of the Jews against Christianity was their claim to be unable to "see" Christ in the Old Testament. This issue undoubtedly led to this problem being the chief idea in the prayer for the Jews' conversion.

Now, while this remains essentially true, the chief vocal argument of the Jews of today is not a passive "I cannot see" approach, but a very aggressive "I don't have an obligation to even look" approach. As evidenced by the recent actions of Abe Foxman and the ADL, Jews of today believe, and make no qualms of proclaiming, that Christ is a Gentile phenomenon and that Jews have no obligation to be included in any call to conversion.

It is almost impossible to read the revised prayer as being anything but a striking rebuke to this erroneous claim. In the revision, Jesus Christ is not only our Lord, but also the Savior of "all men." God not only wills the Gentiles, but "all men" to come to knowledge of the truth. Not only is the fullness of the Gentiles to come into the Church (an event that, like the coming of God's Kingdom, is a present yet future action), but also "all Israel" is to be saved. This prayer effectively tells all Catholics and Jews that salvation is for Jew and Gentile, not only for the latter.

Like the formation of the original prayer, the chief obstacle encountered in missionary activity of the Jews has impacted the form of this revision. Once it was simply a claim to not be able to see Christ in the Law and Prophets. The Church reacted by making this the chief aim of the prayer. Today, the Jews arrogantly state that they are exempt from the call to conversion. Appropriately, the Church has reacted by revising the prayer to bring the universal call of conversion into greater relief.

This makes sense and far from the Pope caving into world pressure, he has caused the ancient prayer to reflect the chief vocal obstacle of Jewish conversion at the present time. Obviously, this change of emphasis will cause words like "darkness" and "blindness" to disappear, as these words, in addition to the mention of the veil, was only added because the enlightenment of the Jews was the main theme. Ergo, they would logically disappear if the emphasis changes.

The only problem I've ever had with the revised prayer is the replacement of "the veil" with "enlighten their hearts." I had assumed that this was a sign of embarrassment for the tough language of Sacred Scripture. However, the replacement of the mention of the veil isn't a sign of backing down. If anything, it would be necessary to change "lifting of the veil" to "enlighten their hearts" if the emphasis of the prayer changes from enlightenment to the universal call of conversion. The Pope felt the need to maintain the emphasis of the traditional prayer at the beginning of the new version and the best way to concisely work in mention of a veil and darkness would be to use the word "enlighten." Dark needs light and we express this through the word “enlightenment.” Retaining mention of a “veil” while omitting darkness and blindness would, arguably, be weaker than replacing mention of the veil with enlightenment, which works in the allusion to darkness/blindness in a more powerful way.

Now, while I understand that this reflection may be wishful thinking and Pope Benedict is out to appease the Jews, I still think my points are valid. They are valid because they provide a traditional interpretation of this new prayer, which unlike Benedict XVI, will be with us 50 years from now. Benedict XVI's motives may never be known and will not be passed down to posterity. The same applies to the motives of John XXIII in his revision of 1959. The prayer is what remains and if it can be interpreted in a traditional fashion, the credibility of the Church is saved for future generations.

schoolman said...

I think this small religious community has set an example for all traditionalists -- humble and obedient submission to lawful authority in everything but sin. We expect no less from every Catholic -- including those who are not so "convinced" regarding the Papal decisions found in Summorum Pontificum. I expect soon enough that the New Mass (OF) will undergoe revisions and reforms -- and there will be many who will not see the reason or wisdom behind the changes. Yet, we will expect these same to show humble obedience with submission -- after the example of this small traditional community on the island...

Anonymous said...

"The Transalpine Redemptorists said in their famed BBC film "if monks of the middle ages were here today the only thing they would recognize is the Mass."

The correct quote is that:

"if the first inhabitants of Papa Stronsay came back today, we would not be able to speak with them, but we would be able to pray with them".

Anonymous said...

I heard that they live in the the little cells because it fits better into the landscape where they live. A traditional Redemptorist monastery of three storeys would look out of place on a little island.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr Barnet, you wrote

The chief idea of the traditional prayer is the concept of light banishing darkness. This, no doubt, came about because of the situation of Jews and Christians in the early centuries.


Obviously you have never read Sacred Scripture, because the metaphor of light banishing darkness has nothing to do with the early centuries of the Church, but is found in Scripture, from the very Mouth of Our Lord Jesus Christ:

"For judgment I am come into this world; that they who see not, may see; and they who see, may become blind." (John 9:39)

As who are ashamed of these words shall be damned.

As who feign being ashamed to appease even the Pope, will also be damned, because they are modernists, for whom meaning is always what is apt for the moment.

I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Therefore I must be ashamed of the new prayer, because it separates our prayer from that Gospel.

We must, de fide, pray for the conversion of the Jews, not only in the future, but even now.

All who omit doing this, commit a sin agiainst true charity, and against the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

This new prayer is a slap in the Face Jesus Christ, and a thorn in His Most Sacred Heart.

Those of you in favor of it, have lost your senses, and have gown blind, even as Our Lord fortold!

David L Alexander said...

"Those of you in favor of it, have lost your senses, and have gown blind, even as Our Lord foretold!"

Pretty tough talk for somebody named "anonymous."

Braadwijk said...

Light banishing darkness has nothing to do with the early centuries of the Church? Oh REALLY? How quickly we forget the Last Gospel.

One can make the Bible say whatever he wants it to say. This is why we have the Magisterium. Christ does not desire the death of the sinner, but rather than he convert and believe. This has always been what the Church prays for, not that death and punishment be dealt out so that we may rejoice in the demise of others. I stand by my former convictions. You people have a sick, Islamic fascination with judgement and punishment of those who oppose you.

David L Alexander said...

Concerning the Transalpine Redemptorists, there is a website for them, as well as a documentary via YouTube. The latter is quite impressive.

http://www.papastronsay.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d20nzljVYPM

Anonymous said...

Roman Cleric: If the pope can prune it, then it must contain error or at least things which are not eternally true for all everywhere.

The problem with your position is that you underestimate Tradition, which contains not only eternal, timeless truths, but also directions for changeable situations in history. In order for Tradition to exercise this function, it must indeed be "pruned" by Christ through the Magisterium. Tradition is not a free for all so that each individual can have his way with her on matters that do not pertain to absolute unchanging truth.

My Lord, do you realize the insignificance of this change? It is substanceless and cosmetic and that's why Jews around the world are attacking it. While he is being assailed, instead of standing by your pope - Christ's own Vicar - you are attacking him from the other end. Uncool.

JAT

Anonymous said...

Congratulations to the Transalpine Redemptorists for their courage! Stay strong in the face of the naysayers. You are on the right track.

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

I don't believe the SSPX will accept this change. I agree with Fra Domenico that the SSPX will see this as just another move at dismantling Tradition.

Anonymous said...

The SSPX do not need to confront this, because they have what they need in Quo Primum. The change is within the scope of the Papacy, because it seems not to be a substantial change. However, it is rash and scandalous, because it will lead some faithful to abandon hope and will give ammunition to the sedevacantists. On the political, 'city of man' level, I see the tactic: to flush the birds out of the bushes by conceding to them a point, prompting them to reveal their true colors by protesting the louder. Is the change really legitimate in the City of God? Do we now have a 2008 Missal? I predict Rome will not soon confront the substance of the question, because then Rome would have to wrestle with this irreformable decree of Trent: Canon 13. If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema. This clearly shows the Novus Ordo to be illicit (though not invalid.) Louis

David L Alexander said...

Louis:

Can we assume you prefer the authority of dead popes over live ones? Are Pope Urban and Pope Clement in similar bad company with Pius XII and John XXIII for their audacity to assume they were no less the Successors to Peter than was Pius V? How much obligation does a live pope have to submit to the authority of a dead pope?

Does a dead pope not have bigger things to worry about?

CdnTrad said...

The SSPX does not follow the fullness of Quo Primum, they used the revised calendar and Missal of 1962. The Institute of Christ the King is probably the only non-sedevacantist group that adheres to the totality of the law in Quo Primum.

Anonymous said...

schoolman said...
"...I came not to bring peace but the sword..."
=================

I wonder if this will have the effect of separating those sheep that are really "His" from those that only claim to be. Perhaps the humble will be constrained to part ways with the proud."

It surely has proved an inducement for the arrogant to fly their flags, and by their glee at the merest thought of the loss of others to the Faith, their profoundest charity

by "unsquared circle"

David L Alexander said...

"The Institute of Christ the King is probably the only non-sedevacantist group that adheres to the totality of the law in Quo Primum."

Oh? The following came with an announcement of a Mass in the DC area, being celebrated by their superior general: "The Institute was founded in 1990, is based in Gricigliano, Italy, where the international seminary is located. Their foundation was originally in Gabon, where it still maintains several missions. By invitation of the bishops, the Institute celebrates the Rite of 1962 in more than 50 dioceses worldwide."

Well?

cdnTrad said...

David:
The indult given to the Institute allows the option of the 1955 Missal, and the Institute oratory I attend follows that Missal/Calendar.

Anonymous said...

Canon 13. If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema. This clearly shows the Novus Ordo to be illicit (though not invalid.)

This doesn't make an ounce of sense: Sadly, the Novus Ordo is a "received and approved rite of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments."

It is not the arbitrary invention of a maverick bishop or priest, but the arbitrary invention by the highest authority in the Church, which implemented it legally and authoritatively. It is a complete mess, but a licit and valid complete mess.

JAT

Anonymous said...

We are all so confused! Reactionaries who quibble over silly things like this.
Like pharisees and scribes!
When I read some of these posts I see how "weird" some Catholics are.... how wierd I must sound when I get on my own high horse!
Not all change is good..some is. Not all tradition is good. The wisdom of knowing the difference.
This is not change for changes sake.
Get over it!
Should I think everything in scripture is "divine" with no human element?
This change shows we love the Jews. What we did not change in the prayer also shows we love the Jews.

David L Alexander said...

cdntrad: Please click here, then get back to me.

Anonymous said...

Should I think everything in scripture is "divine" with no human element?

Huh??? Yes, you should! It is the divinely inspired word of God! If you think otherwise, you are no better than the garden variety heretic!

Ager Flandriae said...

If Scripture did not have a human element, it would not be intelligible to us.

Jesus Christ is the Word made Flesh. The Church is the Body of Christ. Scripture is the Word of God.

Jesus Christ = Human + Divine
The Church = Human + Divine
Scripture = Human + Divine

See a pattern?

schoolman said...

The AQ forum apparently has a commentary by Fr. Peter Scott (SSPX) regarding the new Prayer:

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=236804#236804

According to Fr. Scott the new Prayer...

"...is not acceptable to traditional Catholics, nor will it be used by them. Traditional Catholics will not accept that the traditional Missal be tampered with..."

Wow! I did not know that Fr. Scott had such an authority to determine what "traditional Catholics" will or will not do. I think the traditional Redemptorists did not get Fr. Scott's memo...

schoolman said...

This from Fr. Peter Scott (SSPX) posted on AQ. Astonishing!!!

========================
This prayer consequently favors ecumenism, and is not acceptable
to traditional Catholics, nor will it be used. Traditional Catholics will not accept that the traditional Missal be tampered with, and that Benedict XVI succeed in his plan of bringing about an influence of the
"ordinary" form, changing the "extraordinary form" of the Roman rite, as he calls it. Just as traditional priests retain the words "faithless" and "infidelity" that John XXIII tried to remove, so likewise will they retain the traditional prayer for the onversion of the Jews.

Yours faithfully in Christ our King and Mary our Queen,

Father Peter R. Scott

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18390

Anonymous said...

To think that Scripture is "divine with no human element" means applying Apollinaris' heresy to Scriptural interpretation. Scripture - bound in the mystery of the word - is as fully divine and as fully human as Christ himself. As a result of this analogy, I believe every Christological heresy has a scriptural equivalent. This one, expressed by "anonymous" is the heresy of Apollinaris.

JAT

Mark said...

JAT & ager flandriae:

I think we all see the pattern. Persons such as yourselves like to show just how silly you really are. You know full well what was meant. Stop being so senseless as to infer that the humanity of Christ is being denied. The scriptures are error-free and not subject to interpretation-except by the authority of the Catholic Church. Sheesh!

Anonymous said...

That's a cute superiority complex you have going on there, Mark, but look at what the guy wrote:

Should I think everything in scripture is "divine" with no human element?

Huh??? Yes, you should!


If there is an analogy between the incarnation of Christ and the inspiration of Scripture - and for millennia the Church has taught that there is - then the humanity of Christ is indeed being denied.

Are you, Mark, joining in this formula which denies the human element of Scripture?

JAT

Anonymous said...

The scriptures are error-free and not subject to interpretation-except by the authority of the Catholic Church

Oh, and Mark, the Church does NOT teach that the scriptures are not subject to interpretation except by authority of the Catholic Church. Now, that's about the silliest thing I ever read.

The Church, in reserving final judgment to herself, encourages anyone and everyone to interpret Scripture.

JAT

Anonymous said...

"This change shows we love the Jews. What we did not change in the prayer also shows we love the Jews."

You're the same ridiculous person who wrote similarly inane remarks in relation to previous stories.

For the love of God, please, please, PLEASE stop your nonsense!

Anonymous said...

"109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75"

"110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76
The prayer for the Jews is based on St Paul. Did he intend to denigrate the Jews? No I think not.
Perhaps his mode of expression is a question of his personality.
The Pope may change the wording if the aim of the prayer is preserved. It is the Popes right. Is it prudent. Only time will tell. Catholic Church Conservation has a good article on the history of the move for revision of this prayer. http://cathcon.blogspot.com/2008/02/good-friday-intercessions-long-history.html.
Take a look

Anonymous said...

I note that the T.A.R. are specifically saying that an ordinary structure is now being made available to them. This is HUGE NEWS:

"Can we continue to argue this [state of necessity] when ordinary jurisdiction is offered to us without any compromise [to] the Faith?"

Now, an ordinary jurisdiction is a diocese or its equivalent (cf. Canons 368, 371, 372--and 372.2 on personal dioceses especially).

Earlier in the letter, the superiors say that the Pope has intervened directly to assist them:

"We feel particularly touched by the personal intervention of the Pope in our favour."

I am asking that everyone on this blog spread this news as widely as possible. It appears that the Holy See is offering to the T.A.R. what was essentially offered to the S.S.P.X in 2000: a jurisdiction which is ordinary, exempt, international, and personal.

What I am suggesting is that the T.A.R. ask this for all of us. In fact, this must be in the works, at least as a 'project', since the T.A.R. are too small for their own personal apostolic administration.

P.K.T.P.