Benedict XVI to change the Good Friday prayer for Jews in the 1962 Missal

On the blog of Andrea Tornielli of the Italian daily Il Giornale we read a story that says Pope Benedict may change the 1962 Roman Missal‘s prayer on Good Friday for the conversion of the Jews.

My translation of the blog item with my emphases and comments:

Benedict XVI has decided to reformulate the text of the prayer for the Jews on Good Friday in the 1962 edition of the "Tridentine" Missal which was derestricted with the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, having received requests from many rabbis.  I call to mind the long journey begun under Pius XII (who had published an explanation in which he reminded that "perfidis" referring to the Jews in the liturgy meant "without faith" and he required the genuflection also for this prayer), and continued under John XXIII (who in 1959 eliminated both "perfidis" and "perfidia") and not concludes with Papa Ratzinger, who has eliminated the reference to the blindness of the Jewish people.

The article in Il Giornale says:

Benedict XVI has decided to reformulate the text of the prayer for the Jews contained in the "Tridentine" Missal derestricted by the recent Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum: The publication of the new text, completely reformulated, ought to come out in a matter of days.  Gone is the reference to the "blindness" of the Jewish people.  The new version will enter into effect already in the celebrations the faithful will follow in the older rite during the next Holy Week.  [This will make celebrations of the older rite for Holy Week far more possible and perhaps frequent in many places.  That is the upside.]

In the old text one prayed, in Latin, for the conversion of the Jews, asking God to take, "that people… from their shadows" and to remove "blindness" from them (the term borrowed from a letter of St. Paul).  As one might recall, after the publication of the Motu Proprio which derestricted the pre-Conciliar Mass, many worried voices were raised in the Jewish world.  The head rabbis of Jerusalem, the spiritual guides of the Sephardic and Ashkenazic communities, had written to Ratzinger to ask for a modification of the prayer on Good Friday.

It must be remembered that the journey of rapprochement was initiated already under Pius XII, who through the Congregation of Rites made clear that the old formulation "pro perfidis iudeis" meant "for the Jews who do not have the faith". [It did NOT mean that Jews were not trustyworthy, etc.]  Papa Pacelli reintroduced, moreover, the genuflection for that prayer.  John XXIII, from 1959 onward, also eliminated both the "perfidis" and also the following reference to Jewish "perfidia".  The text emended by Papa Roncalli, in the 1962 edition, the last of the old Missals before the post-Conciliar reform, was derestricted by Benedict XVI in the last months.  In the prayer there remained references to the "blindness" and "shadows" of the Jewish people.  "That prayer worries us", Rabbi Giuseppe Laras, President of the Assembly of Rabbis of Italy, told il Giornale last September. "We are afraid that those who read it could put two and two together and reason like this: if we pray that God lift the blindness of the Jews this means that they are outside the truth and this could incite people even to anti-semitism."  [I don't buy that would happen today, but I am not a Jew and it is hard for me to get into their head about this.]

Bishops and prelates tasked with dialogue with the Jewish world asked the Holy See to intervene and an openness in this sense was manifested last July by the Cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone who, at Pieve di Cadore, had spoken of a possibility of a correction.  Benedict XVI had prepared a draft for the new prayer that ought to be published in the next few days by the Congregration for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments.  According to leaks, in the new version, while the passages considered by the Jews as offensive were omitted, there would nevertheless remain the outline of the old framework of the prayer, namely, that of conversion.  It was precisely on this point that the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,(from 2003 to 2005 the second in command to Cardinal Ratzinger) Archbp. Angelo Amato, explained to the daily Avvenire that "in the Mass we Catholics are always praying, in the first place, for our own conversion.  And we beat our breasts for our sins.  And then we pray for the conversion of all Christians and of all non-Christians.  The Gospel is for everyone."  The decision of Benedict XVI is a hand outstretched to the Jewish community, who have invited the Pontiff to visit the Synagogue of Rome.  It is noted that Ratzinger would desire very much to be able to visit Israel in 2009, even if the present conditions of the bilateral talks between the state of Israel and the Holy See for solutions about some juridical and administrative problems are not at present leaving much room for hope.

I would remind anyone who thinks that what is going on in Italy or in Rome with all sorts of controversy with the Holy See and La Sapienza or whatever controversy is taking place at any given time, never to underestimate the impact that those Italian and Roman dealings can have on the universal Church.

Here is Reuters:

 Pope to change controversial prayer on Jews: report

Fri Jan 18 13:16:28 UTC 2008

By Philip Pullella

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – Pope Benedict has decided to modify a controversial prayer for the conversion of Jews, an Italian newspaper reported on Friday.

Il Giornale newspaper said this would involve at least the removal of a reference to Jewish "blindness" over Christ but the changes could be more extensive.

A Vatican source said he expected changes to be announced before Good Friday on March 21 this year, but had no details. Good Friday is the day Christians commemorate Christ’s death.

The Vatican had no official comment on the report.

Controversy arose last year when the Pope issued a decree allowing a wider use of the old-style Latin Mass and a missal, or prayer book, that was phased out after the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, which met from 1962 to 1965.

The Good Friday prayer in Latin asks that God remove the "veil" from Jewish hearts so that they would recognize Jesus Christ and speaks of the "blindness" of the Jewish people.

Jews have called for a change in the Latin prayer which, if left as stands, would be used by several hundred thousand traditionalists who follow the old-style Latin rite.

The overwhelming number of the world’s some 1.1 billion Catholics would use a post Second Vatican Council missal, which includes a Good Friday prayer for Jews but makes no reference to Jewish "blindness" over Christ.

The strongest criticism to the Pope’s decree has come from U.S. Jewish communities and there have been fears controversy could come up during the Pope’s U.S. visit in late April.

Benedict’s decree, issued on July 7, authorized wider use of the old Latin missal, a move which traditionalist Catholics had demanded for decades but which Jews and other Christian groups said could set back inter-religious dialogue.

Implementation of the decree has been difficult. The Pope’s number two, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, said recently the Vatican was preparing a document on how it should be introduced around the world.

Before the Second Vatican Council, Catholic mass and prayers were full of elaborate ritual led in Latin by a priest with his back to the congregation. [Inaccurate cliche.  You would expect more from a distinguished long-time Roman journalist like Philip Pulella after all this time.]

Many traditionalists missed the Latin rite’s sense of mystery and the centuries-old Gregorian chant that went with it.

Some denounced Council reforms that included a repudiation of the notion of collective Jewish guilt for Christ’s death and urged dialogue with all other faiths.  [Well... I don't know that any but the virtually unhinged on the fringe were clinging to calling Jews "Christ killers".  This seems out of place to me.]

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

87 Responses to Benedict XVI to change the Good Friday prayer for Jews in the 1962 Missal

  1. Jeff Pinyan says:

    I am saddened, although perhaps I should reserve judgment until I see the revised prayer. Suffice to say, the Scripturally accurate language in the prayer for the Jews should not be sacrifice for liberal, politically-correct “sentiments”.

  2. Ken says:

    Sadly, this would make me go to an independent or SSPX chapel on Good Friday. The 1962 version of the Good Friday has been watered down enough, but this would be one step too far.

  3. Jonathan Bennett says:

    How unfortunate. This is certainly not going to go well with the traditionalists, and the Holy See can kiss any future relations with the SSPX goodbye.

  4. Flambeaux says:

    If the SSPX are obedient, as they claim, to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, they will embrace this correction should it be mandated rather than issued as an option.

    While I’m not thrilled about what seems to me a hasty revision, I don’t object to His Holiness exercising his authority to remove a stick from the hands of those that wish to (metaphorically) beat us.

    It is a small matter. Let us see what, and how, His Holiness issues this…if the rumors are true.

  5. Somerset '76 says:

    This smacks of a backing-down from “preach[ing] the gospel in season and out of season.” Yet, let’s see the released text before we draw further conclusions.

    That said, I can see this being a significant new obstacle to a regularization of the SSPX, which I doubt will accept this alteration – especially since, as has been my experience, they retain the use of the original prayer contaning the perfidis/a. Indeed, it’s my understanding that a number of their chapels even retain the old custom of omitting the Flectamus genua for that oration.

  6. danphunter1 says:

    I, as well will assist at an FSSPX chapel on Good Friday.
    For the life of me, and a rabbi friend of our family, cannot see the problem with the present 1962 prayers of charity for the conversion of the Jews.
    This will lead to a great scandal amongst men in the Church, and will bring great pressure to bear on the Holy Father to alter many other sacred phrases and therefore, teachings of the Church.
    I can just hear it now, people will call on the Vatican to alter passage’s of Humanae Vitae, which condemn all forms of artificial contraception.
    “Its discrimination and offensive to our little group that has personal problems with not practicing contraception”.
    This is a great slippery slope into the abyss of relativism and the continuation of the chipping away at the foundations of revealed Truth.
    Kyrie Eleison.

  7. schoolman says:

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

    PS. What a golden opportunity for “traditional” Catholics to demonstrate a sense of obedience to the Holy Father and overall good-will — in contrast to the liberals and progressives who would obstruct the implementation of Summorum Pontificum. Let’s give the whole Church a positive example in this — rather than a pretext to further obstruct the Benedictine reform.

  8. Novak says:

    I hope this is not true, because if it is,it amounts to censoring Scripture because the Jews are offended.

  9. dob says:

    I think this is a distraction. The le Sapienza incident was beginning to look too good for the Pope. People were just beginning to see the ugly face that has been stalking them and making inroads. A distraction was needed no doubt. “The Vatican had no official comment on the report” enough said.

  10. Somerset '76 says:

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

    If that’s the case, it should have been a “matter of consideration” all those centuries ago.

    In the context of current world events, this looks like a sellout to intractable enemies of the Church. Nothing else.

  11. Jonathan Bennett says:

    Maybe we will also be required to cease praying for the conversion of the pagans and for sinners.

  12. Tomas Lopez says:

    And in exchange, will the Holy Father have those rabbis expunge the blessing Shelo Asani Goy? After all, it sets ‘interfaith dialog’ back 365 times more than the Good Friday prayer might (since it is recited daily by pious Jews, but the Good Friday prayer is but once a year). And besides, Sheloh Asani Goy is ontological, making it even more ‘hurtful’. Where can I find that wonderful article that Fr Z cited in which a chassidish rebbe suggested we not worry about their prayers and they not worry about ours? I would like to re-read that.

  13. Tom says:

    “What a golden opportunity for “traditional” Catholics to demonstrate a sense of obedience to the Holy Father and overall good-will—in contrast to the liberals and progressives who would obstruct the implementation of Summorum Pontificum.”

    Conversely, by simply retaining the prayer in question, what a golden opportunity it is for Pope Benedict XVI to demonstrate his commitment to the ancient and traditional prayers of the Roman Liturgy.

    It is also a golden opportunity to Pope Benedict XVI to demonstrate to the SSPX and additional “irregular” TLM Catholic groups that he does not find fault with the traditional prayers of the Roman rite.

  14. Humble says:

    We will have to wait and see how the prayer is reworded. However if it is going to be rewritten for the Jews it should also reflect a sensitivity towards fellow Christians. I trust the Holy Father to do the right thing and what is best for the Body of Christ. However I would be lying if I said I was not a bit concerned. Do Christians get to have offensive passages from Jewish prayer books removed? Are there any? Ecumenical dialog CAN NOT be a one way street.

  15. Michael says:

    It doesn’t really matter how small the change is. What matters is that the prayer is being changed because the truth it proclaims offends a a recalcitrant minority outside the Church. How can the Church condemn inclusive and politically correct language when she herself is rewriting her liturgy to divorce it from it’s scriptural basis and make the lex orandi more inclusive. What a sad day for the Church.

    Most traditionalists who love the traditional Roman Rite will be dismayed by this. I for one would rather that the Motu Proprio had never seen the light of say than that it be released and subject to the whims of anti-catholic liberals. With so many news reports, and the Vatican’s refusal to comment, we can be sure that it’s going to happen. This is the first time in the history of the Roman Liturgy that a secular force outside the Church has forced the Pope to change the Christian liturgy. I wonder whether Benedict really does care about reconciliation with the schismatic traditionalists. If the pope wanted to ensure that there would never be a reconciliation in the future, he couldn’t have picked a better way.

  16. schoolman says:

    “If that’s the case, it should have been a “matter of consideration” all those centuries ago.”

    Somerset, if that’s the case, then the liturgical prayers should be fixed for all times and places, right? But that is not the case since the formulation of prayers have been revised from time-to-time in order to be better suited to time and place. If the principle of “conversion” is retained then I see no problem here.

    There is another benefit to this. I have no doubt that the Holy Father would use this to clear up once and for all the questions around Jewish “conversion” in connection with the “irrevocable covenant”. There is no reason why the Pope would not modify the prayer in the New Mass to reflect the same. Let’s not be “knee-jerk” traditionalist — there are many benefits that can come of this.

  17. Ottaviani says:

    I couldn’t put it better myself, than Adam Barnette of the former-1965 Missal devoted blog, on this story:

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

    This is a slippery slope and we run the risk of the 1970s returning with full vengeance. This will prove to anyone that there is no “hermeneutic of continuity” between Vatican II and Tradition. If the Jews can make the church change a prayer aimed for their benefit, what will stop Cardinal Kasper requesting the 1962 prayers for heretics and pagans being changed to “advance ecumenical relations with the Vatican”?

  18. Brendan says:

    If this is true, it reinforces the fears and dire predictions of all the RadTrads and plays directly into the hands of the conspiracy theorists.

    In little more than six months since the release of SP, they’ve already begun to tinker with the text of the old missal.

    Far from ushering in a “reconciliation in the heart of the Church” it will, I fear, push those who were beginning to embrace Pope Benedict’s sincerity back to the other side of the fence.

    If this comes to pass, I think, sadly, Pope Benedict will have shot himself in the foot and his (I believe, very sincere) hopes for reconciliation will be dashed.

  19. Pistor says:

    My personal wish is that the prayer remain the same, but I am not the Holy Father and it is he, in the knowlege and fullness of his position that must make such distinctions. We hould however take into consideration that the classical missal has been edited and added to numerous times in the past, most notably under Pius X & Pius XII. The Classical Missal should shed the appearance of being preserved in amber and it would be unreasonable to assume that since the motu proprio it should remain untouched. I have heard that like protestants with the king james bible there are also some catholics who only use the exact edition of the missal published by Pius V in 1570 with no further additions or changes. Please, lets not be one of those. In Charity….

  20. Geoffrey says:

    I recall Fr. Z mentioning several times that the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite is not a “fly in amber.” It can grow and change (naturally or organically). I don’t see what all the fuss is about. If the Vicar of Christ feels this is something that needs to be done, then it needs to be done. Rome has spoken. True Catholics will support him in all things. Viva il Papa!

  21. Tom says:

    “It is a small matter.”

    Incorrect. Whether the Holy Father retains the traditional Good Friday prayer in question is a large matter.

    The matter has serious ramifications among liberal Jews (the folks who “dialogue” with the Church…conversely, a great many Orthodox Jews have not expressed displeasure at the prayer in question…they couldn’t care less about the “controversy”).

    The issue is also major in scope to modernists within the Church who have demanded that the prayer in question be changed as said prayer is ‘incompatible” with Vatican II.

    The reality is that what we’re talking about is the battle over Vatican II…and whether traditional Roman liturgical prayers are compatible with interreligious (and ecumenical) “dialogue.”

    If the matter is “small,” as you claimed, then Pope Benedict XVI will simply retain the Good Friday prayer in question.

    Conversely, we will realize that the matter is important, at least to the Pope, should he alter said prayer.

  22. paul says:

    I can’t see how changing the prayer will do anything to promote unity within the Church. All I see is a possible hardening of hearts towards the current magisterium. One step forwards for false ecumenism and one step backwards for Catholic unity. I wonder why all the noise about these prayers now when they’ve been said for years in churches where the extraordinary form is exclusively used. And why not the the same objections to the prayers used in the Eastern Rites? Methinks the Catholic Church has become a bit of an easy target.

  23. Commentator says:

    “This is the first time in the history of the Roman Liturgy that a secular force outside the Church has forced the Pope to change the Christian liturgy.”

    Not so. Bld John XXIII already changed this very prayer in 1959. It’s not a matter of being forced to do so, but deciding that such a change is prudent, and good.

  24. Fr Renzo di Lorenzo says:

    Il Giornale and Reuters…

    They are the “Authorities on Everything” (meaning that they are authorities on nothing).

  25. Brendan says:

    Geoffrey: “I recall Fr. Z mentioning several times that the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite is not a “fly in amber.” It can grow and change (naturally or organically).”

    Just so! But can you help me to understand how this is (in ANY WAY) an organic development?

  26. Michael says:

    No, Geoffrey, the liturgy is not a fly in amber. But it also isn’t something to be changed with the sentiments of the times, especially when those sentiments are anti-God. When the rite changes and grows, one would hope that represents the Holy Spirit bringing us closer to truth, not the monstrous hand of liberal egalitarianism taking a scalpel to our beloved prayers. Think for a moment about the origin of that prayer. Perhaps an elderly Benedictine in the Lateran over a thousand years ago, after a life of contemplation and study, eloquently copies the prayer into the basilicas Sacramentary. He has the New Testament memorized, so the words come easily to him. As more books are made, the prayer spreads. Now put a face to the new prayer. Who do you see? Abraham Foxman? Not all change is good.

  27. TNCath says:

    I find the comments of those who are going to seek false refuge in a SSPX illicit rite on Good Friday just because the Holy Father (the Vicar of Christ and the Successor St. Peter) decides to change a few phrases of a prayer, which is his right to do, are ironically very similar in philosophy to those in favor of women’s ordination and married priests and attend alternative services led by renegade and/or “wannabe” priests. All of these espouse selective obedience and Catholicism a la carte. I find this very sad.

  28. Brendan says:

    TNCath, as the late Michel Davies once wrote, the pope has the right to level St. Peter’s and build a McDonald’s in the piazza. It doesn’t mean it would be wise, prudent or RIGHT to do so.

    No one is questioning Benedict’s right to do whatever he wants with the text – we’re (quite properly) discussing the prudence of such an action.

  29. Matt Q says:

    So, it has begun–the devolution of the Tridentine Rite. The one thing which we had hoped would be left alone, isn’t. How silly of anyone to think so. Hang on, folks. You think this is it? Just wait and see what else comes down Tiber into our living rooms. This keeps up, the Tridentine Mass won’t be so Tridentine at all. Yes, we’re waiting to see what the change is, but the fact it’s being changed at all due to political correctness is absurd.

    At what point in history did the Church change a prayer or her beliefs based on political correctness? Did the Church cave in over the premise of one silly divorce and thus lost the entire realm of England? What concessions have been made to the Church? Umm… NOTHING. This is what happens when a whiney group continues to play victim. If there is any one group around the world who has suffered throughout history is the Roman Catholic Church. Political correctness is just, a “correctness” based on social politics which in reality bear no witness to truth but are in fact facist denial of free speech and a denial of the practice of true religion–namely ours.

  30. Tom says:

    Certain folks have stated that we should accept without hesitation the possibility that the Pope may alter the Good Friday Prayer for the conversion of the Jews.

    There are a great many Catholic prayers and New Testament texts that offend liberal Jews and Catholic modernists.

    Therefore, should the Pope alter such prayers?

    Should the Pope view as a “golden opportunity” the alteration of prayers that liberals and modernists within and without the Church find offensive?

    If it is a good idea to alter Traditional Mass prayers, then it is a good idea to alter various “offensive” prayers.

    As various traditional prayers and practices, such as “pro multis” and Mass ad orientem, “offend” Catholic liberals, perhaps Rome should apply the Good Friday prayer alteration principle to prayers and practices that certain Catholics find offensive.

    If the appeasement of liberal Jews is a good thing, then why not appease liberal Catholics?

    At least liberal Catholics are Catholics…they, at least, are children of the Church.

    Rome should at least first take care of Her children.

    Rome should appease liberal Catholics. Why not?

  31. Humble says:

    I do think this change will create a lot of dissension going into the holiest time of the year. Even though it may not be true it appears the Holy Father is giving into the ADL and their allies. If protestants agitate for changes should the Holy Father oblige?

  32. schoolman says:

    Any type of reform will involve some degree of practical prudence — and this is no exception. Yet even “imprudent” decisions relative to the discipline of sacraments or liturgy do not translate into liturgical or doctrinal “heresy”. Those who would abandon Masses with a reformed prayer and seek “refuge” elsewhere seem no different than those who attend sedevacantist masses that refuse the reformed Holy Week liturgy of Pius XII. It does not seem like a very “Catholic” attitude.

  33. dob says:

    I don’t believe this article is factual. I think it is trying to seed a change that has been championed from the the start by Cardinal Bertone. This posturing is all too familiar.

  34. fr.franklyn mcafee says:

    If this is done I hope it is accopnanied by an explanation withregards to the Pauline scripture it is based one.One story was thatthe Pope would substitute another prayer that was equally ancient that lacks the allegedly offensive words but maintains the idea of converting the Jews.

  35. Geoffrey says:

    Is it doubted that the Holy Father is being inspired by the Holy Spirit to do this? Isn’t it plausible that he has prayed over this matter? Aren’t all things that happen in accordance with the Will of God, whether we understand it or not, whether we like it or not?

  36. Jordan Potter says:

    I’ve said before that, if it were me, I’d tweak the prayer a little. But I’ve also said that I think that is highly unlikely, given the factthat the traditional Roman Rite was only derestricted a few months ago and it would be counterproductive to achieving the reconciliation of the SSPX.

    I don’t see anything in these reports to make me change my mind about that. People in the Vatican seem to be whispering and spreading rumors, but I’ll believe it when I see it. No doubt many want it to happen, and want people to think it will happen, but that doesn’t mean it will really happen.

    By the way, the Institute of Christ the King still has permission to pray the pre-1959 Good Friday prayer for the Jews. Will the Holy Father revoke that permission if he edits the post-1959 prayer?

  37. TNCath says:

    Brendan: I have no problems with discussing the decision. I do have problems with people being so incensed with the decision that they are going to pout about it and attend Good Friday rites in a scismatic sect. I also have problems second guessing and insulting the Holy Father, too. Disagreeing with the decision is one thing, but calling the Holy Father “spineless” is not only inaccurate but disrespectful. I am sorry the Holy Father feels this needs to be done, but it’s not going to have a negative impact about who he is or compromise my loyalty to him or the Church.

  38. danphunter1 says:

    TNCath,
    The Holy Father has a “right” to do backflips at the consecration , but does that make it right?
    Words are powerful, and the Good Friday words, as in the Missal of of 62, are quite powerful in their insistence on the blindness of those who do not recognize Christ as the Redeemer of mankind.
    It is of great import to use precise and delineated language in speaking of the truth that there is no salvation outside the Church.
    Strong language is essential to produce strong results.
    Those Good Friday prayers, in their wording are not for Gods benefit, since He is not bound by words. Rather, they are quite necessary for us.
    To water them down to fit someones dainty sensitivity does no justice to any man.
    Perchance His Holiness will change the prayers back to the 1948 prayers.
    Ktrie Eleison!

  39. Joshua says:

    In and of itself the change would be minor…even Trent did more to Holy Week (some of which was curial nonsense…even then they had the false notion that simpler = more ancient)

    BUT, there are several reasons why this COULD be (maybe it isn’t) a very bad idea:

    1. Obviously the SSPX et alii were be given a stumbling block. I did go to the SSPX for Holy Week once, and they followed the 1962 Missal exactly…no “perfidia”, but I doubt they will go further

    2. A much larger issue is this; it will generally be seen as showing Papa Ratzinger not to be sincere. Not that such a judgment would be accurate, but that is how many would see it. The Remnant recently published a very laudatory article of the pope, attacking the nay saying traditionalists who are too paranoid. That was a very strong sign of healing in the Church which could be undone by this

    3. Precisely because, for those who are familiar with the history of the reforms, this was a step in 1965 in altering the prayer. First Papa Pacelli clarifies it and orders the Flectamus genua. Then Pope John XXIII removes perfidia, but then in 1965 the mention of blindness was taken out, and then any mention of conversion to Christ explicitly in 1970.

    4. Lastly, it is still a sad thing when an outside group brow-beats the Church

    It would not appear too rash to say that people will see that and think, well he is just going to more slowly make the TLM the Novus Ordo.

    If the pope does, in fact, make this step, it might be a good idea to institute the 1965 prayer (which is precisely what it would be) for the Novus Ordo to. For comparison

    1962

    Oremus et pro Iudeis: ut Deus et Dominus noster auferat velamen de cordibus eorum; ut et ipsi agnoscant Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum.

    Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui Iudaeos a tua misericordia non répellis: exaudi preces nostras, quas pro illius populi obcaecatione deferimus; ut, agnita veritatis tuae luce, quae Christus est, a suis ténebris eruantur.
    Per eumdem Dominum…

    1965

    Oremus et pro Iudaeis: ut Deus et Dominus noster faciem suam super eos illuminare dignetur; ut et ipsi agnoscant omnium Redemptorem, Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum.

    Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui promissiones tuas Abrahae et semini eius contulisti: Ecclesiae tuae preces clementer exaudi; ut populus acquisitionis antiquae ad Redemptionis mereatur plenitudinem pervenire. Per Dominum nostrum.

    1970

    Oremus et pro Iudæis, ut, ad quos prius locutus est Dominus Deus noster, eis tribuat in sui nominis amore et in sui fœderis fidelitate proficere.

    Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui promissiones tuas Abrahæ eiusque semini contulisti, Ecclesiæ tuæ preces clementer exaudi, ut populus acquisitionis prioris ad redemptionis mereatur plenitudinem pervenire. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.

    It seems like a natural evolution. Reverting the 1970 prayer back to the 1965 might show that it isn’t meant to do so

  40. Matt Q says:

    A couple million dollars were spent recently around the world by the Faithful for new Tridentine Missals–both for church and personal use. If the Pope actually changes the Good Friday prayer, it will result in what the legal profession says about an action resulting in unintended consequences: all of our Missals would suddenly be worthless.

  41. danphunter1 says:

    TNCath,
    Please get your facts straight.
    The FSSPX are not a”schismatic sect”.

    This has been officially declared by the Ecclesia Dei Commission.
    God bless you

  42. magdalen says:

    We do not even know this will happen the way the article says and look at the
    responses! Some will leave the Church forever and remain outside with the
    SSPX which will then declare itself the true church forever and continue
    on its schismatic way. Is that the way to respond? So if things do not go the
    way the schismatics want it, then just forget the whole thing–the possible
    reunion. Yeah, that will hold the Holy Father captive to do what a few
    want.

    Grow up. When the finished prayer is released then a mature look at it can
    be had.

    This whining is old.

  43. Brendan says:

    Geoffrey, if you think everything the pope does is inspired by the Holy Ghost and in seamless accord with the will of God you need to read a few history books. (Start with a sound biography of Pope Alexander VI)

    Such a position is ahistorical and, I’m afraid, not very Catholic. It borders of papalotry.

    Popes make mistakes, they sin, and history gives us countless examples of some really bone headed decisions made by the Vicars of Christ.

  44. schoolman says:

    “If this is done I hope it is accopnanied by an explanation withregards to the Pauline scripture it is based one.One story was thatthe Pope would substitute another prayer that was equally ancient that lacks the allegedly offensive words but maintains the idea of converting the Jews.”
    ============================

    fr. mcafee, I think its very likely that this would be an opportunity to re-affirm the nature and meaning of the “irrevocable covenant” in connection with prayers for Jewish conversion. In fact, it would be nice if the Pope were to also modify the Novus Ordo prayer to better reflect the same.

  45. TomG says:

    The Holy Father has every right to make the change … but does anyone think that the jews will *ever* be satisfied?

    St. Paul certainly didn’t think so; hence, in his epistles he essentially consigned them to the eschaton.

  46. Henry Edwards says:

    Father Z: This will make celebrations of the older rite for Holy Week far more possible and perhaps frequent in many places.

    I don’t understand this, because I cannot imagine the present wording of the prayer for the Jews playing any role at all in a TLM priest or community’s decision whether or not to schedule the Good Friday liturgy. And if scheduled, I cannot imagine this prayer affecting anyone’s decision whether or not to attend. Because I know of no one who attends the TLM who is concerned about the present wording, and I’ve heard of no one who objects to it who would be likely to attend a TLM in any event.

  47. Matt Q says:

    Dan Phunter wrote:

    “The Holy Father has a “right” to do backflips at the consecration , but does that make it right?”

    ()

    Good point, Dan. TNCath, no one is complaining about what the Pope has the right to do or not. It’s the PRUDENCE of the matter. One has the right to look at pornography. Is it prudent to do so? No. It is, therefore, not prudent for the Holy Father to change a prayer so off-handedly due to such absurd considerations as political correctness.

    After reading and commenting about the Pope’s decision, I’m beginning to wonder if this La Sapienza nonsense shook him up and he’s having public relations seizures.

  48. schoolman says:

    The “right” of the Pope to promulgate such changes corresponds to a “duty” of the faithful. In other words, we have no “right” to ignore such lawful changes.

  49. TNCath says:

    danphunter1,

    Okay, they may not be schismatic, but they are, in the words of Msgr. Camille Perl, in “potential scism.” To me, that would be reason enough to reconsider my attendance at SSPX ceremonies. As I have said before, I think that even if the Holy Father gave into to ALL the wishes of the SSPX, they’d still have something to whine about. At the same time, I also think that if the Holy Father “ordained” every nun that wished to become a “priest,” there would be people out there that would complain that he didn’t go far enough. Whatever the text of the revised prayer will be, let’s remember that it is, first and foremost, a prayer, not a battleground for our personal preferences.

  50. Domenico says:

    I would like to add some comments in this never ending subject.

    1 – remember ‘Flectamus genua’?
    I have a ‘Liber Usualis’ printed in 1904. It has the Feria VI in Parasceve – Ad Missam praesanctificatorum. After the Passio, Sacerdos stans in cornu Epistolae incipit absolute ‘Oremus, dilectissimi nobis, pro Ecclesia etc.’, and afterward other prayers pro Papa, pro omnibus Episcopis, pro cathecumenis, pro omnibus necessitatibus, pro haereticis. All these prayers has the ‘Oremus. Flectamus genua.’, however in the seventh one it is omitted:
    ‘Oremus et pro perfidis Judaeis …
    Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui etiam Judaicam perfidiam a tua misericordia non repellis …’
    The ‘Flectamus genua’ is resumed in the 8th prayer pro paganis.

    2 – For the discussion about ‘etiam’, note that ‘etiam … perfidiam a tua misericordia non repellis’ make sense.

    3 – I have also a Liber Usualis printed in 1962: it contains already the Novus Ordo for the Holy Week – the long march of the Novus Ordo! – promulgated on 18 nov 1955.
    So now we have the Feria VI in Passione et Morte Domini – De Solemne Actione Liturgica Pomeridiana. We have also subtitles: De orationibus Solemibus. The prayers are 9, because a new one ‘Pro Res Publicas Moderantibus’ has been introduced as 4th, and all have the ‘Flectamus genua’. The prayer, which is now has a subtitle ‘Pro conversione Judaeorum’ has been changed:
    ‘Oremus et pro Iudæis …
    Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui Iudæos etiam a tua misericordia non repellis …’

    4 – Meaning of ‘perfidus’
    My old hand-missal (Edizioni Paoline, 1957) had the translation ‘disgraziati Ebrei’.
    Perhaps it is possible to learn something from the meaning that ‘perfido’ has in Italian. I checked the ‘S. Battaglia – Grande Dizionario della Lingua Italiana, Vol XIII PERF-PO, 2004, UTET, Torino, pag. 14-15: the use of ‘perfido’ implies always ‘che rompe la fede, sleale, ipocrita’ or also ‘che usa malafede’. Nothworthy the use from Boccaccio to the 19th century litterature meaning: ‘Implacabile, irreconciliabile. Ostinato nel difendere una idea, una tesi, una fazione politica. Spec. attributo degli atei, dei miscredenti e in particolare degli Ebrei per indicare la loro ostinazione e pervicacia nel negare la dottrina cristiana’.
    In ‘perfido’ the negative moral appreciation is inevitable: they have the holy scriptures, the prophets, notwithstanding they persists in denying the truth.
    This is explained in the old sequence for Christmas ‘Laetabundus’

    Isaia cecinit
    Synagoga meminit,
    Numquam tamen desinit
    esse caeca.

    Infelix propera,
    Crede vel vetera:
    cur damnaberis
    gens misera?

    Quem docet littera,
    natum considera:
    ipsum genuit puerpera.
    Alleluia.

  51. Paul says:

    I can’t see what the problem is, the prayer is a prayer for conversion. The new prayer will be a prayer for conversion.

    This sets a precedent indeed, but it is that the 1962 liturgy is a live liturgy subject to periodic revision from time to time should the holy father see fit. The importance of this cannot be underestimated.

    Regarding SSPX reunion, I see the pigs flying now…it will never happen institutionally, the best we can hope for is reconcilliation with their more moderate clergy.

  52. This may be pure fantasy, but if the Holy Father were to modify the prayer, although retaining the explicit language and motive of conversion, and then require this prayer to be used in BOTH missals … well, that would certainly take some of the sting away.

  53. Tom Piatak says:

    I trust Benedict XVI. If he promulgates a new prayer, it will be for a good reason and the prayer will be theologically sound.

  54. Anna says:

    What I’d like to know is what’s going to be done in reciprocation about the prayers issued three times each day in every synagogue in the world: “Blessed are you O Lord our God, who did not make me a Gentile” and, what could really get some whining going, “Blessed are you O Lord our God, who did not make me a woman.” Do you suppose any changes will ever be made in concession to Gentiles’ or women’s complaints?

  55. Geoffrey says:

    Brendan said:
    “Geoffrey, if you think everything the pope does is inspired by the Holy Ghost and in seamless accord with the will of God you need to read a few history books. (Start with a sound biography of Pope Alexander VI)
    Such a position is ahistorical and, I’m afraid, not very Catholic. It borders of papalotry.”

    My original post was this:
    “Is it doubted that the Holy Father is being inspired by the Holy Spirit to do this? Isn’t it plausible that he has prayed over this matter? Aren’t all things that happen in accordance with the Will of God, whether we understand it or not, whether we like it or not?”

    My questions were not meant to state my opinion, but to stimulate discussion and a fresh way of thinking. I am pretty well versed in the history of the Church and papacy, thank you. Accuse me of papalotry? Fine. I visit this blog to be informed, not to be attacked. Allow my final words in this discussion to be quoted from Saint Josemaría, which I pray each day: “Thank you, my God, for placing in my heart such love for the pope” (The Way, #573).

    Kyrie eleison!

  56. danphunter1 says:

    I have a question: What is wrong with the current 1962 Good Friday prayer for the
    conversion of the Jews?

  57. Ottaviani says:

    The “right” of the Pope to promulgate such changes corresponds to a “duty” of the faithful. In other words, we have no “right” to ignore such lawful changes.

    Schoolman – it is that kind of ultramontanism that got us into this mess in the first place. That was the single biggest mistake of Paul VI’s papacy. The Pope is bound to Tradition as well. He cannot do whatever he likes – even if he has outside pressure – hint hint

    One thing that would be interesting to see, is if Rome remains passive to traditional communities retaining the original 1962 prayers for the Jews – just like they have, on the whole, remained passive to liturgical abuses in the Novus Ordo.

  58. Paul says:

    What I’d like to know is what’s going to be done in reciprocation about the prayers issued three times each day in every synagogue in the world: “Blessed are you O Lord our God, who did not make me a Gentile” and, what could really get some whining going, “Blessed are you O Lord our God, who did not make me a woman.” Do you suppose any changes will ever be made in concession to Gentiles’ or women’s complaints

    We should not concern ourselves with the tracts of other religions only with converting their members. B16 has decided that certain prayers in the 1962 missal now impede this owing to secular historical events and decided to introduce new prayers which will me more conducive to the overall aim.

  59. Matt Q says:

    Ottaviani wrote:

    “Schoolman – it is that kind of ultramontanism that got us into this mess in the first place. That was the single biggest mistake of Paul VI’s papacy. The Pope is bound to Tradition as well. He cannot do whatever he likes – even if he has outside pressure – hint hint

    One thing that would be interesting to see, is if Rome remains passive to traditional communities retaining the original 1962 prayers for the Jews – just like they have, on the whole, remained passive to liturgical abuses in the Novus Ordo.”

    ()

    Ottaviani, you made a very interesting point. I have a feeling more of the Traditional Catholics will say new the adulterated prayer. Obedience tends to be more natural with them than the abusive Novus Ordo people. Yes, it would be interesting to see Rome’s reaction if everyone stuck strictly to the original prayer and overlooked the PC one. Rome would be making a PR mistake to nag the Traditionalists about that and continue to say nothing about the Novus Ordo gang.

  60. TNCath says:

    In support of Geoffrey’s comments and as a fraternal reminder to those who find solace in the SSPX, the following is from the Meditations of St. John Baptist De La Salle (whose feast day in the traditional calendar is May 15), founder of the Brothers of the Christian Schools, commonly known in the U.S. as the Christian Brothers. He was canonized by Pope Leo XIII. This meditation is on the Feast of the Chair of Peter:

    The Pope is

    ·the Vicar of Jesus Christ and

    ·the visible head of the Church as well as

    ·the successor of St. Peter.

    He has wide authority over the entire Church, and all the faithful should look upon him as their father and as the voice of God. He possesses the universal power of binding and loosing, that Jesus gave to St. Peter, and to him Jesus has committed the responsibility of feeding his flock.

    Your role, then, is to work in order to increase and take care of this sheepfold. You should, therefore, honor our Holy Father the Pope as the holy shepherd of this flock.

    We should, moreover, welcome everything the Church proposes to us. The Church is our mother; to her we must be united in every way. It is Jesus Christ himself who has given the Church his power and authority over us. This caused St. Augustine to say that he would not believe the Gospel if he were not bound to do so by the authority of the Church.

  61. Matt Q says:

    magdalen wrote:

    “We do not even know this will happen the way the article says and look at the responses! Some will leave the Church forever and remain outside with the SSPX which will then declare itself the true church forever and continue on its schismatic way. Is that the way to respond? So if things do not go the way the schismatics want it, then just forget the whole thing—the possible reunion. Yeah, that will hold the Holy Father captive to do what a few want.

    Grow up. When the finished prayer is released then a mature look at it can be had.

    This whining is old.”

    ()

    Whoa. Chill, girlfriend! It doesn’t matter what the prayer is actually going to say. It’s the merits of changing it in the first place is what is being discussed.

    Speaking of whining, I see an obviously bigoted attitude towards the SSPX. What is it with all of you? Do you find any more value with the Orthodox, those who are in true schism since 1054? The SSPX care and defend what is Roman Catholic more than the 1054 ilk ever would. Yeah, missy, “this whining is old.”

    =====

    TNCath wrote:

    “In support of Geoffrey’s comments and as a fraternal reminder to those who find solace in the SSPX, the following is from the Meditations of St. John Baptist De La Salle (whose feast day in the traditional calendar is May 15), founder of the Brothers of the Christian Schools, commonly known in the U.S. as the Christian Brothers. He was canonized by Pope Leo XIII. This meditation is on the Feast of the Chair of Peter:

    The Pope is

    ·the Vicar of Jesus Christ and

    ·the visible head of the Church as well as

    ·the successor of St. Peter.

    He has wide authority over the entire Church, and all the faithful should look upon him as their father and as the voice of God. He possesses the universal power of binding and loosing, that Jesus gave to St. Peter, and to him Jesus has committed the responsibility of feeding his flock.

    Your role, then, is to work in order to increase and take care of this sheepfold. You should, therefore, honor our Holy Father the Pope as the holy shepherd of this flock.

    We should, moreover, welcome everything the Church proposes to us. The Church is our mother; to her we must be united in every way. It is Jesus Christ himself who has given the Church his power and authority over us. This caused St. Augustine to say that he would not believe the Gospel if he were not bound to do so by the authority of the Church.”

    ()

    First of all, no one is disputing the Pope’s authority. All of that “the Pope is and that…” yeah, yeah. We know. That isn’t the issue. Welcoming everything the Church proposes to us is a bit demented. The Church proposed a few years to burn people. I’m sure you’ll find a reason to light the first match.

    What the Pope is doing is not a matter of Faith and Morals whereby the act is infallible, but an administrative one which on its value could be erroneous to do. When such things occur, the Faithful have the right to speak out and to protest it. It’s a good thing Saint Catherine of Sienna convinced the Pope to leave Avignon and return to Rome. According to your way, she should have just left him there and stayed home playing convent.

  62. TNCath says:

    Actually, Matt Q., it IS the issue. It’s okay to disagree; it’s not okay to be defiant. And St. Catherine wasn’t being defiant; the SSPX is.

  63. Berolinensis says:

    I, like TNCath, am dismayed by people saying “if the Holy Father changes this prayer, I’m going to the SSPX.” We may of course think that the changing of this prayer – if, and that’s a big if, it should come to pass – is imprudent, although we must not presume to judge the Pope.
    However, this cannot possibly be an excuse for receiving sacraments from the hands of a priest who is ministering in complete canonical illegality. This is from a recent Q&A from the site of the Archdiocese of St. Louis (Abp. Burke) regarding a similar case: “Apart from that significant concern, because that priest is ministering in complete canonical illegality, any faithful who attends and receives sacraments outside the danger of death commits a mortal sin, endangering his or her eternal salvation.”

  64. I’m reluctant to contribute as feelings seem to be running high… but I would make the following points.

    1. It’s important not to get too worked up about a story like this – it’s entirely possible that there’s no substance to the rumours at all.
    2. Personally, I’m pretty indifferent as to whether the prayer should or shouldn’t be prayed. I’d happily pray the prayer in good conscience, but it wouldn’t upset me if it were changed.
    3. I am, however, astounded at the vehemence with which people are reacting to a change in what is a pretty minor component of the Good Friday liturgy. The idea of refusing to participate in the Good Friday liturgy if this change is made, or choosing to worship with a group which is (to say the least) canonically irregular on the basis of changes to this one prayer astonishes me.
    4. The fact that Pius XII thought it necessary to explain the older form of this prayer and John XXIII altered it indicates that whilst the liturgy of the Church is passed down to us, it is something which is frozen. Factors within and without the Church do mould and shape the liturgy. Needless to say, I, and most of those who read this ‘blog would adopt a very cautious attitude as regards the extent to which the liturgy is changed in response to external factors. However, it is not inappropriate of Benedict XVI to consider a change to this prayer for a proportionate reason.
    5. I think that it’s important to note that the substance of Church’s prayer for the Jews remains unchanged. We ask that by God’s grace they be brought to faith in Christ. That is the important thing.
    6. Given the objections of Jewish groups, it is worthwhile asking whether explicitly referring to the ‘blindness’ of the Jews and the ‘veil over their heart’ is appropriate. It does clarify in the minds of the faithful the situation of the Jews. On the other hand, it might be a stumbling block to Jewish people who are interested in the faith. It’s one thing to know that one is being prayed for. It’s quite another to know that one is being described as ‘blind’ in the prayers of the Church.
    7. It is also valid to ask whether the prayer as its stands makes it too easy for the enemies of the Church to charge her with anti-semitism. The accusation would be unjust, but an alteration to the wording of the prayer which retains the theological substance of the prayer might take a weapon out of the hands of those who hate the Church and those who are opposed to the older form of the liturgy within the Church.
    8. Deciding the above is something well within the authority of the Supreme Pontiff and I for one am happy to trust him whole-heartedly on this question.

  65. Paul says:

    “Please get your facts straight.The FSSPX are not a”schismatic sect”.This has been officially declared by the Ecclesia Dei Commission.”

    So what – it dosent make their absolutions any more valid*. They need to be in good standing with the local ordinary for that, and they manifestly are not.

    *except in case of imminent death where it is valid in any case. (Even “defrocked” priests can hear confession in case of imminent death)

  66. Jordan Potter says:

    Dan said: The FSSPX are not a”schismatic sect”. This has been officially declared by the Ecclesia Dei Commission.

    Sorry, Ecclesia Dei has made no such official declaration, although the head of Ecclesia Dei has stated publicly, albeit unofficially, that they are not in schism.

    TNCath said: Okay, they may not be schismatic, but they are, in the words of Msgr. Camille Perl, in “potential scism.” To me, that would be reason enough to reconsider my attendance at SSPX ceremonies.

    Actually, it’s reason enough for me that all SSPX priests are suspended and have no authority to celebrate Mass. Schism or no schism, I prefer not to assist at illicit Masses if I can help it.

  67. Brendan says:

    TNCath,

    I’m not trying to reach for shock value here but I could care less what St. John Baptist De La Salle had to say. His writings are not canonical nor do they speak with the charism of infallibility.

    I could refer you to St Catherine of Sienna (as has been done above), back to St Columba (writing screeds to the pope that would make you blush), and back earlier to Paul publically disagreeing with Peter. (I’d also point out that each of my references were canonized)

    To suggest that every prudential judgment of the pope (as St JPB DeLaS – and by association, you) seem to be saying is actually quite frightening to me.

    On this matter I’d refer you back to the First Commandment.

  68. Prof. Basto says:

    This is very unfortunate, if it is true.

    Scripture itself mentions the veil in the heart of the israelites that do not acknowledge Christ.

    What is more, Catholic liturgy cannot change based on demands by un-Catholics. Catholic liturgy must be Catholic, and fully so, without watered down language.

    The prayer as it stands in the 1962 edition cannot be considered offensive, it does not contain the perfidiis clause, and it fully reflects the Catholic Faith and the words are rooted in the Bible, including the “veil” clause. Changing that amounts to watering down the prayer, and that is an attitude that no pre-Vatican II Pope would employ to satisfy the requests of unbelievers. What a blow to the hermeneutics of continuity and tradition! How true is the admonishment made in Mortalium Animos against Ecumenism!

    I pray for Pope Benedict, that he gives up that rumored change, as the Secretary of the PCED had suggested, insead of bowing to the demands of non-Catholics that wish to dictate our Liturgy.

    The jewish prayer against heretics, added to their liturgy in the second century of the Christian era is much more offensive than any of the Good Friday prayers could ever be to them: “For slanderers, may there be no hope; and may all wickedness quickly be destroyed, and may all your enemies be cut off swiftly. The intentional [sinners], swiftly may they be uprooted, broken, cast down and subdued, swiftly and in our days. Blessed are you, L-RD, breaker of enemies and subduer of intentional [sinners] . So, until they change their prayers that ask for others to be destroyed, cast down, etc, why should we change ours, that is merely asking for their conversion to the Truth?

  69. schoolman says:

    If the Holy Father were to read some posts here and elsewhere he might be inclined to substitute the Jews for dissenting Catholics of all stripes.

  70. Ken says:

    For those who keep saying the word “schism” with respect to the SSPX — how can they be in schism, yet the Vatican says you can both attend their Masses to fulfill your obligation and even contribute an offering during the collection?

    http://www.unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm

  71. danphunter1 says:

    Paul,
    Of course the SSPX do not have jurisdiction to administer the Sacrament of penance.
    They do consecrate validly though and this is what I was referring to. This is more than I can say for some NO priests I have seen. [using invalid form and matter]
    Being in schism and not having the Church supply the means for the FSSPX to hear a valid confession are two completely different things.
    I will add that, if the penitent recieves absolution from an FSSPX priest and is ignorant of their impeded canonical situation, that person is still absolved.
    Once you find out that they do not have jurisdiction than it becomes an invalid confession, for that knowledge.
    God bless the Holy Father and God bless the FSSPX!

  72. danphunter1 says:

    Jordan,
    Are you calling the head of the Ecclesia Dei Commission a liar?

  73. Brendan says:

    CWN has this line in its coverage:

    The Italian journalist said that Vatican officials had suggested the revised prayer would eliminate the reference to the “blindness” of the Jews. However, Tornielli said, the prayer for their conversion would be retained. [My emphasis]

    Which means (if the larger story is true)that this would go far enough to wreck the budding detente among Trads (cf: Remnant reference in an earlier comment above) but not far enough to satisfy the Jewish lobbyists and pressure groups.

    Where is the sense in that? Why would the pope risk further alienating Traditionalists by giving the Jews only half of what they’ll be satisfied with?

    *banging my head against the wall*

  74. dob says:

    Rorate Caeli
    “Isn’t it strange for something pertaining to the old missal to come through the CDW? Wouldn’t it rather come through Eccelsia Dei?

    Another good reason to doubt that this rumor is correct. points out that the info came from cdw. Isn’t Eclesia Dei the authority in relation to the older rite? ”

    enough said.

  75. Barb says:

    I think that if the Holy Father decides to change the prayer, there should be a quid pro quo: the Jews will have to remove the lies they have about Pius XII at their museum in Jerusalem.

    I don’t think any other religion should have the right to interfere with our sacred liturgies. It is good to say that as long as the word or concept of “conversion” is retained, all is OK, but what kind of precedent does this set? I’m sure that if the Holy Father goes ahead with this he will be considering all possible after-effects.

    Somehow, I can’t get over the idea that this is a bogus tempest, designed to distract everyone from the recent stupidity at La Sapienza. Peace, people, peace. Let’s not get upset until we have something tangible to be upset over.

  76. Berolinensis says:

    \”They do consecrate validly though and this is what I was referring to.\”

    Nobody doubts that they confect the Sacrament validly. But they still do so illicitly, as they are suspended and are not allowed to celebrate at all. How can it be morally admissible to knowingly partake in an illicit celebration of a Sacrament? I cannot begin to understand how people who take our holy Catholic Faith so seriously (as it should be) are willing to just brush this aside.

  77. Those who receive this rumor as a reason to take their other foot out of the Catholic Church (assuming they even had one foot in it to begin with) are beguiled by the satanic fascination with rectitude, which is to say, they would rather be content in being right rather than go to heaven when they die.

    They can pick up their crying towels now in preparation for the weeping and gnashing of teeth. Or, they can cling to the barque of Peter and live.

    WAC

  78. TnCath says:

    Brendan,

    I was not shocked that you did not care what St. De La Salle had to say. Rather, I expected such a reaction. You may not care, but the Church does. That’s enough for me. Prayers and best wishes! I hope someday you find what you are looking for in a church.

  79. Joe R says:

    Oremus et pro beatissimo Papa nostro Benedicto…
    ut in hoc anno paulino verba Sancti Pauli de Petro agendo cum conversis Iudaeis recordetur:
    “cum autem venisset Cephas Antiochiam in faciem ei restiti quia reprehensibilis erat” [Gal 2:11]

  80. Jeff Pinyan says:

    Geoffrey: no, not all things are the Will of God; otherwise, we would be doing God’s will when we sin gravely against Him, and Scripture tells us:

    “”Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Matt 7:21)

    “So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.” (Matt 18:14)

  81. Geoffrey says:

    Jeff said: “no, not all things are the Will of God; otherwise, we would be doing God’s will when we sin gravely against Him…”

    When we sin we are using our free will. We have free will because it is the Will of God, no? I’m not arguing… I just like a good discussion! :-)

    I just visited your blog. Very nice. I am adding it to my list of daily reading!

  82. Jane says:

    This is one more example of the failings of ecumenism. Once more, Catholic prayer is changed at the insistence of non-Catholics. Can anyone cite one example of non-Christian prayer being changed to accommodate Catholic requests?

    What about changing those references in the Talmud that malign Christianity?

  83. Matt Q says:

    TNCath wrote:

    “Actually, Matt Q., it IS the issue. It’s okay to disagree; it’s not okay to be defiant. And St. Catherine wasn’t being defiant; the SSPX is.”

    ()

    Hello!! Who’s more defiant, the SSPX–of which you seem obsessed, or the Orthodox who have been DEFIANT SINCE 1054??!! There is greater dialogue with the SSPX and bringing them closer to the bossom of the Church than the Orthodox. Funny no snyde and smarmy comments about them. Don’t give me “defiant” about SSPX. They care more about the Faith than the Orthodox ever will. I’m sure your next reply AGAIN won’t mention a word about the SCHISMATICS of the East.

  84. TNCath says:

    Matt Q,

    No, not obsessed at all. The Orthodox aren’t the issue here. This is my last posting on this topic. Oremus pro invicem.

  85. Matt Q: Tone it down or your gone.

  86. Peter Kullavanijaya says:

    What immediately come to mind is the Roman Church saved the lives of so many Jews during WW II. We should remind the Jews of what we had done for them. What had they done for us lately? For that matter, what had the Jews done for us Catholics? Nothing! So, the text of the Roman Missal for Good Friday should and must stay the same.

    By the way, Jew also objected to the scriptural reference to their forefathers saying,”Let His blood fall on us and our children.” (I have paraphrased). They want for us to strike that, too. For that matter, I believe Herr Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League pressure Mel Gibson to drop this portion from the movie, The Passion of the Christ. It was sort of dropped as it was not articulated with words, but left in the written form instead. (Like, we can read that!)

    So, I say let’s leave it where it is. To borrow Jewish famous phrase, “It’s such a deal…” for them and not so good a deal for us!

  87. Scott Smith says:

    The change to the Good Friday Liturgy may very well be for the Novus Ordo as well. After all if there is a Marshall Plan, it certainly would affect the New as well as the Old. It could also be just an option, we don’t know just yet. What would the reaction of Traditionalists be if he restored the prayer to it’s original ca. 1950?