What Does The Prayer Really Say?
W D T P R S

With a tip of the biretta to Against The Grain    o{]:¬)  I alert you to this fascinating piece from Inside The Vatican edited by my friend Robert Moynighan, to which you should subscribe after you subscribe to The Wanderer.

(This newsflash will be followed by a full-scale commentary by Doino, in an upcoming issue of Inside the Vatican magazine, in which he evaluates the importance of this testimony for Pius XII studies, recounts the story of the shipwrecked Jewish refugees, the Vatican’s support for them, and gives clues as to whom the anonymous Jewish author might be. To subscribe, click here or, in the USA, call the toll-free number 1-800-789-9494.)

Pope Pius XII: "Be proud to be a Jew!"

In a remarkable historical find, testimony has emerged revealing that, in 1941, Pope Pius XII received a German Jewish visitor at the Vatican who was seeking help for certain Jews who were being held in an Italian internment camp. After welcoming the young man and promising him help, Pius told him not once but twice—in emotional language, in front of a large group that included German soldiers—"Be proud to be a Jew!"

The amazing testimony, written as a first-hand account by an anonymous Jewish author in wartime Palestine, originally appeared on April 28, 1944 in The Palestine Post (now, The Jerusalem Post), the most influential Jewish publication in the world at that time.

According to longtime Inside the Vatican contributor William Doino, who discovered the testimony in an archive, maintained by Tel Aviv University, "the testimony has apparently been forgotten, because, as far as I know, no leading Holocaust authority or biographer of Pius XII has ever cited it."

As the article reports, the Jewish author attended a papal audience in the autumn of 1941. He entered the papal chamber along with numerous other people, including a group of German soldiers. (It was common for soldiers to visit the Pope early in the war era. Later, when Hitler learned of what the Pope told them, he put an end to this practice.)

The author was the final individual to approach the Pope that day. He wanted to tell Pius about a group of Jews who were being interned by Italy’s Fascist government on an island, in danger of starvation. He tried to speak in broken Italian, but the Pope invited him to use his native language, assuming that it would be German. "You are German, too, aren’t you?" asked the Pope. The author then explained that he was born in Germany, but he was a Jew.

Pius invited the author to finish his story. He listened intently then said: "You have done well to come to me and tell me this. I have heard about it before. Come back tomorrow with a written report and give it to the Secretary of State who is dealing with the question. But now for you, my son. You are a young Jew. I know what that means and I hope you will always be proud to be a Jew!"

Pius then raised his voice so that everyone in the hall – including the German soldiers – could hear it and said (in a "pleasant voice"): "My son, whether you are worthier than others only the Lord knows, but believe me, you are at least as worthy as every other human being that lives on our earth! And now, my Jewish friend, go with the protection of the Lord, and never forget, you must always be proud to be a Jew!"

The significance of this testimony, particularly for the cause of Pius XII, is still too early to gage, but Doino believes "it may well be the most explicit single testimony about Pius’s personal feelings toward Jews that has ever been recorded. It is not too far removed from Pius XI’s famous declaration of September 1938: "No, it is not possible for Christians to take part in anti-Semitism…. Spiritually, we are all Semites." But Doino notes one great difference between the statements: "Pius XI’s remark to a group of Belgian pilgrims was given wide publicity and is often quoted; Pius XII’s statement has been lost to history—until now."

"For Pius XII to make this statement to a German Jew, in 1941, in private, would have been remarkable enough," continued Doino. "That he did it in public, with his voice raised so that ‘everybody in the hall’ could ‘hear it clearly,’ in front of German soldiers, as well as cardinals, bishops and other high dignitaries of the Vatican government, is more astonishing still. It doesn’t merely reveal Pius XII’s kindness and Christian compassion; he goes well beyond that and affirms the young man’s Jewishness, the very core and dignity of his being."

Attached below is the original article, as it first appeared in the pages of The Palestine Post, in 1944, describing events that had occurred three years earlier. This will be followed by a full-scale commentary by Doino, in an upcoming issue of Inside the Vatican magazine, in which he evaluates the importance of this testimony for Pius XII studies, recounts the story of the shipwrecked Jewish refugees, the Vatican’s support for them, and gives clues as to whom the anonymous Jewish author might be—the editors of Inside the Vatican

Note: the original article can be found online by accessing the archives of the "Palestine Post," run by Tel Aviv University, here.

Follow the instructions to access the April 28, 1944 issue of the Palestine Post, forward to page 6, and go to the article entitled, A Papal Audience in Wartime, by "Refugee."

I find this especially interesting in light of the discussion these days on the part of the more traditionally minded about the Good Friday prayer controversy aroused again by Summorum Pontificum.

There is more to that article.  Go read it. 

 

The highly estimable Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, His Excellency Most Reverend Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige gave an interview to Bruno Volpe of Petrus where you can find the original Italian. 

Rorate has their own translation, but here is mine with my emphases:

Your Excellency, what kind of reception has Benedict XVI´s Motu Proprio which liberalized the Holy Mass according to the Tridentine Rite had?  Some, in the very bosom of the Church, have got their noses bent out of shape…

"There have been positive reactions and, it’s pointless to deny it, criticisms and opposing positions, also on the part of theologians, liturgists, priests, Bishops, and even Cardinals. Frankly, I don’t understand this distancing from, and, let’s just say it, rebellion against the Pope. I invite all, above all shepherds, to obey the Pope, who is the Successor of Peter. Bishops, in particular, swore loyalty to the Pontiff: they must be consistent and faithful to their commitment."

In your view, what are these demonstrations against the Motu Proprio due to?

"You know there have been, on the part of some dioceses, even interpretative documents which inexplicably aim at putting limits on the Pope’s Motu Proprio. Behind these actions there are hidden, on one hand, prejudices of an ideological kind and, on the other hand, pride, one of the gravest sins. I repeat: I call on everyone to obey the Pope. If the Holy father decided he had to issue the Motu Proprio, he had his reasons which I share entirely."

The derestriction of the the Tridentine Rite by Benedict XVI appears to be the right remedy for the many liturgical abuses sadly recounted after the Second Vatican Council with the ‘Novus Ordo’...

"Look, I don’t want to criticize the ‘Novus Ordo’. But I have to laugh when I hear it said, even by friends, that in a some parish, a priest is a ‘saint’ because of his homily or how well he speaks. Holy Mass is sacrifice, gift, mystery, independently of the priest celebrating it. It is important, nay rather, fundamental that the priest step aside: the protagonist of the Mass is Christ. So I really don’t understand these Eucharistic celebrations turned into shows with dances, songs or applause, as frequently happens with the Novus Ordo."

Monsignor Patabendige, your Congregation has repeatedly denounced these liturgical abuses…

"True. However, there are so many documents which have sadly remained dead letters, winding up on dusty shelves or, worse yet, in waste baskets."

Another point: one often hears very long homilies…

"This is an abuse too. I’m against dances and applause during Masses, which aren’t a circus or stadium. Regarding homilies, they must be about, as the Pope has underscored, the catechetical dimension exclusively, avoiding sociologizing and pointless chatter. For example, priests jump onto some political point because they didn’t prepare their homily well, which really ought to be scrupulously worked on. An excessively long homily is synonymous with poor preparation: the right length of time for a sermon should be 10 minutes, 15 at most. You have to remember that the high point of the celebration is the Eucharistic mystery, without of course  intending to downplay the liturgy of the Word, but rather to make clear how to carry out a correct liturgy."

Returning to the Motu Proprio: some criticize the use of Latin during Mass…

"The Tridentine Rite is part of the tradition of the Church. The Pope has duly explained the reasons for his provision, an act of liberty and justice towards traditionalists. As for Latin, I would underscore that it was never been abolished and, what is more, that it secures the universality of the Church. But I repeat: I urge priests, bishops, and cardinals to obedience, setting aside every kind of pride and prejudice."

I have a couple observations.

Archbp. Ranjith identifies resistance to Summorum Pontificum, that is, attempting to impose restrictions on the Pope’s wide provisions, as a manifestation of the sin of pride. 

Ranjith firmly establishes that Christ is the true actor in the Mass.  Thus, since He is the Actor, what He does in the liturgy (the Church’s texts and the our gestures defined by rubrics) is Christ acting and speaking through us.  Our active participation, therefore, be characterized by active participation by active receptivity. 

Since Christ is the true Actor, the priest needs to get out of the way and not impose too much his own personality on any liturgical action.  The older form of Mass, in its precision of rubrics first and foremost, but also its gestalt tends to control the priest.  The newer form of Mass frees him up in a way that is a little risky.  Also, we could say that the ad orientem manner of saying Mass also helps to get the priest out of the way so that everyone can focus more fully on the Lord together. 

About that phrase of "liberty and justice" towards "traditionalists".  In an amazing coincidence I was reading this morning a new little book by a liturgist at the liturgical institute Sant’Anselmo in Rome, Andrea Grillo (born 1961) entitled Oltre Pio V... Beyond Pius V.  Though I am not too far into this book, and probably won’t go much further, Grillo takes exception to the argument in favor of the provisions of Summorum Pontificum based on "freedom" of rites.   I will look over that section again and maybe post some comments on it elsewhere.  But it strikes me that Archbp. Ranjith knows precisely who, in Rome and around the world, is fighting the Motu Proprio and with what arguments.

Therefore, WDTPRS will continue to keep and eye on things and let people know what is going on.  If I can’t always provide lots of analysis or review everyone you readers inform me about, I can at least put certain positive and negative positions in the spotlight.  You can do your own digging and decide what is going on.

 

Today in St. Peter’s Basilica, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI celebrated Mass in suffrage of his predecessors.

Note the color of vestments: red.

Red is used for Masses and funerals for Popes in this manner.

Also, today was, nisi fallor, the first Mass fully guided by the new papal M.C., Mons. Guido Marini.

If anyone was wondering, the M.C. is setting a new standard for choir dress:

 

 

Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines has issued a statement about Summorum Pontificum.  It was probably penned by Fr. Anscar Chupungco, OSB.  This is one of the olympian reformers of the liturgy after Vatican II and a guru of inculturation. 

My emphases and comments.

Episcopal Commission on Liturgy
Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines

 Clarifications on Summorum Pontificum

Pope Benedict XVI published the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum on July 7, 2007 with effectivity on September 14, 2007. The Episcopal Commission on Liturgy received several requests to clarify certain issues regarding its contents and implementation.  [So, the conference is not waiting for clarifications from the Holy See?]

•    What is the aim of the Apostolic Letter?
The Apostolic Letter was published to seek “interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church”, that is, with those who still [this taints the approach to the Motu Proprio] adhere to the Missal of Pius V. It is also a reaction [again, another word that taints the provisions and makes it seem "reactionary"] to what is [sic] perceived [again, the taint] as “abuses” in the celebration of the Mass after Vatican II.
 
•    Are there now two rites of the Roman Missal?  [NB: the question is about "rites"]
Summorum Pontificum distinguishes two forms of celebrating the one and the same Roman Rite, namely, “forma ordinaria” and “forma extraordinaria”. The ordinary form is the 1970 Missal of Pope Paul VI revised by authority of Vatican II. The extraordinary form is the Tridentine Missal published in 1962 by Pope John XXIII.  [Did you see the word "rite" in the answer?  The answer concerned forms, which is very proper, but only partially.  I suspect that the author in fact wants there to be two rites, so that other rites can be identifed and placed on the same level, inculturated local rites.]
 
•    What would be an implication [The writer gets it: the use of the older form of Mass today really does mean something significant.]  of the “forma extraordinaria” of the Roman Missal? [Watch this move.]
The hermeneutics of continuity [The Pope’s key concept for understanding his vision for the Church and his "Marshall Plan".] means that the 1970 Missal is a Vatican II revision of the Tridentine, while the hermeneutics of legitimate progress [WHOA!  This throws a whole new X factor in.] could justify the inclusion of inculturated liturgies as other extraordinary forms of the same Roman Rite. [The idea here is that if this older expression of the Roman Rite is legitimate, in a spirit of continuity, then we are also justified in developing new forms which are less Roman and more local.  See what is going on?]
 
•    What are some of the important conditions for celebrating according to the 1962 Missal?
Those who wish to celebrate it [Keep in mind that the writer and others in his galaxy understand as a necessary starting point for "active participation" (understood in their way) that the congregation is also the celebrant of the liturgy.] should possess “a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language”. [If they want to insist also that the congregation is a celebrant sine quibus non then they could argue that if people don’t know Latin to a degree that satisfies them (the experts who are the judges of all things) then the use of the older Missal cannot be permitted.  See what they are doing?]  Furthermore, the Missal to be used should be the 1962 edition. [A good point.  I agree entirely.] It is important to remember that the 1962 Missal requires the use of the Latin language (except for the readings and the homily), particular liturgical furnishings, vestments, [We can quibble with this a little.  I can’t think of many things required for the older form that aren’t also used for the newer, including vestments.] books, and liturgical calendar. Lastly, in order to be in full communion with the Church, priests who celebrate according to the 1962 Missal must, as a matter of principle, accept the validity of the 1970 Missal.
 
•    What other liturgical rites are included in the permission?
Besides the 1962 Roman Missal, permission is granted to use the other Tridentine Rituals of baptism, confirmation, marriage, penance, anointing of the sick, funerals, and the Roman Bre